I don’t ever recall getting up for any man at 4.30am but that’s what happened on election day, 4th November when I reported for my last day of volunteer duty in Ohio at the Cuyahoga Falls, Akron, Obama campaign office. Six cups of coffee later, I was hitting the ‘turf’ maps and lists, prioritising the most numerous ‘knocks’ and assigning them to our best and most thorough volunteer canvassers. Each local area had been “cut into turf”- a number of streets and apartment blocks to be canvassed. The number and location of houses or knocks were indicated on each turf map or ‘packet’ identifying the targets for each canvasser- to get out and knock on those doors, find out who had voted early, gauge who was voting Obama, who McCain and who was as yet undecided. Each piece of turf was hit 3 times during the week running up to the election. The last run on the eve of the election we placed “doorhangers” on every door to remind people to vote and telling them where their polling station was situated. On election day we began at 5.30am, all the turfs had to be revisited to get the vote out. The commitment of volunteers was incredible, many of them went out 4 and 5 times that day taking new ‘packs’ with them of areas and addresses to be knocked. The weather was glorious having gone from the previous week’s low, snowing 30s to a balmy 70F degrees. I spent the day assigning packs to volunteers, explaining what had to be done and how best to get it done, taking back the finished packs and eliminating householders who had already voted and then re-sending them out again a few hours later to hit those householders who had yet to vote. We continued until 7pm in the evening as the polls did not close until 7.30pm in Ohio and once a voter was in line by 7.30pm they could still vote.
Meanwhile we had a runner from the Red Team who had the responsibility of visiting all the local polling stations on an hourly cycle to call in any problems that might be occurring to the neighbourhood office and keeping the central command office in Akron appraised of the turnout. At 5pm when she reported that there were no lines at the polling stations and the turnout was slow, we went into hyper mode, those turfs too big to revisit in the remaining time, we set about phoning to remind them to vote, telling them there were no queues and they should avail of the opportunity to cast their vote while it was so. It was nail-biting. We began to feel that perhaps we had not done enough, if no lines were in place at 7pm. But there were other more positive factors at work which had brought about the absence of long lines; a successful push to get people to early vote had seen daily queues at the early voting centre in Akron, added to the fact that the official in charge of the state of Ohio’s voting centres had scrupulously ensured that machines worked and that the actual act of voting was as hassle free as possible. Nevertheless, doubt lingered and the tension grew among all of us volunteers in the neighbourhood office. By 6.30pm, we were barely able to stand with exhaustion but adrenalin kicked in and we kept pushing the turf out to be canvassed and it was. With nothing to do but wait, we cleaned up our storefront office, put out the trash, took down the Obama posters, cleaned up the reams and reams of paper, threw out the extra campaign literature, cleared away the stale takeaway food we had been eating most of the day as we worked, but all the time the nerves were jangling, the fears were rising and the doubts kept nagging.
I spent a week campaigning in Akron, Ohio. I tramped several miles a day canvassing, hours on phones rounding up volunteers or ringing voters, setting up the co-ordination of turfs and canvassers and talking with the incredible range of people who showed up every day to volunteer in snow and sunshine to get the vote out for Obama.
There were Willie and John, two tireless Vietnam Vets in their late 60s and early 70s, white middle class Democrat women, Monica and Chris, (the former had allowed her home to be used as a staging location for canvassers earlier in the week until the storefront venue became available), high school kids whose Principles of Democracy class teacher suggested they give a number of hours to a campaign as a means of obtaining class credits. Most of the class volunteered to work for Obama, hence I met Caleb and his dad, Goth junior and senior as I came to think of them, in their black clothes and long hair, tramping streets and knocking on doors together and doing much more hours of volunteering than required to get Goth junior his class credits.
Debanuj, born in India, returned to his family home of Akron after 8years in New York where he had been an activist in radical queer politics. Everyday of the campaign he minced down the streets of Chayogua Falls encouraging white voters to elect Obama while eyeing up the talent amongst the new volunteers. Pat, a middle-aged, funny, bouncy, dyke who set the bar for all other canvassers, with 100 knocks a day, everyday and in all weather conditions. Mary, a healthcare worker and trade unionist, Mike who took 2 weeks vacation time from his job as a trucker to canvass for Obama, Ken the indefatigable CPA who went out every day after work and 5 times on election day, Nyesha, beautiful and glamorous who left her Jag parked illegally out front and ran in urging me to sign her up as a volunteer. I signed her up immediately- the girl had style. Surat, the quiet, thoughtful academic from Sri Lanka who canvassed every evening and expounded his deeply considered views of education in the USA over a curry one night after we had closed up shop.
Then there was Jen. Jen appeared in the office on election eve about 5pm. Small, wiry and red-haired she leaned on heavy crutches and begged, “ put me to work, I cant stand sitting at home watching on my TV, I HAVE to do something or I will go crazy.” I set her to ringing and confirming with volunteers their shifts for election day. Jen arrived again early on November 4th and made 187 calls to volunteers and voters. As her voice began to croak I took a smoke break with her. Just 14 months ago she had been returning from work on Route 8 and been hit head on by a drunk 17 year old driver. It took 12 hrs before Jen was cut out of her car. She spent the next 3 weeks in a coma, 6 months in a nursing home and is still receiving physiotherapy. Her legs remain twisted and one will never regain full power, but for Jen an independent activist, it was the inability to do as much as she wanted for the campaign that was proving her greatest test of endurance. It was with Jen that I shared the tension of the last few hours of doubt about polling figures and later sat speechless and tearful as we watched Ohio come in as a blue state for the first time in 8 years. As I left her to her ride home, she confessed that if Obama had not won she had made plans to move to Canada permanently, she doesn’t have to do that now.
White volunteers were clear that those they canvassed who identified as Democrat but resisted voting for Obama did so because of their racism, a racism which they challenged on doorsteps by addressing every other possible concern and then leaving the obvious reason, the resistance to the candidate’s colour, without a place to hide. On encountering Mc Cain supporters they said a simple thank you and wished them a good day with the kind of sincerity that only Americans seem capable of in greeting one another. The canvassers of colour took their own courage for granted, knocking on a constituency so white that it is known in Akron as Caucasian Falls, taking insults and enquiries with unflappable composure. Of course we had our battle stories each day; the Mc Cain supporter who ranted for a canvasser to “get that n****r’s shit of my porch”, the numerous tales of women who whispered that they intended to vote Obama but their husbands were voting Mc Cain and so unfortunately they could not take in the campaign’s literature, but we could be assured of their vote, the 80 year old white lady who yelled at one seasoned and startled activist, “ I haven’t lived all these years NOT to vote for a Black President – so who the hell do you think I’m going to vote for if not Obama?!” Each evening, I crawled into my pyjamas, exhausted but not wearied. These encounters, the fellowship and solidarity buoyed me anew every day of that final hard week of pounding pavements and porches.
Obama may have been these people’s inspiration, but they were also mine. Their dedication, their belief in a better America, their conviction that only through forging an alliance with one another and mobilising from neighbourhood level could the seemingly insurmountable be tackled. The way to create real change was apparent every day that I worked with them. I have never seen a bunch of such diverse and differently abled people prepared to put their shoulders to a wheel with such good natured and unsinkable spirit. They supported and encouraged one another, affirmed and respected whatever input each could make. They refused to give into the unthinkable even as the Republicans ratcheted up more bile and negativity against their candidate and their beliefs. They are the America that spoke out on election day and whose spokesman reflected all of their trials and their triumph so eloquently on the night of November 4th.
Something has been built in America, more far-reaching than any skyscraper, a movement of the forgotten, the invisible, the betrayed, an alliance of those who hoped against interminable odds, a force of people who kept faith with values and principles too long deserted by their politicians. Activists and housewives, senior citizens and high school kids, working mums and middle class professionals, academics and war veterans, care workers and CPAs, college students and ghetto kids united in a belief that in order to change what needed to be changed, they had to start where they stood. It was their demonstrable ability to care, to co-operate and to listen and reach out to one another that brought a man who told them, “ Yes We Can” to a moment of history where the most important thing that he must do for them now, as their President, is to keep listening and keep faith with them.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Monday, October 06, 2008
Back in the Saddle- so to speak
Well, its been a while since this blog was active and I've been spurred on to relaunch it by my upcoming trip to the US ( of which more later). Its not that I've been sitting on my ass for the last two years, more like I've been a little sidetracked by the vagaries of life. However, sidetracks and detours apart, I have been pondering some of the double standards and hypocrisies closer to home and lamenting the critical condition of political movements and initiatives which have been thoroughly sanitised of all radical debate and analysis by the self-serving objectives of neo-liberalism.
Take for example, the LGB rights movement here at home. It's had a thorough laundering, been bleached and given a good starch and press until it is suitable to wear at even the most exclusive dinner parties. Queer has become quaint, dykes are dilettantes and gay pride has become gay posturing. The ultimate example is the lemming like rush to gay marriage, led by an LGB cabal, most notable for their uniformity- middle class, privileged and about as au fait with struggle as a wet lettuce. Now, nuptials are being self-righteously served up for breakfast, dinner and supper, no matter what our dietary needs. The assumption, nay the dictat is that we will all eat the same thing and like it. LGB equality is populated by divas enamoured by the spotlight and mother superior-types positioning themselves as the voice of LGB equality, talking at us and for us. We need many voices and many views. We need options that allow us all to make choices without fear of discrimination. So I'm advocating that we adopt that long, and honourable response of our forefathers and mothers from Wolfe Tone to Bernadette Devlin- dissent. Here's mine:
Wedded to a Single Option and Forsaking All Others: A Critique of the Current Drive for Same Sex Marriage
(Originally published, Irish Left Review April 29 2008)
… “just because an institution or a practice is rooted in tradition does not make it right.”
This statement appears in the position paper of MarriagEquality, the campaign to extend civil marriage to same sex couples. It is a statement with which I wholeheartedly concur; tradition and practice are not an infallible or a desirable means of according rights. However, it articulates a fundamental contradiction at the heart of that campaign and the position it has taken. The statement is made as a counter argument to those opposing same sex marriage, who use it to justify why marriage should continue to be an institution preserved for opposite sex couples. Taking the logic of MarriagEquality’s own statement, simply because certain rights are based in the tradition and practice of the institution of marriage does not make that institution right. Nevertheless, despite having made the above statement MarriagEquality are happy to endorse the institution of marriage.
The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House
Herein lies a conundrum, for MarriagEquality is a campaign fronted by self-professed feminists who are now leading the charge towards an institution that has been the target of feminist ire and opprobrium for centuries. So why strengthen patriarchy’s most potent institution for ensuring women’s conformity and cementing social privilege and inequality? In the absence of any feminist or progressive critique emanating from the campaign it is hard to find an answer.
The uninterrogated pursuit of marriage to the exclusion of any other regularisation of family forms and partnerships has left the campaign open to allegations of ‘mé feinism’ as overheard recently in one discussion. Inevitably, it has led to a surge in the adoption of at best naïve and at worst reactionary politics and conservative values in the rush to support gay marriage. Perhaps, it is timely to remember the words of Audre Lorde, ‘the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house.’
There is no better example of this than the resurrection of one of the most contemptible of patriarchal disparagements used to demean women who do not conform by none other than Dublin Pride. “Always the Bridesmaid Never the Bride” is the 2008 theme for this year’s events in Dublin. MarriagEquality may disclaim any direct involvement in the theme’s adoption but they are uniquely responsible within LGB activism for endorsing marriage as the only form of legitimacy. No doubt, at some point the choice of theme will be justified as a post-modernist jibe invoking the tools of sexism to send-up the institution of marriage. To be even minimally convincing, the plea of post- modern irony would require a modicum of radical critique forged from an informed awareness of inequality.
However, this is Dublin Pride, whose idea of providing equality of access entails stranding wheelchair users on the edge of a steep, muddy embankment isolated from their friends and forced to reach their assigned ‘space’ through the terrain designated as the drag queens dressing area. When MarriagEquality eschews any critique of marriage preferring to present the institution as the panacea to all our rights deficits, then one can hardly expect Pride to do otherwise.
The Poor Are Always With Us
Marriage is being robustly promoted as the only explicit and exclusive means to full equality when it is actually an institution of privilege. Campaigners for gay marriage are silent on the fact that marriage as an institution rooted in tradition and practice bestows privileges to those within it. Those who are married are privileged over those who are not. The state through its agents and policies economically ensure, politically legislate for and socially enshrine that privilege. In order to be privileged there must be those over whom one has privilege. In the case of marriage, it is for instance, those for whom marriage is not a financially viable state - the poor. Couples in receipt of social welfare benefits are financially disadvantaged by marriage and so endeavour to maintain economic survival wherever possible by claiming as individuals. Otherwise, they are designated as cohabitants, their benefits means-tested and diminished accordingly. That is currently the situation in the straight world.
By promoting marriage as the singular means of achieving equality for same sex couples the campaign not only intends to extend the rights and privileges of marriage to lesbian and gays but to extend the disadvantages of a welfare system to same sex couples which punishes cohabitation for those reliant on welfare benefits. The adverse consequences should the campaign’s demand be fulfilled are not unknown to its proponents. Much of this information is contained in the ICCL report Equality for ALL Families ( 2006) which is drawn upon extensively in MarriagEquality’s own position paper. However, the alternative options and the complimentary requirements laid out in the ICCL report which would ensure or at the very least recognise the inequalities caused by privileging marriage over all other family forms are judiciously avoided in the MarriagEquality document. As it currently stands, it is a social and political initiative which would have difficulties complying with some basic poverty-proofing criteria.
You Are Not Out Till You’re Out!
Apart from the unwieldiness of the slogan, You Are Not Out Till You Are Out To Your TD which as a message lacks a certain ‘punch’, it has limited relevance to, or recognition of the risks its fulfilment would require for those whose lives are experienced in the absence of supportive networks. For instance, there are those who live in isolated rural areas, within hostile families and in communities where difference equates to a soft target. As has been said elsewhere, it is a slogan which implies that the blame lies with lesbians and gays. Without doubt, there are those campaigning for same sex marriage who made personal choices in the past not to come out no matter how urgent the need to confront homophobia and have had their own good reasons for doing so, unfortunately that sensibility has not translated to this element of the campaign. Ironically, for a campaign that is urging us all to be visible, there is no information or identification on its website as to who exactly comprises the campaign’s management board. Even the Iona Institute provides names and bios of its board under the ‘who we are’ section of its website.
And They All Lived Happily Ever After
There is an unfortunate Mills & Boon-like overture to the same sex marriage drive. It is a world where partnerships do not break down nor do they become a battleground. Gay marriage proponents are particularly coy on this aspect of long- term relationships. As activists for partnership rights we need to deal openly and effectively with rights in the event of partnerships breaking down. As well as filling the airwaves with love besotted same sex couples it would bring a necessary and pragmatic edge to the campaign to give an equal focus to the devastation wrought when long term partnerships are dissolved without benefit of any recognition of rights and contributions made by the individuals who entered into them. Partnership rights in the event of relationship breakdown, in terms of equal treatment and fair distribution of assets is as pressing a need as any to have one’s love affirmed in a civil ceremony.
Ou Est Diversity?
Since the reformation of GLEN, there has been a disconcertingly sanitised public representation of lesbian and gay people. Increasingly, we are uniformly presented like the participants in the old OXO television ads- commercials peopled by clean, white, able-bodied, middle class, Joes and Joans. There has been little effort made to present the diversity within the LGB populace. The inevitable consequence of ‘normalising’ LGB people to make them more palatable to a heteronormative society is to invisibilise the ‘other’. In doing so, it colludes with society’s message that ‘otherness’ is deviant and lends itself to the view that those too butch or too camp, too disabled or too ‘ethnic’ are just too ‘other’ for public consumption. Marital equality with heterosexuals is being sought at the expense of the positivity of difference. The drive for ‘normality’ through marriage as currently promoted relies on politics of assimilation that will have long-lasting impacts for the struggle for respect for difference.
Is There A Game Plan And If There Is - Is It A Secret?
The recent leaking of the Heads of Civil Unions Bill, gave much food for thought for all activists and observers of the struggle for gay equality. Given how resistant were the signals coming from Fianna Fáil to anything but the most basic of recognitions, the content of the Heads of Bill and the extent of protections to be considered surprised many. Inevitably, campaigners for same sex marriage sounded like they had been caught off guard by the content. In responses to media questions and interviews there was a heavy reliance on the theme of love is love whether heterosexual or gay and substantive arguments were sadly lacking. In this respect, an important opportunity was lost in giving a reserved welcome to what was on offer and utilising the strength of what was included in the Heads of Bill to logically argue for what was absent, most notably the recognition of children within same sex families and the right to adoption.
However, the campaign’s strategic weakness of narrowly focusing on marriage as the alpha and omega leaves no room for trading up. It raises the question that if a fuller or even full raft of partnership rights were available under Civil Unions to allow the government some wriggle room with more conservative elements within its ranks, would MarriagEquality refuse such an offer? Is the call for marriage, a tactic, a means to an end or the only end that the campaign is prepared to consider? Is what something is called more important than the substance of what it provides? These are important questions that need to be addressed and engaged with publicly within the LGB community.
Parents and Progeny
At last the subject of children in lesbian and gay families has had consistent public airing in recent months. Although not the first initiative or organisation to do so, (eg: ICCL, Equality Authority, Sapphic Ireland’s submission to the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution) MarriagEquality is the first funded LGB entity to take this up as a central theme bringing much-needed further attention to a vital issue of equality. However, the issue is being argued almost exclusively from the position of ‘our’ rights as lesbians and gays to have children. In doing so, it is in danger of falling into the narrow parameters established by the Right who argue that children are best brought up by two opposite sex couples no matter what the calibre of that relationship.
The case for recognising the rights of lesbian and gay families needs to be fought in tandem with the position that children’s rights are supreme over all other competing rights. This is not just about us, it is about those with no independent voice. We do not make better parents than anyone else, as equally we certainly do not make worse simply because of our sexual orientation, but it’s not about us alone, its about children and their rights. Such a stance would not only be refreshing but heaven forbid radical in a State where the level of children’s vulnerability is frightening at the best of times.
Choice for All
Marriage is and should be an option for same sex couples and I and others have argued that publicly for quite a number of years now. However, if equality is to be truly championed then marriage must be promoted as one of a range of options and not as a three line whip. Whether consciously or not, the campaign has so far had an overwhelming air of exclusivity, a lack of public consultation with LGB people or discussion of other viable and equally legitimate options. The desire for marriage does not need to undermine the potential for other options nor should it be an obstacle to those options which would benefit and protect an entire range of other couples who require certain rights now in order to avert further inequalities and misery or those who do not and have never wanted marriage. The problem is, to date the campaign has been conducted with a worrying lack of respect for the importance of choice or the diversity of people’s lives and arrangements. In fact it states quite categorically that marriage is the sole option: “MarriageEquality believes that marriage is the only option for achieving equality for lesbians and gay men.”
In a recent correspondence with MarriagEquality, one of its co-chairs stated that they ‘are about the RIGHT TO CHOOSE’ ( sic), but Grainne Healy’s recent article in GCN states exactly and dogmatically the opposite. In it she argues that marriage is the only vehicle for equality and that other forms of civil partnerships for gay and straight couples will be easier to develop from that basis, but she does not say how or why she thinks that can happen, nor does she commit MarriagEquality to pursuing that end. Surely, if marriage is reinforced as the traditional institution by which all are expected to regularise their partnerships it will be even harder to unseat it as the only available form of regularisation. Healy uses the ‘back of the bus’ analogy for equality, rationalising that any other form of partnership recognition only moves us at best to the middle of the bus. The article pre-supposes that we all want to be on the same bus and that it is the only form of transportation to a state of fairness and equal treatment.
If we truly respect the right to choose then the challenge for progressive activists is to focus on winning the social and economic supports which reflect family and household diversity and the range of choices and arrangements that we enter into. To do that we need a broader vision of social justice, than the single-tracked confining of our lives into the narrow template of marriage.
Take for example, the LGB rights movement here at home. It's had a thorough laundering, been bleached and given a good starch and press until it is suitable to wear at even the most exclusive dinner parties. Queer has become quaint, dykes are dilettantes and gay pride has become gay posturing. The ultimate example is the lemming like rush to gay marriage, led by an LGB cabal, most notable for their uniformity- middle class, privileged and about as au fait with struggle as a wet lettuce. Now, nuptials are being self-righteously served up for breakfast, dinner and supper, no matter what our dietary needs. The assumption, nay the dictat is that we will all eat the same thing and like it. LGB equality is populated by divas enamoured by the spotlight and mother superior-types positioning themselves as the voice of LGB equality, talking at us and for us. We need many voices and many views. We need options that allow us all to make choices without fear of discrimination. So I'm advocating that we adopt that long, and honourable response of our forefathers and mothers from Wolfe Tone to Bernadette Devlin- dissent. Here's mine:
Wedded to a Single Option and Forsaking All Others: A Critique of the Current Drive for Same Sex Marriage
(Originally published, Irish Left Review April 29 2008)
… “just because an institution or a practice is rooted in tradition does not make it right.”
This statement appears in the position paper of MarriagEquality, the campaign to extend civil marriage to same sex couples. It is a statement with which I wholeheartedly concur; tradition and practice are not an infallible or a desirable means of according rights. However, it articulates a fundamental contradiction at the heart of that campaign and the position it has taken. The statement is made as a counter argument to those opposing same sex marriage, who use it to justify why marriage should continue to be an institution preserved for opposite sex couples. Taking the logic of MarriagEquality’s own statement, simply because certain rights are based in the tradition and practice of the institution of marriage does not make that institution right. Nevertheless, despite having made the above statement MarriagEquality are happy to endorse the institution of marriage.
The Masters Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House
Herein lies a conundrum, for MarriagEquality is a campaign fronted by self-professed feminists who are now leading the charge towards an institution that has been the target of feminist ire and opprobrium for centuries. So why strengthen patriarchy’s most potent institution for ensuring women’s conformity and cementing social privilege and inequality? In the absence of any feminist or progressive critique emanating from the campaign it is hard to find an answer.
The uninterrogated pursuit of marriage to the exclusion of any other regularisation of family forms and partnerships has left the campaign open to allegations of ‘mé feinism’ as overheard recently in one discussion. Inevitably, it has led to a surge in the adoption of at best naïve and at worst reactionary politics and conservative values in the rush to support gay marriage. Perhaps, it is timely to remember the words of Audre Lorde, ‘the masters tools will never dismantle the masters house.’
There is no better example of this than the resurrection of one of the most contemptible of patriarchal disparagements used to demean women who do not conform by none other than Dublin Pride. “Always the Bridesmaid Never the Bride” is the 2008 theme for this year’s events in Dublin. MarriagEquality may disclaim any direct involvement in the theme’s adoption but they are uniquely responsible within LGB activism for endorsing marriage as the only form of legitimacy. No doubt, at some point the choice of theme will be justified as a post-modernist jibe invoking the tools of sexism to send-up the institution of marriage. To be even minimally convincing, the plea of post- modern irony would require a modicum of radical critique forged from an informed awareness of inequality.
However, this is Dublin Pride, whose idea of providing equality of access entails stranding wheelchair users on the edge of a steep, muddy embankment isolated from their friends and forced to reach their assigned ‘space’ through the terrain designated as the drag queens dressing area. When MarriagEquality eschews any critique of marriage preferring to present the institution as the panacea to all our rights deficits, then one can hardly expect Pride to do otherwise.
The Poor Are Always With Us
Marriage is being robustly promoted as the only explicit and exclusive means to full equality when it is actually an institution of privilege. Campaigners for gay marriage are silent on the fact that marriage as an institution rooted in tradition and practice bestows privileges to those within it. Those who are married are privileged over those who are not. The state through its agents and policies economically ensure, politically legislate for and socially enshrine that privilege. In order to be privileged there must be those over whom one has privilege. In the case of marriage, it is for instance, those for whom marriage is not a financially viable state - the poor. Couples in receipt of social welfare benefits are financially disadvantaged by marriage and so endeavour to maintain economic survival wherever possible by claiming as individuals. Otherwise, they are designated as cohabitants, their benefits means-tested and diminished accordingly. That is currently the situation in the straight world.
By promoting marriage as the singular means of achieving equality for same sex couples the campaign not only intends to extend the rights and privileges of marriage to lesbian and gays but to extend the disadvantages of a welfare system to same sex couples which punishes cohabitation for those reliant on welfare benefits. The adverse consequences should the campaign’s demand be fulfilled are not unknown to its proponents. Much of this information is contained in the ICCL report Equality for ALL Families ( 2006) which is drawn upon extensively in MarriagEquality’s own position paper. However, the alternative options and the complimentary requirements laid out in the ICCL report which would ensure or at the very least recognise the inequalities caused by privileging marriage over all other family forms are judiciously avoided in the MarriagEquality document. As it currently stands, it is a social and political initiative which would have difficulties complying with some basic poverty-proofing criteria.
You Are Not Out Till You’re Out!
Apart from the unwieldiness of the slogan, You Are Not Out Till You Are Out To Your TD which as a message lacks a certain ‘punch’, it has limited relevance to, or recognition of the risks its fulfilment would require for those whose lives are experienced in the absence of supportive networks. For instance, there are those who live in isolated rural areas, within hostile families and in communities where difference equates to a soft target. As has been said elsewhere, it is a slogan which implies that the blame lies with lesbians and gays. Without doubt, there are those campaigning for same sex marriage who made personal choices in the past not to come out no matter how urgent the need to confront homophobia and have had their own good reasons for doing so, unfortunately that sensibility has not translated to this element of the campaign. Ironically, for a campaign that is urging us all to be visible, there is no information or identification on its website as to who exactly comprises the campaign’s management board. Even the Iona Institute provides names and bios of its board under the ‘who we are’ section of its website.
And They All Lived Happily Ever After
There is an unfortunate Mills & Boon-like overture to the same sex marriage drive. It is a world where partnerships do not break down nor do they become a battleground. Gay marriage proponents are particularly coy on this aspect of long- term relationships. As activists for partnership rights we need to deal openly and effectively with rights in the event of partnerships breaking down. As well as filling the airwaves with love besotted same sex couples it would bring a necessary and pragmatic edge to the campaign to give an equal focus to the devastation wrought when long term partnerships are dissolved without benefit of any recognition of rights and contributions made by the individuals who entered into them. Partnership rights in the event of relationship breakdown, in terms of equal treatment and fair distribution of assets is as pressing a need as any to have one’s love affirmed in a civil ceremony.
Ou Est Diversity?
Since the reformation of GLEN, there has been a disconcertingly sanitised public representation of lesbian and gay people. Increasingly, we are uniformly presented like the participants in the old OXO television ads- commercials peopled by clean, white, able-bodied, middle class, Joes and Joans. There has been little effort made to present the diversity within the LGB populace. The inevitable consequence of ‘normalising’ LGB people to make them more palatable to a heteronormative society is to invisibilise the ‘other’. In doing so, it colludes with society’s message that ‘otherness’ is deviant and lends itself to the view that those too butch or too camp, too disabled or too ‘ethnic’ are just too ‘other’ for public consumption. Marital equality with heterosexuals is being sought at the expense of the positivity of difference. The drive for ‘normality’ through marriage as currently promoted relies on politics of assimilation that will have long-lasting impacts for the struggle for respect for difference.
Is There A Game Plan And If There Is - Is It A Secret?
The recent leaking of the Heads of Civil Unions Bill, gave much food for thought for all activists and observers of the struggle for gay equality. Given how resistant were the signals coming from Fianna Fáil to anything but the most basic of recognitions, the content of the Heads of Bill and the extent of protections to be considered surprised many. Inevitably, campaigners for same sex marriage sounded like they had been caught off guard by the content. In responses to media questions and interviews there was a heavy reliance on the theme of love is love whether heterosexual or gay and substantive arguments were sadly lacking. In this respect, an important opportunity was lost in giving a reserved welcome to what was on offer and utilising the strength of what was included in the Heads of Bill to logically argue for what was absent, most notably the recognition of children within same sex families and the right to adoption.
However, the campaign’s strategic weakness of narrowly focusing on marriage as the alpha and omega leaves no room for trading up. It raises the question that if a fuller or even full raft of partnership rights were available under Civil Unions to allow the government some wriggle room with more conservative elements within its ranks, would MarriagEquality refuse such an offer? Is the call for marriage, a tactic, a means to an end or the only end that the campaign is prepared to consider? Is what something is called more important than the substance of what it provides? These are important questions that need to be addressed and engaged with publicly within the LGB community.
Parents and Progeny
At last the subject of children in lesbian and gay families has had consistent public airing in recent months. Although not the first initiative or organisation to do so, (eg: ICCL, Equality Authority, Sapphic Ireland’s submission to the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution) MarriagEquality is the first funded LGB entity to take this up as a central theme bringing much-needed further attention to a vital issue of equality. However, the issue is being argued almost exclusively from the position of ‘our’ rights as lesbians and gays to have children. In doing so, it is in danger of falling into the narrow parameters established by the Right who argue that children are best brought up by two opposite sex couples no matter what the calibre of that relationship.
The case for recognising the rights of lesbian and gay families needs to be fought in tandem with the position that children’s rights are supreme over all other competing rights. This is not just about us, it is about those with no independent voice. We do not make better parents than anyone else, as equally we certainly do not make worse simply because of our sexual orientation, but it’s not about us alone, its about children and their rights. Such a stance would not only be refreshing but heaven forbid radical in a State where the level of children’s vulnerability is frightening at the best of times.
Choice for All
Marriage is and should be an option for same sex couples and I and others have argued that publicly for quite a number of years now. However, if equality is to be truly championed then marriage must be promoted as one of a range of options and not as a three line whip. Whether consciously or not, the campaign has so far had an overwhelming air of exclusivity, a lack of public consultation with LGB people or discussion of other viable and equally legitimate options. The desire for marriage does not need to undermine the potential for other options nor should it be an obstacle to those options which would benefit and protect an entire range of other couples who require certain rights now in order to avert further inequalities and misery or those who do not and have never wanted marriage. The problem is, to date the campaign has been conducted with a worrying lack of respect for the importance of choice or the diversity of people’s lives and arrangements. In fact it states quite categorically that marriage is the sole option: “MarriageEquality believes that marriage is the only option for achieving equality for lesbians and gay men.”
In a recent correspondence with MarriagEquality, one of its co-chairs stated that they ‘are about the RIGHT TO CHOOSE’ ( sic), but Grainne Healy’s recent article in GCN states exactly and dogmatically the opposite. In it she argues that marriage is the only vehicle for equality and that other forms of civil partnerships for gay and straight couples will be easier to develop from that basis, but she does not say how or why she thinks that can happen, nor does she commit MarriagEquality to pursuing that end. Surely, if marriage is reinforced as the traditional institution by which all are expected to regularise their partnerships it will be even harder to unseat it as the only available form of regularisation. Healy uses the ‘back of the bus’ analogy for equality, rationalising that any other form of partnership recognition only moves us at best to the middle of the bus. The article pre-supposes that we all want to be on the same bus and that it is the only form of transportation to a state of fairness and equal treatment.
If we truly respect the right to choose then the challenge for progressive activists is to focus on winning the social and economic supports which reflect family and household diversity and the range of choices and arrangements that we enter into. To do that we need a broader vision of social justice, than the single-tracked confining of our lives into the narrow template of marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
