This new video strongly reflects the politics of the equal marriage movement itself, but is not very representative of lesbians and gays in Australia.
The whole marriage equality push is quite literally rooted in conservatism. It was started by conservative gay white men who, being men, presumably didn’t like to be denied what straight men are entitled to.
My problem with it is that it is based on the principles of assimilation, which is a form of erasure. Did anyone see any butch dykes in the video, for example? No doubt we’re too grotesque for the nice het folks of Australia to have to look at. We’d probably ruin the whole campaign.
The other thing I hate about it is that it promotes one of patriarchy’s primary institutions, one that features highly in the oppression of women (see my other posts for more on my thoughts on this). So how is allowing more women the “right” to it, about equality?
Finally, it really promotes monogamy in a big way, and monogamy sucks in my opinion. It’s a push for yet more couple privilege in a society where couples are already privileged. What of lesbians and gays who are not exclusively partnered, or don’t want to be? This so-called “right” to marriage will eventually cause many gays and lesbians to be even more marginalised than ever. It will cause straights to become more marginalised than ever as the patriarchal ideal of a household set-up which is built around coupledom becomes ever more entrenched as the only way to live. What of single parent families, gay and straight? Siblings living together? Friends living together, or all the other various living arrangements that exist in Australia?
Living as a part of a legally recognised couple brings a hell of a lot of social capital and political and economic privileges. Why should those people be privileged above the rest of us? There is nothing revolutionary about allowing a few extra people into the privilege club. Abolishing the privilege altogether would be revolutionary.
This new ad reflects the conservativism and white malecentrism of the marriage equality movement. Where are the lesbian couples? Where are the poor or poverty class lesbians? Indigenous lesbians? There is one (non-threatening christian) lesbian, who appears without her partner. The other people speaking are either gay men, or straights, straights who claim they want their friends to have this sacred right to marriage. So, where are those friends? Why are they not there speaking for themselves? How is giving straights the power to speak for and define us, in any way progressive?
The older guy at the end is particularly inappropriate, speaking for his son while his son stands there mute. It’s older men who are often the worst for public displays of homophobic abuse. Just because he is convinced that his son should have the right to get married doesn’t mean that he will have less homophobic thoughts about lesbians.
The push to keep an institution that is destructive and harmful for women, lesbian or het, is not my idea of good feminism.
