Jasmyne Cannick and Jamie Kirchik go at it over how much of a priority gay marriage should be for the gay rights movement. Hmm, I think--just off the top--I'm with Jamie--it probably should be a big priority. I'm not married. Been with the same woman for ten years now, and we've got a beautiful black boy who's gonna turn eight this year (Maybe I'll throw up a picture, if I can find a good one). But we both have our qualms about marriage and weddings, which I'd gladly expound on in another thread.
That said, I think marriage is such a core institution in this country, that it's hard for me not to see why it's a top priority for so many gays. Segregation affected every black person in the country. The North didn't have signs, but there is a long history of housing covenants which enforced segregation. Anyway, I think gay marriage is a similar issue--it bans all gay people from an institution that's central to American life. That said. People need to stop putting words in Jasmyne's mouth--at no point in her piece does she claim that gay marriage is racist. Fight her on the merits--or lack of merits--of her argument. Strawmanship only makes it look like you have something to hide.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Thanks for addressing the controversy ! :)
While she doesn't explicitly call gay marriage racist, I thought there was a weird way of redirecting the traditional black gay complaints - well-founded complaints - about the gay community being largely identified and influenced by its white higher-middle-class component onto the gay marriage debate.
It seemed to me that it was pointing out a real problem - the invisibility of gay minorities among the minority community and among the gay community and among the general public - by sort of pitting this legitimate grievance against another legitimate grievance as if we had to choose.
And that reminded me of the long-running debate and commentary on sexism and racism we have had on this blog.
In any case, nice to see your thoughts on this. And definitely looking forward to the picture of your son - and, hey why not, hearing more on your reluctance towards marriage.
This reminds me that LA times article on how they are asking gay married couples to be "low-key"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-image17-2008jun17,0,4436786.story
I don't think Cannick's argument is racist either. I do wish she had talked about HIV/AIDS and access to medicines because I agree with her central thesis.
I remember an activist friend of mine talking about some big conference in Canada on International gay and lesbian rights (I don't remember the name). And he was saying how Gay Marriage dominated the conversation. PLHA and lack of access to life-saving medicines is an issue that affects literally hundreds of millions of queer people internationally. I think Cannick's point because even more succinct when you look at queer rights globally. Gay marriage is definately and absolutely not the number one priority in gay rights internationally. But it was the main topic at an international conference on the same? Not okay. Especially when so many queer people are denied their basic human rights.
The obvious argument is, of course, well this is national... US. HIV/AIDS, lack of access to medicines, immigration, hate crimes, are not restricted to gays in other countries. The only reason gay marriage entered the national scenerio was because Bush chose to do so.
Having said that, I am genuinely happy that the tide is changing. But there's a feeling of "alright, umm. now what?" to it all.
This reminds me that LA times article on how they are asking gay married couples to be "low-key"
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-image17-2008jun17,0,4436786.story
I don't think Cannick's argument is racist either. I do wish she had talked about HIV/AIDS and access to medicines because I agree with her central thesis.
I remember an activist friend of mine talking about some big conference in Canada on International gay and lesbian rights (I don't remember the name). And he was saying how Gay Marriage dominated the conversation. PLHA and lack of access to life-saving medicines is an issue that affects literally hundreds of millions of queer people internationally. I think Cannick's point because even more succinct when you look at queer rights globally. Gay marriage is definately and absolutely not the number one priority in gay rights internationally. But it was the main topic at an international conference on the same? Not okay. Especially when so many queer people are denied their basic human rights.
The obvious argument is, of course, well this is national... US. HIV/AIDS, lack of access to medicines, immigration, hate crimes, are not restricted to gays in other countries. The only reason gay marriage entered the national scenerio was because Bush chose to do so.
Having said that, I am genuinely happy that the tide is changing. But there's a feeling of "alright, umm. now what?" to it all.
Cannick's argument over priority seems to assume that weddings must be, or ought to be, expensive affairs. As a parent of three (16, 18, and 20), I can easily sympathize with qualms about weddings, particularly the insane amount of money that many folks seem to feel obliged to throw at it whether it fits their budget or breaks their budget. My kids know already that their weddings and receptions are going to be on the cheap unless they marry someone very wealthy who insists on wasting their own money on it. I have taught my children to give high regard to marriage, but also a high regard to living within their means.
There is one caveat: You can marry on the cheap, but a cheap divorce is close to impossible. Marry for keeps, or don't marry at all.
I, second Michelle Abbot's request. I, too, would like to see Mr. Coates' share his concerns about marriage and weddings.
Strawmanship's what Kirchick does, dude.
Love your blog, btw.
"Cannick's argument over priority seems to assume that weddings must be, or ought to be, expensive affairs."
Hmm.. that was hardly her point. I didn't see that anywhere. Just because something is expensive does not mean it should/or should not be prioritized within a rights framework.
(my same comment got posted twice. Sorry about that, I don't know how I did that. hopefully won't do it again with this one)
Regarding the choice between focusing on marital equality and focusing on access to HIV meds, I would suggest that the former is more specific to gay people than the latter. While there are certainly a large number of gay HIV patients, they are not the fastest growing demographic for HIV: that tragic honor now belongs to black femals, in America at least. So the question of drug access is an economic question that impacts gay, straight, male, and female HIV patients.
Marital equality, on the other hand, is outright denied to gay people in many jurisdictions, and that denial happens regardless of whether or not the gay people in question are ethnic minorities. It would seem to me that the most effective use of the political resources of the gay community might be to target those issues that affect them most uniquely and directly, while cooperating with other interested groups to address issues that have overlapping impact on multiple groups.
I understand Jasmyne's argument, and I agree with her on her criticisms of how the predominantly white gay community has failed their intersectionality roll. My problem with her post is that she seems to be assuming that everyone who thinks marriage is important is rich and white.
I'm neither, and I'm thrilled that I can marry my girlfriend--although as California's domestic partners in California, I was still able to get health insurance for my partner, which was the most important part. I'll be even more thrilled when DOMA is repealed and I can stop paying the "gay tax" on said health insurance: because the Feds don't recognize our relationship, the amount that I pay and the amount that the UC system pays for my partner's insurance is considered a taxable "fringe benefit".
The black gay community isn't a monolith, any more than the predominantly white gay community is, or the general black community, for that matter. Saying that marriage isn't important for her is one thing, but I'd appreciate it if Jasmyne didn't sound like she was trying to speak for me on this issue.
And you know...when I look at pictures like this (http://tinyurl.com/64u88k), or this (http://tinyurl.com/55uowc), the only thing I'm thinking is, "Awwwwww!"
If you have decided not to get married, but have a child, please please please make sure that you have in place the necessary legal documents to take care of him if anything happens to either of his parents. For example, make sure that you and his mother both have wills, naming who you want to act as guardian(s) in the event one or both of you should die. In fact, do all the legal stuff that gay people have to do to protect their interests because they can't get married. (Yes, I am a lawyer. No, it does not need to cost a lot.)
I'd love to hear your thoughts on marriage. I'm happily married myself, but still have deep suspicions about the institution.