March 2004

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

Boycott Heterosexist Marriage

D. M. Dismore is a feminist archivist and researcher. She wrote this piece last fall, before the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision in the same-sex marriage case touched off the most recent controversy. She can be reached at AFeminist@aol.com.

Is it possible, in good conscience, to take advantage of something given you as a result of bigotry if you personally think that form of bigotry is totally wrong? It sounds like a simple enough question, but thinking about the answer led me to a surprising realization of what the unavoidable logical consequences of "no" meant in terms of the fight against homophobia, and my own responsibility in that continuing battle.

Female couple in Michigan, early 1900s. Photo from Lesbian Herstory Archives.

With most Americans favoring anti-discrimination laws in regard to employment and housing for gays and lesbians, hate crime legislation on the books in an impressive roster of cities and states, and overt expressions of bias now considered unfashionable, it's easy to think that all those of us in the heterosexual community need do is applaud great progress, attend a few more rallies, sign another petition or two, and keep showing our support in all the easy, conventional ways as the assault against homophobia winds down to a victorious conclusion. But that's exactly the mistake the Falwells and Robertsons of the world are hoping we'll make. The end of homophobia is neither imminent nor inevitable, and those of us traditionally given benefits from heterosexism have a unique and important role to play in the next phase of the struggle.

Actions speak louder than words, and few actions speak more forcefully than the giving up of privilege, or making a personal sacrifice in the name of a principle. So, though the struggle against homophobia is being waged on many fronts by many groups, it's time for some members of the heterosexual community to make, by our actions, the most powerful statement possible in regard to our repudiation of heterosexism by confronting its most conspicuous expression. Nowhere is the immorality of giving or denying rights based on an ancient bigotry more ingrained in our society than in regard to heterosexism and marriage.

Though by no means do all people of heterosexual or homosexual orientation desire to be married - many take understandable pride in rejecting its conformity and traditions based on stereotyped roles - the fact that all members of the former group are strongly urged to become part of this "vital institution," while all those in the latter group are legally barred from it, provides daily proof of society's endorsement of second-class citizenship for those without heterosexual privilege.

The problem with principles is that they don't allow much "wiggle room." Either you do - or don't - believe that two groups of people should be treated equally. Either you are - or are not - willing to act in a manner fully consistent with that view. So, there's an obvious - if quite unintentional - degree of hypocrisy involved when anyone who opposes discrimination based on sexual orientation gleefully plans to embrace an institution which continues to celebrate, sanctify, and legally reward the practice of such prejudice.

If present-day Caucasians suddenly found themselves transported back in time to a Montgomery, Alabama bus stop in 1955, they would be presented a tough, but clear moral choice. They could board the bus, and begin the process of taking advantage of the many privileges and rights arbitrarily given them for no reason other than an un-chosen characteristic of birth, or they could begin rejecting all such favoritism with a public declaration that, "I don't ride until everyone is seated on an equal basis." Such a statement would come at great personal cost.

The need to confront racist privilege is still with us, though determined resistance overturned legally mandated segregation. But heterosexist privilege in the law is still rampant, despite having no more of a moral foundation than Caucasian privilege, and is most overtly embodied in the legal definition of marriage. So, the question I would like to pose is: If you had been a "Caucasian of conscience" living in 1950s America, would you like to think that you would have had the courage and moral certitude to reject all favoritism given you in order to bring about a society in which all races are treated equally? Then, for those of us who call ourselves non-homophobic heterosexuals, do we now have the courage to forego all the rights and privileges given us by a heterosexist society to help bring about a world in which the gender of one's partner is as irrelevant to civil marriage as their race? If so, then a public statement to make any future pledge of love to a partner using only those options available to same-sex couples (commitment ceremonies, domestic partner registrations, etc.), might create the kind of consciousness-raising exercise that would be useful to those on the "front lines" of this struggle.

Graphic from A Brief History of Outrage, THINK AGAIN, www.agitart.org

True, all forms of bigotry are different. Racism is not the same as heterosexism, heterosexism isn't the same as sexism, and sexism isn't the same as anti-semitism. But all forms of prejudice still need to be fought, and one way to do that is by showing that they all rely on a similar idea: that one group should be automatically entitled to things that members of another group are not.

Of course, since most people (possibly even you...) believe that "marriage is different," I'm certainly open to any logical reasons why this institution should stay for-heterosexuals-only. But whatever objective, non-theological standards you use which exclude all same-sex couples from marriage must also be uniformly applied to all mixed-sex couples as well. (So, no denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple because they "can't create a child together," then happily issuing one to that nice 60-year-old heterosexual couple, or the 40-year-old groom with the vasectomy, etc.)

Though the fight against any form of bigotry will always be led by those who directly suffer from it, that doesn't give everyone else freedom from the moral responsibility to join the fight and do what they can. And the impact of even a small number of people in a "favored" class denouncing favoritism is considerable.

If thousands of women protested the Augusta National Golf Club's male-only membership policy, the demonstration would hopefully get a bit of publicity and raise some consciousness among the public, but probably have little if any effect on the club itself. But should one member walk out of the clubhouse, join the picketers, and announce that he would not be re-entering the gates of the club until women were admitted on the same basis as men, not only would this make the story the lead item on the nightly news, it would have a meaningful effect on the other members.

No longer could all protesters be casually dismissed as people acting out of antagonism or self-interest. No more could the issue of sexism be considered something only "those people" care about. If one of their own self-selected elite could reject prestige for principle, then inevitably it becomes a principle the other club members would have to take more seriously.

This essay is not an attack on marriage, an institution which in a single generation has made remarkable strides toward becoming a more equal, far less patriarchal institution. It is solely an assault on the arbitrary way in which the law allocates a privilege and the many substantial legal benefits which go with it. So, "principle" is no justification for avoiding forms of lifelong commitment other than legal marriage. Nor should it be viewed as yet another excuse for divorce.

My goal is to expand and reform the institution, not weaken it further. And, as far as I can tell, our ultra-high divorce rate hasn't had any impact on making it easier for same-sex couples to marry, though turning a marriage license into something with the longevity and durability of a Kleenex has decreased pompous references to its "sanctity." Nor is this a call to boycott other people's weddings. The issue is state bias in bestowing legal rights. Wedding guests cannot give or receive any rights. Their role is to give personal recognition and support to a lifelong commitment by two loving individuals - a totally positive act, regardless of whether the state also chooses to recognize the union.

But this definitely concerns single people having a unique opportunity to take a stand for equality. We can still make a public pledge that should we meet someone with whom we would wish to share the rest of our life, we will make that commitment in a way which is totally consistent with our principles, employing nothing that is prohibited to same-sex couples.

Had early feminists insisted that "Oh, no, we certainly don't think women should have equal rights with men, or be able to vote, but we do think wives ought to have the right to own property," there might still be a need to attend "Votes for Women" rallies today. Instead, those pioneer feminists began by immediately endorsing the goal of full equality - knowing that most people would be shocked and offended - then never wavered in their pursuit of that ideal.

Unlike the suffragists, we need not dedicate the next 72 years of our lives to a ceaseless struggle to remove this key symbol of inequality. But we do need to show the same kind of dedication to principle and logical consistency they demonstrated if we are going to win a similar kind of victory over heterosexism by reforming its most blatant symbol.

Independent of Ms. Dismore, a group of activists (including Sam Diener, editor of Peacework), are launching a Marriage Boycott Pledge campaign for all lovers of justice (www.marriageboycott.com).

Previous Article    Next Article