Thanks, Mattilda. A round of applause. Could we spend that $40 million on LGBTQ youth and HIV/AIDS services?

Mattilda,
Once again, you have shown me why I am impressed with you. When you say things like:

"Furthermore, with this single-issue struggle, everything else, including anti-gay, anti-queer, and anti-trans violence gets swept under the beige carpet. Gay marriage proponents appropriate civil rights discourse while saying 'it's the blacks that voted against us'. They promote religious tyranny (marriage is the answer), while pointing the blame at religious bigots ('it's the Mormons')."

Gee, many people are not happy with those who only care about marriage.

Right-on post, Mattilda!!!

I agree with you on the simultaneously assimilative and alienating consequences of going all-in on marriage. On the other hand, the fact that marriage can get you $40 million is incredible, and something that shouldn't be ignored if we want to both have social/moral integrity AND be politically effective. If No on 8 can get so many people fired up about being treated as second-class citizens, it is an excellent opportunity to remind queer folks that, hey, you're actually second-class citizens in many other ways. The prop 8 fallout has really activated queer communities' frustration and anger in ways that really aren't focused on marriage so much as growing up feeling shamed, belittled, scared and getting to a point where we refuse to be continue to be forced to feel that way. I think marriage makes a good catalyst in that it has broad mainstream appeal, and provides the more transformative, inclusive agendas you allude to, if organized effectively, potentially a lot to work with. But I agree, if it's marriage or nothing, it just becomes a question of who gets thrown under the bus.

It is positively puzzling how you can equate support for equality in marriage with opposition to a broad and generous social policy.

I have no interest in overthrowing the patriarchy or deconstructing the fabric of the social order. I'm interested in being treated like every other American citizen/resident and then being left alone.

I have no desire to stifle your dissent. Actually I find it quite helpful in framing my own outlook. I will probably never buy into your entire agenda or you into mine. I'm not going to ask you to do so. I am going to ask that you stop demonizing the people who don't share your views or objectives for gay America.

Nicely stated, and a valid point. The whole idea that acheiving marriage for all couples, same-sex and otherwise, embodies the struggle for equality and an end to discrimination against gays is a scary one, for exactly the reasons you pointed out. I'd like to think, though, that acheiving marriage equality will strike a blow that will weaken America's willingness to sweep LGBT issues under the rug. As long as we're all treated as second class citizens, we have to rely very heavily on others to herald and champion our causes.

Matthew Shepard was one man, but his tragic death focused millions of people on something they perhaps hadn't considered--that hatred and discrimination didn't end with the civil rights movement.

Perhaps there is so much volume to the fight for gay marriage because it's something that has garnered attention on a national stage. Sure, it's just one issue, and doesn't necessarily solve all our problems, but it's something. And it's publicity that we couldn't have gotten otherwise.

Perhaps we need to elevate ourselves as a community so the rest of the country can't so easily brush us aside. Studies have shown that people are more likely to support a cause when they can associate a face to it. There is more support for John and Fred than "the gays".

Perhaps we'll both be surprised, and as more openly gay people grow up, get married, join the PTA, or get elected to public offices, the LGBT community will achieve equal stature as well as rights.

Mattilda,
I really like your posts because they provoke me to think about how I've come to see things the way I do.

Ever since marriage emerged as a gay liberation struggle, I thought it was the wrong issue to pursue partly because it emulates straight culture. Also, I think the notion of making a vow, or entering into a contract, about how one will feel about another person for life is silly. The issues you raised are but a few of an array of things we could better expend our energies upon.

That said, I realize that some in our community want the option to marry. And the contractual benefits for these people may trump the downside of assimilation into straight culture. But the gauntlet was dropped when a constitutional amendment erased rights from a specific segment of the people. This should not be ignored.

For me, the injustice is that marriage confers rights. Rights that are status-based. Hardly equality. Returning marriage to the religious domain as a sacrament, and requiring 'everyone' to enter into a civil contract to gain parental, visitation and inheritance rights would be a start. Let each religious denomination decide for itself how it wants to handle marriage.

Assimilation into straight culture has always been a hard issue for me to settle in my mind. As discrimination caused us to create our own subculture, gays developed something really special. And I think that specialness is worth nurturing and preserving. I like associating with gay people, whether I know them or not. There is an unwritten understanding among us about the commonalities of life experiences.

But, keeping gay subculture in a cocoon, separate from the main (heterosexual, patriarchal, capitalist... ) culture, creates an 'us' and 'them' dichotomy. 'Us' and 'them' is what feeds culture wars.

Yes, I attended the march and rally here in San Francisco and called friends to let them know about the events. But that does not mean that my focus is limited to the issue of equality.

I volunteer at Project Open Hand, an organization that provides hot meals every day to PWA's, those with cancer, seniors, and the home-bound disabled. Also, I use what is left of my disability check each month to distribute 20 bag lunches a week to homeless people that live in Golden Gate park. Granted, it's not much, but it is more than nothing. I don't ask the people I meet if they are gay. I ask them if they are hungry, and if they say yes I give them food and drink. There is never enough to go around.

So yes, there are innumerable ways we can work to improve the human condition. And being involved in one struggle does not erase our other efforts.

Mattilda, I think that any discussion about same sex marriage has to begin with the recognition that it’s not a fight we began. It's a fight consciously used to keep us off balance and to drain our resources from other issues.

We consistently lose because Republicans and Democrats see opposition to SSM as a key wedge issue to consolidate a mass right/christist base and win elections. Both parties pander to that base and we lose becasue we get double teamed. No on 8s self appointed leaders were blindsided for the umpteenth time by a combination of powerful regimented cults and both party’s candidates.

Same sex marriage doesn’t seem to be on top of the totem pole in our communities, which I suspect revolve around hate crimes and anti-discrimination legislation, an end to the war and a plan to stop the recession from becoming a depression.

That said, when we come under attack we have to defend. I think No on 8 and the other groups did a lousy job because their allegiance was to Obama, not to our communities.

In general I think the next step it to create a LGBT left around a specific set of goals, one of which is defense of the right to SSM. And if SSM activists want to push their agenda I think they deserve the support of the whole movement but our main focus should be for an inclusive ENDA, for hate crimes and hate speech legislation and for immediate withdrawal and bailouts for working people.

I think we need an organization unequivocally independent of both parties with a commitment to alliance building with unions, the antiwar movement and civil rights struggles. Not to fuse with them, to but to ally with them.

In that context the question of SSM can be addressed when it comes up but as part of an overall political offensive on our part, instead of an endless series of defeats where a self appointed leadership gets blind sided by politicians like Clinton and Obama

I'm troubled by the idea that we shouldn't strive for marriage rights because it's a "straight" institution and that we're somehow betraying ourselves by wanting it.

I'm not anti-hetero, anti-Christian, or anything else. I have more important things to worry about than trying to get ahead while striving to maintain some specifically un-straight identity.

I don't believe gays should have the right to be married because they're gay, but because everyone should be afforded the same protection under the law. I don't believe in hate-crime legislation because the murder of a gay man is any more heineous than anyone else, but because there should be specific punishments outlined for those who are targeted solely based on race, sexual-orientation, gender, etc.

To say we shouldn't ask for marriage because the "straights" already have it is like saying we'll be happy in the back of the bus because the straights have always sat up front.

I don't think marriage is the end, but rather the beginning. Until we can convince people we're worthy of the same legal benefits and social stature, how can we ever expect them to care about our other issues? Discrimination against the LGBT community is condoned in this country, and I don't think we all truly realized how badly until the elections two weeks ago. We remain marginalized to the point that we're not even in the stadium, much less in the game.

To say we need to keep a "queer option" is to condemn ourselves to always being on the outside looking in. We are not, nor will we ever be, a tangible majority in this country (or the world). It's biologically impossible. If we want to be a part of American culture, we'll have to make some concessions and have our voice heard from within the system itself. I don't think equality is such a bad way to start.

Thank you so much for saying what needs to be said about the single-issue pursuit of marriage rights by the mainstream gay community!

Certainly the subject of marriage and the desire for it is not agreed upon across all same sex loving people. (Thank god) I do actually like that fact. Marriage, as you can see in the comments here, is a debatable subject.

It is difficult to get excited about marriage in Missouri where, like many other states, we don't even have our basics covered for lgbt people in terms of nondiscrimination policies in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. Forget about inclusive, enumerated categories within school policy to support youth. We don't have that either. I am happy to have sexual orientation and gender identity in the state hate crimes law but that's pretty much where it stops.

I appreciated Mattilda's offering here for sure. I do however think that there are many of connections between stability of relationship (civil documents) and issues around health care, race and class. The way the article reads is that it frames those who want marriage as exclusively rich, white guys and that's the unique person who would benefit from it. There are examples of couples who would truly benefit from legally supportive relationship recognition. See the ACLU's video www.10couples.org It has some great examples.

I don't like the notion that the aspiration for marriage is to have the status quo wedding and the extended predictable life that follows just like the straights. For many years I didn't even aspire for a relationship because I didn't think I was suppose to. For me that was all the internalized crap I told myself as a child and combined that with the fact that when I was an adult everytime I made love (had sex) that I was breaking the law. Up until Lawrence v. Texas I most certainly was. So that way I was seen under the eyes of the law was as a sexual defiant. There is nothing about aspiring for a system that supports people through legal recognition of their relationship that shouldn't feel like justice.

For me marriage equality (relationship recognition) is an important option for me to have. My straight siblings have that option. Why not me? I personally want something more than my $10 certificate that I got from city hall codifying my 10 year relationship as a domestic partnership. This paper allows me ONLY to visit my partner in a jail or the hospital. Are you kidding me? Two places I don't want to go. Nothing to really get excited about. In fact, it is a place to start. You should know that I got that certificate on the 3rd anniversary of Missouri's 2004 Amendment vote where the only city in the whole state that defeated it was St. Louis city. No major protest here in 2004. We worked hard but it didn't matter then. It matters now.

Lastly the energy towards Prop 8, while certainly flawed in its outreach to minority and religious communities, has stirred something up. Something that wasn't there in the same way before. I think in a post-Obama victory world there is the idealized place that we believe "we can do better than before" on many levels. At the Prop 8 protest in St. Louis last Saturday 1400 people came out on the coldest day of the year so far., I appreciated that almost all of the speakers who talked about this marriage issue spoke from a justice perspective. I feel that is this place we can really build upon. Who would have thought 'marriage' would do this to folks? Not me. Who put 'marriage' at the top of the lgbt agenda while ENDA (trans inclusive) remains unfulfilled? Not me. Hello?! Basics not covered. Obviously more people would benefit from ENDA. Do that math. Finally the drivers of the train may be on the one issue course but I am hopeful many other issues will come into the station. I think that we have to. At least that's what I'm working towards.