I’ve fallen prey to one of the classic blunders- thinking through all the points of nuance without adding them to a post. I’m doing that now. Sorry in advance.
One huge issue with James Somerton’s presentation of these talking points is the complete erosion of history he invites. The history of queer activists opposing gay marriage as the only endpoint for gay equality is more nuanced than he’s represented it to be. It’s not like he sits down and explains that the defense “gay is good” originated from the activism of the Mattachine society, and from the efforts of the New York Chapter, founded by Frank Kameny, who encouraged protests but only within the framework of acceptable professional behavior, banning men with long hair and women in trousers from protesting, and encouraging assimilation through the “gay is good” legal defense. (If you’re interested in this particular chapter in gay activism, I highly recommend reading The Deviant’s War by Eric Cervini). The “gay is good” legal defense existed as a counter to laws which defined homosexuality as immoral: if a person truly believed that homosexuality was good and moral, they could argue that their personal beliefs were contrary to this subjective definition of morality. This left out people who are trans and generally anyone without the money to take homophobes to court.
Instead, Somerton throws out a stolen quote from Fran Lebowitz about boring gays surviving the AIDS epidemic. He doesn’t provide any history there- he just uses the quote to argue that modern gay art is deficient, just “because.” He doesn’t provide a reason, a history, or root himself within the actual history of gay oppression to homonationalism and assimilation.
There are in fact arguments against gay marriage by queer activists, on the grounds that it leaves out transgender people, poor people, people in prison, sex workers, etc. However, I’m not James Somerton, so I’m not afraid to say that this is an ongoing debate with a lot of nuance: for instance I’ll point to this piece by Dean Spade and Craig Willse. There are also these articles responding to the first: The Affective Economy of Marriage: Or, No Spouse Left Behind by Brooke M. Beloso, Why Gay Marriage Matters: A Reply to Dean Spade and Craig Willse by John Scagliotti. Taken together, these articles set the groundwork for both pros and cons of gay marriage as the only end point for gay activism.
Other books which provide additional nuance in framing this debate:
Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage, edited by Ryan Conrad: this book provides an archival history of queer activism beyond the “gay rights” framework
Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex, edited by Eric Stanley: this book provides a glimpse into the horrors perpetrated by the prison industrial complex, which “gay rights” as a paradigm has been remarkably ineffective in addressing
Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics and the Limits of Law by Dean Spade: this book reaches beyond the “gay rights” legal defense to show how legal opposition against discrimination is limited
I took issue with this point by Somerton for its ahistoricism and general cavalier attitude towards a history of activism. He’s promoting a flanderized and overly simplistic view of history, which I cannot abide. I encourage any readers to read up on this history and to seek out your own viewpoints, which you can’t accomplish through passive consumption.
pixelskylines
kaledo-art
blakekathryn
yousharknotpass
janainaart
vaporwave
