As I have shown, legalizing same-sex marriage is beneficial to the state and to the
economy. Even though there are many conservatives who definitely disagree. Rather they choose to see it as a “threat to democracy” and a “threat to American values,” whereas on the other hand, marriage advocates argue they just want to be treated as full citizens and bestowed full citizenship rights, which includes the right to marriage. As previously presented, for many mainstream lesbians and gays, marriage equality represented the last right they did not have. Part of their argument centered on the fact that in all other aspects of their lives (besides their
sexuality) they were “good” and “upstanding” U.S. citizens (e.g., paid their taxes, supported the economy, voted). For them, not having this right felt extremely unfair because they were doing the “right thing” and had proved their support of heteronormative culture.
This claim to citizenry has been part and parcel to the normalizing contingent of LGBT/Q communities for decades. For these assimilated lesbians and gays and the large gay
using gay man, one that did not want to settle down, or buy a house, or have kids, and ultimately who challenged the directives of heteronormative culture. David Brooks of The New York Times
even commented on this change. He stated:
In 3,000 years of Western civilization, no major culture has shifted this fast to give gays and lesbians equality, as the U.S. and Europe have recently… the deal was sealed once the issue became about marriage. That is, once gays and lesbians were seeking access to one of the most traditional institutions in society, then they were bound to win more support. (Brooks and Collins 2013)
Brooks rightly points out the same argument that queer activists have been making now for decades. There is nothing revolutionary (or queer) about gaining marriage equality, and lesbians and gays getting married is not going to challenge the institution of marriage or heteronormativity. By seeking entrance to this institution, it is only going to further the
conservative progression that has long dictated over the gay rights movement. Brooks states as a general rule “if you want to win respect for your formerly excluded group, try to be more
culturally conservative than anybody else” (Brooks and Collins 2013), hence following this logic, it makes sense that victory has come about so quickly for marriage equality.
Mainstream lesbians and gays successfully accomplished to distance themselves from the “bad queers” (i.e., those who fight against heteronormative imperatives and inclusion) and
distinguish themselves as the “good gays” (i.e., we are just like you, we hold the same values and want the same things as mainstream America). Gay Inc. made gay marriage digestible to middle America. They controlled the discourse, the message, and the image of the gay community to make lesbians and gays no longer threatening to most Americans; thereby making it easy for them to see gay couples as normal couples. For instance, in a Honey Maid commercial that played during the Superbowl, viewers see two well-dressed white men in a large, beautiful home with one young son and a family dog. One of the men states: “we’re kind of traditional guys.
Marriage and a family and having kids were always important.” After small glimpses of the family’s life together and heartwarming statements by the son, viewers are then shown a tender moment with one of the fathers cradling a newborn, with his husband’s hand lovingly stroking the baby’s head. And the ad finishes with the motto: “This is Wholesome” (Maid 2014). These two represent the epitome of Gay, Inc.’s campaign of respectability. This commercial makes the audience focus on how loving the family is and dares viewers to hold anti-gay sentiments after watching it, while giving Honey Maid some positive PR in the process. My claim here is not to argue that these images should not exist or that there is something negative about lesbians and gays who want to get married and have children, because indeed they should have that right. The problem lies in the fact that these are the only images we see of the LGBT/Q community; and these images continue to erase the diversity in the community and portray it as a unified group. These desexualized and “wholesome” images keep the public from thinking about “gay sex” when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, and rather refocuses the attention on easily palatable ideas such as love, commitment, and family. Thus, these images of the gay community are not challenging the idea of marriage at all; they are merely reifying its position and power in society.
By utilizing the discourse of love and family they are tapping into the conservative ideas about sexuality and love, and marriage advocates are purposefully opting into an extremely conservative institution. Ironically, lesbians and gays are becoming strange bedfellows with those who previously (and many still do) disavowed gay people’s existence. The marriage debate has put the mainstream gay community and the religious right on the same side of the argument, even though many conservatives do not see it that way. Lesbians and gays who want to get married are wanting to uphold the institution of marriage and prove they are committed in
monogamous relationships, while more straight couples are choosing not to get married and explore different forms of relationship structures (Martin, Astone and Peters 2014, Waggoner 2015). Paradoxically, the gay marriage debate has put these two political and social enemies on the same side of the issue stating there is a need for this institution and it should be upheld and supported. Thus, it becomes clear, the fight for gay marriage is a conservative cause.
While Republicans and social conservatives have not come out in support of same-sex marriage at the same rate as Democrats and liberals, overall acceptance is increasing. This shift is occurring through the combination of rights discourse and the discourse of conservatism. For instance, in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister David Cameron, who is the leader of the Conservative Party stated, “I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative” (Staff 2012d). The idea of entering into a state defined and regulated institution that defines families and centers on “family values” and monogamy is at the heart of conservative ideals and heteronormative culture. Similarly, in the U.S., some members of the Grand Old Party (GOP) who define themselves as “traditional” Republicans are becoming more accepting of marriage equality for two reasons: first, because they realize that legalizing same-sex marriage does not pose any real threat to elites or how political and economic power is distributed. If legalizing same-sex marriage does anything, it bolsters hegemonic power structures, because it completely and harmlessly assimilates a
previously excluded group into existing institutions. By integrating these newly acquired groups into social institutions, the state incentivizes them to accommodate those institutions and adopt a hegemonic mindset (Greenwald 2013). Secondly, they are recognizing that to remain politically relevant, they need to get on the right side of history, which harkens back to Bell’s theory of interest convergence. Moderate Republicans recognize there is an obvious shift in public opinion
and that whether or not they personally support marriage equality or oppose it is not the issue; they just need to be silent or run the risk of being labeled a bigot. Glenn Greenwald of The
Guardian remarked “It really is a bit shocking how quickly gay marriage transformed from being
a fringe, politically toxic position just a few years ago to a virtual piety that must be affirmed in decent company” (Greenwald, 2013).
Through analyzing the shift (both politically and socially) on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage, we can see how it has been more of an institution-affirming than an institution-subverting battle. Gay marriage revitalizes a traditional institution that heterosexual couples have actually been in the process of delegitimizing through ridiculous marriage reality shows, impetuous divorces, and serial new spouses. Thus, ironically the fight for gay marriage has reinforced the hegemony of the institution and rehabilitated it in the name of anti-
homophobia (Spade and Willse 2013). These changes are taking a once marginalized and culturally independent community and fully integrating it into mainstream society, thus making that community invested in conventional societal institutions. Shortly after Jon Huntman, the former Utah governor, endorsed marriage equality and called for the rest of the GOP to join him in supporting the issue, Yasmin Nair, a queer activist and scholar, argued that this was
emblematic of a larger issue:
There has never been a separate left case for gay marriage. Nothing that the left, progressives, or liberals have stated in support of gay marriage has ever been anything but a profoundly conservative argument…. The surprise is not that gay marriage is now being embraced by conservatives and neoliberals. The surprise is that it took them so long to do so. (as cited in Lang 2013).
Nair highlights that the fight for marriage equality is a conservative cause that reifies heteronormativity, and also a political campaign that supports neoliberal ideologies like the privatization of basic human rights (e.g.., health care) and association of them with marriage
(Lang 2013). Nair argues that marriage and neoliberalism go hand-in-hand, because the act of marriage is an effective and economical way for the state to alleviate its responsibility for citizens’ health and well-being (as cited in Pavan 2011).
In the LGBT/Q community, critics of gay marriage fall into several broad camps. For some, the fight for marriage equality was problematic because, as I have argued, it represented assimilation and the demise of the queerer, liberationist potential of gay rights. For others, gay marriage represented the further widening and strengthening of the neoliberal state, where access to basic rights are mostly available through marriage. Instead of fighting for open access to rights (e.g., universal health care, open inheritance and adoption laws) gay marriage advocates argued that same-sex marriage is necessary because it would allow access to these benefits, thus naturalizing the role of the neoliberal state as a necessary one (Nair 2014a). Nair argues that mainstream lesbians and gays, such as Dan Savage, like to criticize queer critiques of marriage by claiming they are not assimilationists or that somehow their marriage can (re)imagine what marriage looks like. For example, in Savage’s blog and radio show he references non-monogamy or being “monogamish” with his husband (Savage 2012). Queer activists and scholars focus their critiques of gay marriage on what the “costs of inclusion” will mean for LGBT/Q communities. Nair argues that mainstream lesbians and gays claim they are anti-assimilationist (like Savage for example) and that lets them “off the hook” because “‘they can pretend that it’s not marriage’s central role in the state that’s the problem – it’s just how marriages are conducted’” (as cited in Pavan 2011). Queers argue claim is a failed argument, because once a couple is given the right to marry, the state does not regulate what they do within that marriage. Couples can choose to have multiple partners nightly and the state will not dissolve their marriage; this is the right to privacy the institution is supposed to preserve. Moderately well off or relatively wealthy LGBT/Q
Americans like Dan Savage probably will never have to worry about the state policing or surveilling their sexuality. Moreover, for the LGBT/Q super-rich, gay marriage plays an active role in further privatizing and securing wealth by providing tax loopholes (Nair 2014a). This is why the mainstream gay community’s argument is flawed, even having a “queer” marriage structure will not change the relationship between the institution and the state; nor how the state endows marriage with certain benefits that it will not give to the unmarried (Pavan 2011).
Under the semblance of social progressivism, gay marriage becomes a perfect neoliberal tool that is able to obscure the real inequalities faced by those who do not want to get married or cannot marry into economic stability or wealth. The discourse of legalizing same-sex marriage is framed as though there are no alternatives to this capitalist driven, conservative institution. The discourse, images, and portrayals of the marriage debate by Gay, Inc. and the mainstream media keep liberal and socially progressive straight people (along with lesbians and gays) from
imagining alternatives. Therefore, they are convinced that the only option available is to
minimally alter the institution to let a few more people in instead of rethinking the institution all together (Spade and Willse 2013). Legalizing same-sex marriage is not a step toward changing the lives of queer and trans people or helping less represented members of LGBT/Q
communities. It has become a movement that at best ignores them, if not causes them more harm as the community becomes further divided by the members who are deserving of rights versus those who are undeserving (Spade and Willse 2013). Stein (2013) posits that there is a clear disconnect between the mainstream gay community’s argument that marriage will bring economic and psychological benefits to lesbians and gays. She argues: “It will benefit some queer people, diminish many of those who cannot and do not wish to marry, and have a negligible impact upon others. It is particularism masquerading as universalism” (Stein 2013).
Stein, like many other queer activists, claims that what is needed is a reintegration of queer politics and support for more diverse formations of family and relationship structures.
Tracing the battles for the legalization of same-sex marriage demonstrates a collusion between the mainstream gay community and the neoliberal state that seeks to integrate good, respectable gays into the folds of heteronormative society. The mainstream gay community has fought to be recognized and included into the institution, even though it is one that is
discriminatory and anti-queer by its very definition. Mainstream lesbians and gays seek this integration, even though it is counter to the foundational goals that launched the gay rights movement. By focusing on gaining individual citizenship rights and casting off the hope of collective rights, the mainstream gay community is calling for its right to be a part of the state and thus, also participants in the violence the state enacts against disadvantaged members in society and against members in their own communities.
As the mainstream lesbian and gay community continues to fight for its place in
heteronormative culture, and continue to emphasize its normative and assimilative tendencies, it further solidifies the divisions within LGBT/Q communities. Mainstream groups argue they should be recognized and given citizenship rights and not relegated to being second-class citizens; while simultaneously, they offer up non-normative members of society as stand ins of “bad citizens” or “undesirable others” to help sell gay marriage to the general public. These “others” can then be positioned as bad for and dangerous to heteronormative society and a drain on state resources and mainstream lesbians and gay are seen as respectable citizens by
comparison. The fight for gay marriage has conspired with neoliberal ideologies, because it is ultimately a battle that reinforces the social order, instead of challenging, subverting, or deconstructing it. Once the right kind of sexual minorities (i.e., monogamous, cisgender, class
mobile, white, gender normative) are admitted into state institutions, these institutions can then use the newly admitted gay subjects as evidence that equality has been achieved, thus effectively dismissing larger concerns about the rights of those who remain marginalized and subjugated. The inclusion of the gay community under the terms of individual rights can then be utilized by the state to demonstrate an enlightened, modern, civilized, liberal, and democratic society that can be deployed against other nation-states, which I will further discuss in subsequent chapters. Once these gay subjects and now gay citizens are admitted into social institutions, they are able to corroborate in the marginalization of others (both queers and heterosexuals), so the state no longer has to.
These cultural transformations are not only happening on the level of nation-states, but as I have demonstrated, gay marriage is now a cultural marker for those who want to claim being “progressive” against those who are “backwards” and occurs with politicians, corporate leaders, and individuals. The media and gay marriage activists have positioned the debate as a cultural turning point in the U.S., often posing the question: “which side of history do you want to be on?” (Jeske 2016, Toobin 2015, Vagins 2009). This framing of the debate is crucial, because it establishes gay marriage not only as one of the cultural wars, but also because this rhetoric alludes to something larger. By positioning the debate about gay marriage as a historical turning point, this discourse asks a deeper question: what type of person are you? Therefore, I argue that the cultural shift in accepting same-sex marriage had much less to do with the public carrying if people did not receive the federal benefits associated with marriage, but more on the symbolic meaning the debate took on in our society.
I argue that this cultural shift is happening because it is in their best interest to seem gay- friendly, since it is good for their public image. Moreover, as gay rights became one of the
cultural wars in the U.S., people did not want to be caught on the wrong side of history. What the discourse of the marriage battle (and ultimately the legalization of gay marriage) has done is produce neoliberal subjects who can now be constructed, controlled, and deployed by the state. By fighting for marriage rights, the mainstream gay community has proven its members are good citizens and good subjects who embody not only the rules of heteronormative society, but who also embody stable identities that are easily understood, categorized, and digestible. It is through this creation of the stable (gay) identity that the new homonormative gay subject is produced and becomes a tool of state power.
My goal is not to criticize those in LGBT/Q communities who choose to get married, rather I hope to get people engaged in a dialogue and reflect on what these political and cultural shifts mean within the context of neoliberalism. While there have been (and continue to be) many scholars who debate the legality of gay marriage and trace the arguments from both sides, that is not my point here. My argument shows how mainstream lesbian and gay communities