|
Author
|
Topic: LGBT activists too focused on marriage, coalition says
|
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 29 July 2006 11:48 AM
Thanks for starting this thread, spatriator. quote:
From the coalition's statement:
(Conservatives') opposition to same-sex marriage is only one part of a broader pro-marriage, “family values” agenda that includes abstinence-only sex education, stringent divorce laws, coercive marriage promotion policies directed toward women on welfare, and attacks on reproductive freedom.
As an out queer for many many years, I've never been an active supporter of SSM. I figure I am by default, if it ever came to a vote in a referendum, but politically, no. I'm pleased to see the work this group is trying to do, reminiscent of the early radical queer movement: not asking for space at the table (the acceptance / tolerance route) but demanding that society revisit values like family, love, sexuality, etc (the more radical or revolutionary route). Many people, queer and not, are single, or live alone, and do not have or aspire to have anything that resembles what is currently defined as family. Where are the supports and structures? As long as certain queers and their allies insist on framing the debate as either you're for SSM or you're a bigot, we can't move forward into a truly more welcoming society. This is something that has been enforced on babble and I've been reluctant to voice my objection for a number of reasons. The link to the executive summary, as well as the actual statement, including where you can sign on your support is here at BeyondMarriage.org One a non-funny note, I read the post-Pride Xtra and, right on schedule was a letter from an angry gay man, incensed at the nudity ("There were children present!") in the latest Pride parade. Many of us don't buy into the "we're just like everybody else" routine, because we can't, because we aren't, or because we don't want to. It's a tremendously flawed political strategy.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 29 July 2006 12:08 PM
The rallying point to unite the right is what SSM stands for, and in the Canadian context perhaps the right needed to be united, what with the Reform fiasco and the Liberals being indistinguishable from the Cons and all. I don't give a shit why the right uses this as a way to unite themselves. If SSM was dismantled, we can be assured that they'd find some other urgent pressing issue to bring to the Canadian public (I'm thinking legalizing capital punishment again and the "tough on crime" bullshit is waiting in the wings). This still should not silence us into playing into their hands and letting them frame the debate. "SSM is good!" "No, SSM is the tool of the devil!". I find the tactics similar to the pro-life lobby, letting them frame the debate so we're always being reactive rather than proactive. I also don't buy into the "there are other groups facing worse discrimination" argument, though I do happen to agree with the statement. There's no reason we can't fight on numerous fronts, and not pit groups against each other. Many of us belong to different groups and we can be allies together, and fight racism and sexism as we fight against homophobia. The short lived group "Glamourous Outcasts" is one example (if they're still around I'd love to know it) [ 29 July 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spatrioter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2299
|
posted 29 July 2006 03:23 PM
Sadly, the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario appears to be one of the few mainstream queer organizations left that advocates a liberationist (not assimilationist) approach.In 2002, they published a backgrounder called "The state has no business in the marriages of the nation":
quote:
Marriage should not be a relationship that is legislated at all by the government. Marriage should be a purely religious ceremony with no legal implications. It should no longer be given special status or legal privileges. We prefer a system be evolved based on the individual as the core unit, with allowance for support of others (such as children).
Even the 2001 Law Commission report that mainstream gay groups touted as an argument in favour of same-sex marriage, actually took a more radical approach to relationship recognition:
quote:
The Law Commission has argued that governments have tended to rely too heavily on conjugal relationships in accomplishing what are otherwise important state objectives. Focusing only on spousal or conjugal relationships is simply not the best way to promote the state's interests in close personal relationships since it excludes other relationships that are also important.
From: Trinity-Spadina | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062
|
posted 29 July 2006 06:40 PM
As so many comedians have pointed out, 'why not allow SSM? Why should hetrosexuals be the only miserable ones?'Personally i find the whole concept a crock and it smacks of ownership far more than commitment. As evidenced by all the 'mid-life' divorces. Historically, a major reason the whole concept of marriage was developed into an institution in the first place was as a means of social control. The church used both marriage and baptisom to gain dominion over the souls of the congregate. And the state, not to be outdone, saw an opportunity to also impose its will upon the commounity as a whole with its record keeping and tax gathering data on constituted a ligitimate birth, marriage, divorce and even death.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
