Last month the state Supreme Court announced that California would give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Do you feel free now?
One would doubt it, precisely because this decision confers zero rights to same-sex couples. Since 2003, Assembly Bill 205 has required that domestic partnerships here function identically to opposite-sex marriages. Because the court's decision doesn't affect federal policy, Social Security benefits and federal tax returns will still treat same-sex couples as singles. In California, the only difference is the piece of paper.
Is that certificate liberating? Kate Kendell, who runs the National Center for Lesbian Rights, would be hard-pressed to argue that the transgender people at the Stonewall Inn fought off the police and started a movement so that today, executives could have a better return on their second homes, a stated objective of some of her plaintiffs.
A piece of paper that confers no additional liberties won't enhance the rights of lesbian, transgender, bisexual, and gay Californians. Evan Wolfson, who runs the Freedom to Marry organization in New York, says that we should stop thinking about this in terms of a piece of paper. He says it's about getting married just like anyone else. But, is getting married, just like any other opposite-sex couple, the goal of the queers? At this point in history, do we really demand the right to a boring ceremony just like any other Tom and Jane from Tulsa? Our queer radicalism has become very modest. Are San Francisco's gays so entranced by flashy things that they're blinded to the state of queer America?
For the directors of the well-funded, suit-and-tie "gay rights" organizations, it seems that marrying off people who look like them – and spend like them – is the goal. We want tax benefits. We want the ability to bequeath our homes without a tax liability. We want recognition from strangers that we're just as vanilla, and just as eligible to check a box on our 1040. We don't want to change the systems of power and exclusion – we want to be integrated within them. Race? Shhh! Class? Never mind!
The question Californians will answer this November has already been answered by over 40 other states – and every time, majorities vote against same-sex marriage. Senators Barack Obama and John McCain both oppose same-sex marriage. Let's not celebrate as the gay community celebrates the acquisition of certificates and tax breaks in Provincetown and the Castro, while violence, discrimination, and hatred against queers remains endemic outside of our little enclaves. It's time to rein in our movement's "leaders" and demand they stop fighting for the best off.
What's troubling about the marriage hubbub is how little challenge there is to it – from within queer communities. Queers need stable housing, jobs, health guarantees, and civil rights to adopt far more than they need marriage licenses. Queers want the freedom to hold hands without violent reprisals more than they want very stable, very comfortable, very exceptional queer couples in Santa Monica to have a lavish ceremony. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act hasn't passed, and even if it does, transgender people can't find a majority in Congress to prohibit discrimination against them.
The violence of discrimination, of hatred against us, is not abating as we attain greater numbers of tax breaks (or, in the case of California, as we acquire absolutely nothing other than a different piece of paper). A community that once radically challenged health policies that ignored mass death in the queer world, now asks for "recognition" in the same way George and Laura Bush are recognized on their tax return.
Our sights are aimed so very, very low, while the challenges we face rise. How did gay rights groups become consumed with acquiring the antiquated institution of marriage and husbandry? The number of new HIV cases among men who have sex with men continues to rise, as does the number of underserved AIDS patients. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us that 45 percent of Americans who need antiretrovirals don't get them. (Globally, the numbers are more like 70 percent.) Fear of being labeled "gay" or "lesbian" prevents thousands of patients, particularly black and Latino/a, from seeking treatment and testing. This is the state of the gay community. Life and (preventable) death confront hundreds of thousands of us, while the groups advocating for our "rights" stay focused on scoring a stamp for middle-aged, very secure chiropractors.
That elderly lesbians are as deserving of marriage certificates as any other couple is a no-brainer. Only bigots oppose these families. We should fight people who oppose same-sex marriage. But we should not have, nor should we continue, to prioritize symbolic "rights" of few over the broad-based advancement of the many.
The state of queer America, at any time, can be gauged by the queer furthest from power, with the fewest riches, and greatest number of challenges. When the gay rights groups start fighting, litigating, and organizing around empowering the least among us, queer rights will follow. As long as gay rights professionals stay focused on joint-checking accounts for IT executives, they should reconsider their titles. It's not "gay rights," it's "posh gay rights." It's "rights for queers who have everything they need, except for a stamp from the city clerk."
Why do queers put up with this? Why not ignore the referendum and start a fight that involves those most under attack?
J. Purcell is a graduate student and HIV counselor in the Bay Area.