In an interview with ABC news, President Barack Obama today announced that he now supports gay marriage. That this position will likely play a key role in his upcoming re-election campaign seems pretty clear, and I seriously doubt that the timing of the revelation is any kind of coincidence.
Now, in practical terms I want to state from the beginning that, since marriage is a state-sanctioned social institution in this country, I support opening the institution of marriage to any two adults who want to enter into that relationship across the United States. For the government to allow certain adult couples to marry but not others is transparently state discrimination.
There have been numerous, thoughtful critiques of the role gay marriage has taken on in the last decade as the single, primary goal of the mainstream gay rights movement (often called the LGBTI movement these days, however let’s be clear where the focus is when it comes to this issue). For example, Sarah Schulman wrote today that the narrow focus on marriage issues represents a type of assimilationist trend in gay politics that has emerged in the wake of the AIDS crisis. She writes
In its origins, the Gay Liberation movement arose to change society, to expand rigid gender roles, to break down confining social mores of privatized families and to defy the consumerism that accompanies monogamy and nuclear family lifestyle in the United States. It stood for sexual expression based on consensual desires, and community based relationships in tandem with monogamous and non-monogamous couples.
However, the assimilation trend has rather resulted that
…instead of changing society, society changed us – and – on the surface- we now have lost a great deal of our specificity and are so recognizable to straight people that even the most powerful heterosexual in the world, Barack Obama is confidently unthreatened enough to endorse equal marriage rights.
I think these are really compelling considerations when it comes to this issue. However, there are also those that have pointed to the fact that marriage is a religious institution in the first place in which the state should play no role. Hence, the state institution we call ‘marriage’ should simply be removed and replaced with civil partnership, which of course should be open to whichever individuals want to enter into that. Personally, that makes sense to me.
So while I do in fact support gay marriage, as it is presently the only ‘game in town’ so to speak, I have reservations about that state endorsing what really is in fact a religious institution. For one thing, it seems clear to me that state marriage itself represents a violation of separation of church and state, and I think when you open the door on that one issue, it’s easy for other religious influence to enter into our political system.
But what bugs me more about this than anything though is how transparent it is in this moment that Obama has little of substance to offer to people who invested their hopes in him, and to the people across the U.S. who are struggling to get by. To me, the timing of this announcement makes clear this is little more than a re-election gimmick. And because Obama has the “courage” to say something he could have been saying all along (setting aside for the moment concerns about the institution of marriage itself) many so-called progressives will cheer him along, even as his campaign team reportedly considers launching his re-election campaign from Bank of America stadium in my birth state of North Carolina.
More than anything, this `evolution’ represents a failure to adequately deal with the gradually worsening health care problems the nation faces, a failure to evolve the nation’s foreign policy in a significantly different direction than his predecessor, a failure to reign in the military-industrial complex money hole, and a failure to reform the tax code so that the wealthiest Americans actually have to pay their share.
In the grand scheme of things, all of those issues affect queers and trans people more significantly than the gay marriage issue. And if Obama really gives in to the austerity measures that the Republicans are demanding, that will affect many far more so than the question of marriage, particularly queers and trans people of color.
And if Obama had succeeded on even one of those issues that I mentioned above, this gimmick of an evolution would be unnecessary for his campaign to have a chance in November.

9 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 10, 2012 at 7:19 pm
amber
Gay marriage is a gay issue. It has been legal in my country for some years, but it has nothing to do with me and means nothing to me. Im not gay so why would I care?
May 10, 2012 at 7:29 pm
leftytgirl
At the very least I think it would be worth caring because, well, why do you expect others to care about your issues if you refuse to care about anyone else? That’s pretty straight-forward.
Then of course, there is the point on basic principles of actually giving a shit about other human beings whose life circumstances vary from our own. It’s called ‘human empathy,’ and it’s a very positive trait.
Finally, since I am a woman who generally loves other women, it is kind of relevant to me from that perspective. That having been said, there are many issues that I consider far, far more important, including employment non-discrimination protections for all queer and trans people.
May 16, 2012 at 1:17 am
David Cicilline
Why should you care? Because the legalization of gay marriage is the same as promoting it. Since the nuclear family unit is the backbone of our American economy and society, to loosen the definition just so gays don’t get their feelings hurt, invites chaos into our system and eventually the breakdown of our society. But that’s what they want isn’t it? They hate our lifestyle because they are on the outside looking in. They want payback, not equality. They want to change society and remake it in their limited image. But of course you take the standard liberal cop-out of “I’m not gay so why should I care.” Well you should care because you’re not one of them. Anyone who is that focused on personal gratification of animal drives is dangerous and blinded by their genitalia.
May 16, 2012 at 1:26 am
leftytgirl
lol dumbfuck… we are living on an over-populated planet. Who says nature did not intentionally include homosexuality in human DNA to act as a population break? You think the gays want “payback”? What does that even mean?
And anyways, several studies have shown that some of the worst most hateful homophobes are secretly aroused by homosexual desire. I suspect you’re one of them. I bet it actually makes your dick hard to come on this board and rant about the gays and their genitalia. Have fun dreaming about it tonight, sailor.
May 16, 2012 at 1:11 am
David Cicilline
So what Sarah’s saying is that being allowed the same freedoms as other Americans is not enough? She wishes to alter the structure of American society, which the majority still support, so gays can pursue “true love?” Frankly, I’m happy with the way things are, but the 10% who grew up with gender issues and couldn’t figure out that the only scientific reason for existence is procreation are apparently not. Well we are the 95%. So good luck with changing society so you can have your selfish love. I say “selfish” because it’s all about the individuals personal feelings toward each other (which actually just stems from sexual desire) and not about creating and raising human beings to further the human race. Remember, your parents were breeders too.
May 16, 2012 at 1:19 am
leftytgirl
And you just remember this, oh heterosexual, cisgender model of human society: you just might breed one of us.
May 16, 2012 at 8:06 am
PZO
You heard it here first everybody, our orphanages aren’t full yet, we need all 10% of our gay population to start procreating else our society faces extinction! Totally not selfish!
Btw what’s 95% + 10%?
May 16, 2012 at 10:20 am
leftytgirl
95% + 10% = dumbass%
May 29, 2012 at 10:34 pm
Catharine Wethered
I’m sorry, but I have never thought of marriage as a religious institution. Not even when I was a child and was going to a baptist church. I asked my sister and she never thought of marriage as a religious act either. It never even occurred to me that marriage had anything to do with religion whatsoever until people started saying it in regards to the gay marriage argument. In our secularized culture where the irreligious and atheistic get married without any mention of religion then it seems to me that marriage is a sociological institution.