Voices

Views from elsewhere

How conservatives hijacked the gay movement

The focus on gay marriage shows how the movement has lost its teeth.

By Ray Filar Published 30 April 2012 11:16

Same-sex marriage advocates at the Sydney Mardi Gras Parade on 3 March 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

Despite some hemming and hawing from the Tory backbenches, the coalition government looks likely to - eventually - pass same-sex marriages in England and Wales into law. The “consultation” stage of the process continues until 14 June, but whatever the outcome, gay marriage is definitively on the political table. Senior Anglicans write letters in favour of it. David Cameron supports it “not despite" but "because” he is a Conservative. The Times writes openly in favour of it, as does ConservativeHome editor Tim Montgomerie.

There are also plenty of conservative opponents, of course, the odious “Coalition for Marriage” and Cardinal Keith O’Brien being among the most vocal, but every minority cause will have its detractors. There are still some people who believe in creationism (indeed, a venn diagram depicting creationism belief amongst Coalition for Marriage supporters would be illuminating).

The government’s commitment to gay marriage, in one sense, reflects a great gradual shift in public opinion. If there are equal marriage supporters amongst even those with conservative or orthodox religious inclinations, we’ve come a long way. Wonderful news, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people will finally have the rights allocated by default to those of a heterosexual persuasion! The early activists of the Gay Liberation Front would be thrilled with the progress we’ve made.

Except on this matter, they wouldn’t. The Stonewall riots in New York in 1969 have passed into legend as the catalyst for the modern Anglo-American gay liberation movement; in 2012, we’ve forgotten what the fight was originally about. The image of racially mixed drag queens, dykes and poor street queers fighting back against police brutality is about as far from the contemporary ideal of the well-off assimilationist gay as you can get. The matching Volvos and semi-detached houses of buttoned-up 21st century gay(-friendly) conservatives are representative of a different, diluted era, and rather a saddening one.

Equal rights as an end goal reflect an understandable desire for an easier life. There’s a strong logic in the idea that normalising same-sex desire entails less stigma, trauma, and violence directed towards LGBT people. But a quick search for “gay marriage” on most-read British LGBT news website Pink News returns 3617 results, compared to 1247 for “violence”, or for “poverty”, a measly 178. Make no mistake, this is not because violence or poverty have ceased to be issues for LGBT people. More likely, the coverage reflects the dominance of the interests of white, middle-class, educated, and dare I say it, conservative gays and lesbians in the movement.

The trend towards gay conservatism and assimilation into the straight, respectable mainstream was first flagged up by queer theorist Michael Warner in his 1999 book, The Trouble With Normal. Far from being about “love” or “recognition”, marriage, according to Warner, is a method of state regulation, used to expand the rule of law into the sex lives, in particular, of the unmarried. Thirteen years later, anti-normative politics within queer and trans* communities are ever more strong and sophisticated, but such radical voices go largely unheard by the LGB mainstream.

From asserting a powerful political critique of the heterosexual organisation of society - to which monogamous marriage between two people is central - the loudest, strongest sections of the gay movement have set their sights on becoming just the same. Apart from the small matter of sexual gender preference, which, they are now saying, doesn’t really make any difference whatsoever. We’re just like you, honest! Please like us!

Moreover, prioritising equal marriage as a cause has actively meant the exclusion of other important approaches. Where are the campaigns against the poisonous ideology which supports financial and political reward for those who are married? If, as is often suggested, children with two married parents are happier and “do better”, what about some research unpicking the impact that politically privileging one family model has on children’s happiness and success? How about questioning the Disney-esque ideal of life trajectory as “true love”, marriage, and happily ever after?

Dogmatic belief in the magic power of two, conveniently ignores the existence of alternative family models - cohabiting parents, non-sexual parental friendships, multiply-partnered families, familial communities. Queer relationships are invisible under such a system, but where marriage is a declining practice, these other ways of relating are burgeoning.

The “Conservative case for gay marriage” is spot on. If you want to reinvigorate social conservatism for the austerity generation, it makes sense to support equal marriage. The pity is the gay movement is buying into it. Hijacked by those we used to stand in political opposition to, today’s gay movement has lost its teeth.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Gay marriage

More from Ray Filar

View the discussion thread.

18 comments

Tue, 2012-05-08 09:54 — Jane Summerhayes (not verified)

Interesting article if looking at the value or otherwise of marriage. However, less insightful as a look at gay marriage. The bottom line is that whilst marriage exists, gay people, for purposes of equality, should be able to marry, sorry, 'assimilate'. The issue is choice. For those that believe being anti-establishment is an essential part of gay identity, there is always the option to wear pants on your head and live in a house of cheese. Gay marriage in not a complex amendment and does not preclude looking at other, more serious issues.

Sun, 2012-05-06 17:49 — Tom Hennessy (not verified)

There should be no 'question' of whether gay marriage should be allowed. We should be more interested in how to again have homosexuality included as a medical disorder.
In 1973 an ‘orchestrated criminal act’ was committed which released homosexuals from the mental health act.
In the group of psychiatrists who voted to have the ‘disorder’ of homosexuality removed from the mental health act were a group of closeted homosexuals.
In 1973 homosexuals were not ALLOWED BY LAW to be psychiatrists so they kept their homosexuality quiet / closeted homosexuals.
These closeted homosexuals had the disorder of homosexuality removed from the DSM.
The vote was against the law DUE TO the FACT they were not ALLOWED BY LAW TO VOTE.
The disorder of homosexuality MUST again be placed into the DSM because **the vote was illegal**.
There MUST be a full investigation of this situation and it can be remedied when the DSM is reworked in two years.
This ‘reworking’ MUST be undertaken by ALL doctors and EVERY doctor to have a ‘vote’.
One doctors’ license one vote. The reworking of the DSM is NOT to be undertaken by those in the ‘tainted’ groups such as the American Psychiatric Association.
In 1973 it was subverted by a group of closeted homosexuals who reworked the DSM to remove THEMSELVES from the mental health act.

“Fryer was not alone in the APA. Because homosexuals were not allowed to practice psychiatry, Fryer and others like him had to hide their sexual preference, but they began to meet informally at APA conventions, calling themselves the Gay PA.”

“81 Words ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/81_Words

Scotland conducted a sanctioned government poll which found 90% of Scots did NOT want homosexuals to be allowed to adopt children.
The government decided they wouldn't listen to democracy.

"Adoption by gay couples in Scotland was approved by MSPs in 2006 - despite
an official consultation process which showed that nearly 90 per cent of people opposed it."

"They say we're too old to care for our grandchildren': Social workers hand
brother and sister to gay men for adoption"

Tue, 2012-05-01 03:15 — John Cheese (not verified)

If everyone was honest, they would want full legal, inheritance, insurance, and will rights for all people, married, plural marriage, civil arrangement or single adults. Anything less is hypocritical...

Mon, 2012-04-30 21:07 — london man (not verified)

There is a good deal of research about how longterm relationships between men are not always monogamous, indeed Civil Partnerships were framed to allow for this with infidelity not being grounds for dissolution.

In my peer group, middle-aged gay men, in London we are mostly couples together 15 > 30 years non are physically monogamous, but in dinner party conversation we all talk about emotional loyalty.

I support marriage for those that want it, but we can play by our own rules and will.

I can't speak for lesbians, but I guess they will follow the usual model of being monogamous until Lesbian Bed Death sets in then moving on...

Tue, 2012-05-01 11:06 — Ray Filar

Interesting, thank you. I'm assuming your comment about lesbians is a joke?

Mon, 2012-04-30 14:51 — Tim Button (not verified)

Nice piece Ray. I share some of your sentiments, but I would channel them a bit differently.

Since the Stonewall Riots, we have won a certain bare level of comfort (both political and public) in our sexuality. This doesn't yet amount to equal recognition, but it does involve less outright marginalisation on grounds of sexuality alone. That fact ought to be celebrated. The legalisation of gay marriage contributes to this, and therefore seems to me to fall among the things be celebrated.

So what is to be lamented? Well, the upshot of decreased marginalisation (on grounds of sexuality alone) is a decline in empathy with other marginalised groups. To take the example you mention: in the 1960s, my being a gay man might have forced me to contemplate challenges to the very idea of a nuclear family; now it doesn't. I would have been in a more radical milieu, if for no other reason than that I would (I suppose) have been doing illegal things fairly regularly; but now, I'm not. Indeed, more than that: now I *can* fit in, if I want to; I *can* be just like you (well, almost). And so I have a level of comfort in my sexuality, that allows me a certain level of political complacency.

I guess, then, that this is what you want us to rail against: not gay marriage itself, but that the bare comfort afforded by decreased marginalisation (on grounds of sexuality alone) has bred political complacency.

I wouldn't describe that as the movement being "hijacked by those we used to stand in opposition to", but I would agree. Can I get married anyway though please? :)

Mon, 2012-04-30 16:19 — Ray Filar

I think you're saying that inclusion within dominant power structures is to be celebrated as it amounts to equal recognition. I'm saying that that we shouldn't take the fight for inclusion as the end game. It's a sop that prevents us from seeing the bigger picture.

Mon, 2012-04-30 17:44 — Tim Button (not verified)

The main purpose of my post was to offer a bit of history/genealogy, to explain why I think the phenomenon you described is not exactly a "hijacking" of the gay movement. But depending on how you read it, you aren't quite right in your summary of what I am saying (particularly if it's meant to contrast with what you are saying). What follows may seem a bit pedantic, but I think it's important.

Here's what I'm celebrating (among other things):
- the fact that same-sex couples in America will finally get some really important rights and benefits;
- the further removal of stigma;
- the creation of a society in which sexuality is less of an issue.
I'm also just really, really happy for the people getting married.

Here's what I'm not celebrating (among other things):
- deeply entrenched power structures;
- the fact that same-sex marriage is being regarded as the end-game.

So: I am not celebrating inclusion within dominant power structures *because* it amounts to equal recognition (as your way of summarising my comment might suggest). Rather: I am celebrating a joyful step towards equal recognition (namely, gay marriage); and I am doing this *in spite of* its taking place within a far-from-perfect social context, and *in spite of* the fact that it is being regarded as the end-game.

Tue, 2012-05-01 11:28 — Ray Filar

Your last paragraph seems like a fair argument. I guess what I would suggest is that equal marriage rights paradoxically don't create a society in which sexuality is less of an issue, but rather cement the systematic power of the political regulation of sex, with more people included in the "ok" crowd.

Mon, 2012-04-30 14:14 — Joe Paxton (not verified)

@Ray Filar

I'm glad you see where I am coming from.

However, I just don't understand why you think the gay community has lost its teeth, just because it is celebrating the fact that we will soon be able to have the same kind of relationships in the eyes of the state as straight people.

The kinds of relationships you refer to - multiple-partnered, non-committal etc - surely can't be supported by the state. What are you advocating, exactly - that a relationship between four people deserves the same legal recognition as one between two? It's impossible...and in my eyes it's damaging to even suggest it.

Imagine a right-wing news source that is still against gay marriage - say, the Catholic Herald - getting wind of queer theorists trying to push the debate into this arena. They would cry 'where will it end?', and rightly so - it will end up with religious and church groups rallying against gay marriage even more fervently than they do now, because they will have evidence that it's all part of a dastardly gay plan to destroy the institution of marriage from within, and obliterate the family unit. The significant majority of gay people don't want that - they just want the same rights and recognition that everyone else has.

Mon, 2012-04-30 18:18 — Michael1962 (not verified)

The gay community has lost its teeth because of all that pillow-biting.

Mon, 2012-04-30 14:14 — Joe Paxton (not verified)

@Ray Filar

I'm glad you see where I am coming from.

Mon, 2012-04-30 13:39 — Ray Filar

@joe paxton

I completely understand and sympathise with your argument. The problem, I'm suggesting, is LGB and to some extent T* acceptance of social regulation of "love and recognition" through the institution of marriage. If we buy into the idea that love and recognition can only be expressed through marriage, we miss the chance to make bigger and better changes - such as support and recognition for all different forms of relationships, at differing levels of monogamy and commitment, between all different genders and orientations of people.

Mon, 2012-04-30 13:19 — Joe Paxton (not verified)

I'm sorry Ray, but you're totally wide of the mark here.

I'm a gay 27 year old with a partner of four years, we live together, and he's the person I want to spend the rest of my life with. Having him greet when I get home from work, next to me when I wake up in the morning, and there to support me through the bad times (such as when I recently had a car crash and had to recuperate at home for six weeks) means the world to me, and one day I would love to marry him.

I don't want to do this so I can be 'normal' or 'fit in' (gay marriage is between two people of the same sex, so it'll always be something a bit out-of-the-ordinary to most people anyway). I want to marry him because I love him, and I want us to be recognised by everyone as such - as partners for life. I want to be able to call him my husband, rather than partner or boyfriend. It just feels right.

I really don't understand why you and others in the LGBT community are rallying against this sea-change in society's attitude. I, for one, am delighted that it is happening. Twenty or thirty years ago, I would have to live with the fact that our love would never be recognised by the state as being equal to that of a straight couple. Now, there's a real chance that pretty soon that won't be the case - brilliant!

We've won anti-discrimination rights, we've won an equal age of consent, and we've won equal legal rights. This is the final chapter in our journey towards absolute equality, and it's something everyone should be celebrating from the rooftops.

Mon, 2012-04-30 18:24 — soberirishguy (not verified)

Hi joe

I think you're missing the point. this is a fight for equality for all not for a fight for marriage. it's a step in the right direction yes but as one other person pointed out most straight couples don't marry any more. LGBT fight for equality has always focused on people being able to live how they want and not have to conform to a standard.

what's wrong with people wanting to have multiple partners with who they are in love?
your opinion may be that love can only be expressed between two people in a monogamous relationship but not everyone believes that and you are propagating the same biases used against gay people for decades! just because it's not normal for you means that it shouldn't be allowed or fought for?

it's also not an exclusive LGBT issue. there are some straight people/cultures that do have polygamy. why should they be not allowed to express their beliefs? just because the standard is a couple? the past is littered with many instances of these types of relationship and none of them are inherently wrong. as it is with fully knowledgeable and consenting people what does it matter?

Wed, 2012-05-02 23:13 — Damien (not verified)

Having multiple partners and all other forms of equality that you're after are not "gay" issues though, they're issues you share with all non-monogamous couples/ groups etc.

So it's not an issue of gay equality, it's a political fight that is separate to it. In actual fact the case is that the demand for gay equality was hi-jacked by other associated underground causes. And is now resented by those seeking those other changes because they've lost political clout because being gay is no longer underground.

Mon, 2012-04-30 13:14 — DMyers

An interesting piece, and there is much in there which I agree with. However, I think Ray misses the point. The simple fact of the existence of marriage equality, when it eventually arrives, does not mean that everyone is going to suddenly go out and have a Big Fat Gay Wedding. It'll probably be quite the opposite, in fact. As you say, not every heterosexual couple get married, and this is declining over the long-term. It follows, then, that same-sex couples will probably shun the institution to the same extent. But the important thing is that it will be available should couples wish to get married, and that can only be a good thing.