- Opinion
- 09 Sep 10
Certain gay commentators have expressed surprise at the wave of support for same sex marriage. But, says our columnist, gay relationships are of equal value to heterosexual partnerships
Before thousands marched (yet again) in the streets of Dublin for Marriage Equality last Sunday, the redoubtable Suzy Byrne contributed a passionate broadside against the consensus in LGBT circles in support of gay marriage on the women's blog The Anti-Room (url.ie/78o6). She is mystified by the enthusiasm that the second wave of feminists is displaying in support of the institution that has been so anti-women for so long. Marriage, Byrne reminds us, has “previously barred women from employment, excluded them from claiming social welfare, was a reason to pay them less, and... was considered permission for rape until the early 1990s”. She wonders about the phenomenon of women losing their identity when they get married, and of somehow being seen as less valuable in society if they don't. She doesn't use the phrase, but the gist of her article is that she believes that feminists who are actively seeking to be included in the institution of marriage are like turkeys voting for Christmas.
One of the most valuable dimensions about being a gay man, in my opinion, is the engagement it offers with gay/lesbian women on an intellectual/political plane. Unencumbered by any desire on each other's part to objectify or sexualise or romanticise each other, there's a spaciousness in the discourse that I find invigorating, and a respect for each other as individuals. If heterosexuality at its best brings about a respect between the sexes, based on an acknowledgment of mutual attraction and need, homosexuality can engender a respect between the sexes that is valuable precisely because there is no erotic or relational pay-off, other than a humanist/political/philosophical appreciation that we tread similar, but parallel paths through life, on either side of the (ever-shifting) axis of gender. It's as if the tragi-comic influence of sexuality is removed, allowing us to see each other clearly. And there's no When Harry Met Sally-like denial or sublimation or rejection of physical attraction – it just isn't there to begin with. Great recipe for friendship, I find.
We can also observe each other clearly, in the way we relate and date. Without an agenda. One has only to take the issue of one-night stands to get a glimpse of how different we are as men and women. I have lost count of the number of women, of all orientations, but in particular lesbians, who have surprised me with the confession that they have never had a one-night-stand. These have been what I have considered to be women of the world, without any reactionary or religious or conservative impulses, who simply have not been interested enough in sex on its own to go and get it without framing it in some meaningful context of friendship or dating. I had thought that one of the main reasons that heterosexual women avoided appearing “easy” or “loose” was to avoid being judged harshly by men, falling foul of the madonna/whore polarity, but it seems that, without men, the same damning judgments are made, by women and about women.
On the other hand, with so many gay men I know, when asked the same question about one night stands, they will often confess that the last one they had didn't even last 'til breakfast. Of course, usual disclaimer: there are plenty of men I know in loving monogamous relationships with each other, and I do know of a few women who go out on the town with the express purpose of pulling and with no intention whatsoever of turning it into anything more. But they are exceptions, in the world I live in. Whether by nature or nurture, it appears to me that men and women view sex and relationships very differently.
If the concerns about women embracing marriage are to be deconstructed, it seems that issues of identity come to the fore – the fear of losing a distinct sense of individuality and separateness, of becoming invisible, of merging into a state of ownership/coupledom, of becoming a possession. The societal pressure for women to seek validation and worth through marriage will only increase if it is extended to include same-sex partners. The single gay woman could find it increasingly problematic because she may well find herself marginalised in a future lesbian subculture that embraces marriage as its cornerstone. I have seen that judgmentalism and marginalisation at work in pre-civil-partnership Ireland, and it's not a pretty sight.
From a male perspective, however, the view is very different. Gay men are still just as crap about talking about relationships as their heterosexual comrades, in my experience. We still lack the emotional literacy to negotiate stormy relationship weather, we seem sometimes to be stuck in a perpetual rollercoaster ride, jumping off at the first lurch. Very few of the long-term male partnerships that are around choose to continue to socialise in what is, in effect, a cruisy singles scene. They're better off moving away from the scene and doing the country-living/dinner party thing, because gay male subculture offers endless hedonistic temptation that few male couples can negotiate healthily and openly. Gay men often see a wedding ring on a man as a challenge, not as a “keep away” sign. Men are dogs.
For all the dangers inherent in transforming a loving couple into a social institution, in turning a private life into something that becomes the business of the State, there are advantages too. Especially for men, who often have to be persuaded into relationship, and only afterwards see its worth in terms of security and peace of mind. For every gay woman who finds herself immersed in a relationship and who struggles to define herself and her needs outside of it, there is a gay man who is single and sick of the cruising game and would welcome the chance to explore building a relationship and/or family, if he could find a man willing to even start a discussion about it, but preferably not before breakfast.
I, of course, supported the right to divorce in Ireland, and there is a certain irony in having done so to then wish to expand marriage as an institution. But for me, the main reason is one of equality. As Judge Walker's eloquent judgment in California recently stated, when he threw out the voter-approved ban on gay marriage there, Prop 8, “the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine ... the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.”
They are not. Our relationships are of equal value, because we as individuals are of equal value. The fact that they are not seen as equal at the moment in the eyes of the law pains me. I can't wait for the day when Suzy Byrne and I can make our observations about how marriage, sex and relationships affect the genders differently, from a position of full equality and respect. I'd wish for Suzy that her declaration that she's “not the marrying kind” was a reflection of a real choice that she had, and not merely a rhetorical point.