Posted May 4, 2009
I just came across a post on one of my favorite feminist blogs, www.feministing.com, discussing how the New Hampshire state legislature passed same sex marriage and voted down a bill on transgender rights on the same day.
I fully support same sex marriage, but I think in some ways, the behavior of the New Hampshire state legislature — voting same sex marriage up and trans rights down — is consistent.
I am convinced that the vast majority of pro-gay marriage folks who came out for the prop 8 demos want to support a pro-queer, anti-racist movement for justice.
However, I think the New Hampshire case suggests that those of us who want a truly just world should make sure that the same sex marriage movement is opening up possibilities for further social change (ie universal health care, respect for transgender people) rather than closing them.
A case in point: I just came across an old (2003) report from the Brookings Institution — a liberal thinktank — discussing “behavior based strategies for combating poverty.”
According to Brookings, in order to avoid poverty, “the youngest generation” should “delay childbearing until marriage [and] work full-time to support any children they chose to bear outside marriage.”
Huh? I guess poor women’s decision not to marry is the source of their poverty, not this country’s dysfunctional health care system, crumbling public schools or lack of good jobs.
In any case, this is an example of how marriage can be used punitively against poor women who have sex with men, and we need to find a way to make sure the same sex marriage movement takes this into account.
What do other people think about this? Can we have a sex marriage movement that takes into account the lives of trans people and poor people in a substantial way? Or should we just focus on winning gay marriage and then move on to the next thing?
Comments
One response to “New Hampshire State Legislature: Pro Same Sex Marriage// Anti-Trans Rights”
I just saw this New York Times article, which discusses — among other things — some gay activists’ frustrations that Obama isn’t supporting a gay human rights agenda as fully as they anticipated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&hp
But ultimately the tone of the article takes a more generous perspective towards Obama, implying that he is trying to build consensus before imposing big changes (like open support of gay marriage or gay supreme court appointments). He is also meeting with the top dogs of the gay marriage movement (Human Rights Campaign) who come off as pretty pleased with the new president in the article.
On that note, the article also points out that Obama is “the first president to set aside tickets for gay families to attend the White House Easter Egg Roll.”