Yes, boys, it seems as though someone has taken an uncharacteristically Foucauldian/poststructuralist stance on the matter–unusual for a Brit, since they all seem so keen on materialist/Marxist philosophy.
(Um, sorry. That’s just my years of highfalutin’ grad school jargon coming out. Sometimes I slip. I’ll keep it to a minimum.)
I mean, I understand what he’s trying to say: historically, marriage has been a sort of institutionalized inequity, so if queer politics are about reshaping norms and ideas of what’s acceptable and getting rid of social inequity, why adopt marriage as one of the planks in our platform? Unfortunately, that sort of philosophy falls on some very hard rocks in the face of legalities that prevent g/l/b/t partners from securing inheritances, visitation rights, and countless other benefits that legally joined partners enjoy (except, of course, in the great state of Vermont). And yeah, people who prefer triads or quadruple relationships should have those rights, too. Ultimately, the point is that “marriage” or some sort of legal union is beneficial for partners who’ve chosen to share life, love, a house, and the good china. Just because marriage hasn’t always been fair doesn’t mean we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Oh, politics, schmolitics. This makes my early-morning head hurt. Follow Sparky‘s lead and read the new issue of Handbag. It’s British, too, just to keep the Anglocentric thing going.
sturtle [dot] com 