Apr 06 2006

A Movement with No Immagination Turns Racist

Published by Brian at 1:56 pm under marriage, gay_rights, human_rights

Richard Kim blogs in The Notion that the gay mainstream press has hit a new low: “If you want to see the pathologies plaguing the gay marriage movement in action, you need look no farther than this article penned by Jasmyne Cannick. Titled ‘Gays First, Then Illegals,’ Cannick’s editorial spews the kind of xenophobic rhetoric now rarely heard outside of right-wing radio and white nativist circles — unless, of course, it’s coming from the mainstream gay press.”

Cannick writes in part, “Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the LGBT civil rights movement, which has not yet realized all of its goals. Which is not to say that I don’t recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. I do. But I didn’t break the law to come into this country. This country broke the law by not recognizing and bestowing upon me my full rights as a citizen…. While I know no one wants to be viewed as a racist when it comes to immigration reform, as a lesbian I don’t want to move to the back of the bus to accommodate those who broke the law to be here.”

To which Kim replies, “Honey, if you don’t want to be viewed as a racist, then don’t write like one!” Amen, brother. As an anti-assimilationist, the gay and lesbian hew and cry for “equal rights” in marriage has never made sense to me. In the first place, who the hell needs permission from government to get married in a church (or anywhere else)?

State-sanctioned marriage is a bad idea for gays, straights and everybody else. It’s state-sanctioned prostitution: you get a permit from the government which say, OK, you two (no more, no less) can legally have sex together–and get a tax break for doing so. Fuck that! A much better idea–and one that was floated in straight circles but rejected by the “straight” gay press–is we abolish marriage as a legal arrangement altogether. No one man-one woman, no man-man, no woman-woman marriages allowed (at least not under the tax-breaking auspices of the state).

Rather, we enact legislation encouraging civil unions for any group that wants to enter into one. Call it the Domestic Incorporation Act of 2006. Sick parents who children to care for them, and who would benefit from their children’s health insurance, could enter into a civil union and receive the economic benefits currently reserved for a man and a woman married to one another. Any group of folks could enter into such an arrangement. Sex, love, procreation–all that nonsense–would have nothing to do with it. You want to make a big religious deal out of what you do with your genitalia, fine–as long as you do it on your own time and on your own dime. Don’t expect me to pay more so you married jerks can pay less. Who wants to be “equal” in a culture dominated by pathologically sadistic white males? Assimilationists, that’s who. Assimilationism is a disease that runs that has infected various “civil rights” movements for a long time–and in the past two decades has come to infect what used to be called the Gay Liberation Movement.

Liberation no more, the “movement” has been stuck on pause for a long time, marching in circles and whining for access to the sadistic status quo.

2 Responses to “A Movement with No Immagination Turns Racist”

  1. Puck » Beyond Marriageon 30 Jun 2007 at 2:09 pm

    […] last! As I discussed in a previous post, the GLBT drive for “equal” rights, the right to get married, shows an extreme lack of […]

  2. robinon 20 Mar 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Married couples usually get less of a tax deduction than two unmarried cohabitants. It’s often referred to as the “marriage penalty.” The legal advantages of getting married are: default joint property, easier access to various shared child custody arrangements, medical visitation rights and decision-making power in event of incapacitation. Everything but the child custody can be obtained fairly easily by any two people from an attorney. Where the law seems to have most power to hurt is “protecting” kids from gay parents. Which the protected tend to view as wrenching them away from beloved family. It’s a shame to spend tax dollars on that. Another key marriage benefit is shared health care benefits. And lawyers can’t make that happen for specific couples of any marital status. Same for social security if only one partner works outside the home.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Close
E-mail It