Image Credit: Franco Folini via Flickr
Lisa Cholodenko is the poster child of the gay marriage rights movement. Activists and the rest of us who care will point to her new film, The Kids Are All Right, a delightfully existential portrayal of an “unconventional” urban family, as the (albeit fictional, yet easily imaginable) demonstration of the outlandish possibility of a functional non-heterosexual family unit. And there lies the catch – as far as family dynamics go, this is your typical American family, as suburban and ordinary as any. Well, except for moms. A lesbian couple, masterfully played by Julianne Moore and Annete Benning.
Now do you see it? This is what all those pro-gay marriage people have been telling you all along. Their kids are alright. It can work. It does work. So let us stop pretending that the union of a man and a woman is the only one worthy of the responsible task of caring for offspring, being legally represented, and, you know, getting those tax breaks. Let us renounce the segregation and the misguided prejudice and step in to the 21st century. Love is love, after all. The right to publicly acknowledge it should be available to everyone.
An interesting thing happened not too long ago, just as the proposition 8 frenzy was being replaced by the oil spill in the headlines. Last month the European Court for Human Rights ruled that “member states are not obliged to allow the gay marriage, despite an emerging consensus towards legal recognition of the same sex couples.” The concern, as stated in the explanation of the ruling, was that the autonomy and idiosyncrasies of the gay culture would be lost if non-heterosexual men and women would continue to pursue typical heterosexual norms.
And why would they want to assimilate with the “mainstream” norm? The history and evolution of the marriage contract is stuff nightmares are made out of. It has done nothing but fuel an obsession with virginity, female submissiveness and greed for property ownership. Centuries and centuries of marriage have been marked by the tears, blood, bruises, the broken hearts and bones of those who have dared and failed to challenge the convention. Several decades of the legalized sex equality in the developed world do nothing to erase these centuries of subjugation.
This is the very same subjugation that is still a standard for the rest of the world. Free choice and talk of love is still very much a Western ideal. Even here, in the “enlightened” world, the veneration of marriage is rapidly losing its grasp. Why are there pre-nups? Why is pretty much everyone painfully aware that fifty percent of marriages end in divorce?
Departure from this pre-established gender division may yet be the only thing that allows the institution of marriage to survive. Allowing non-heterosexual couples to enter into a marital contract could potentially blur the lines of gender roles that have dominated the society from what seems like its creation. Misogyny and homophobia are alike in that respect. Once the division between sexes is not clear and the privileged, once the club is no longer exclusive and coveted, what is there to fuel sexual oppression, bigotry and hatred?
So, again, I inquire. Why would anybody, heterosexual or not willingly participate in this antiquated ritual? Because, I, too, have dreams of a perfect wedding. I imagine beautiful dresses and a celebration of love that is shared with my loved one, my family and friends. As any homo sapiens, I long for company, validation and the support of my peers. But until the very social meaning behind the tradition of marriage changes, I will not jump to participate in it, as much as I yearn for the societal approval and equality. Sadly enough, don’t expect me to hold my breath for the day I believe the just institution of marriage will become a reality. But if it does, I will gladly change my opinion and happily don an oversized tulle dress.
