The sky is falling

beer in hailstones
Originally uploaded by michelle and heather.

There was a hail storm tonight as we drove home in the dark. It was incredibly heavy and quite frightening. Emma and David were in the car with us. In the few minutes it took to get home, park the car, and get inside, the back verandah was covered with hail pellets.
Who would've though I could skid in ice on my back deck in Brisbane?

Within minutes, our back deck looked like this (well, David added the beer; unfortunately it didn't come from the sky).

Marriage and liberation, part two

When I told an acquaintance about the impending nuptials, she said she didn’t believe in marriage because it's a sexist institution that represses women. Oh, and congratulations, by the way.

I’ve been thinking about this view a bit lately. I’m wondering if it’s possible for an institution to be innately sexist. Along with looking up definitions of ‘institution’, I’ve been trying to walk backwards in my mind, back to my long-ago undergraduate days when I did a course called 'Institutions in Australian Society'. I haven’t been terribly successful, so if anyone can help me out here I’d appreciate it.

I have a whole range of questions percolating in my brain. What I’m wondering is this: do institutions reflect the society which produces them, or do they help to shape that society? Or is it a complex, two-way process? Doesn’t marriage change over time, as society changes? Can we still say that marriage is a sexist institution? And what if two girls get married?

Marriage and liberation, part one

I’ve been reading a book edited by Andrew Sullivan, Same-Sex Marriages, Pro and Con: a Reader (New York: Vintage, 1997). It’s got some interesting info about the history of same-sex marriages in Chinese, African and Native American cultures. It also has more recent debates from left- and right-wing commentators.

Yesterday I was reading Paula Ettelbrick’s article ‘Since When is Marriage a Path to Liberation?’ (118). Ettelbrick, like many feminist commentators, does not see the push for marriage as a constructive goal, but rather as a potentially destructive one. She suggests that ‘marriage will not liberate us as lesbians and gay men. In fact, it will constrain us, make us more invisible, force our assimilation into the mainstream, and undermine the goals of gay liberation’ (119). Ettelbrick believes that what we should be seeking is a society more accepting of diverse relationships and families, not one centred on a normalising force which relies on the distinction between the married and unmarried. One of the effects of gay marriage, she suggests, would be to ‘further outlaw all gay and lesbian sex that is not performed in the marital context ... Lesbians and gay men who do not seek the state’s stamp of approval would clearly face increased sexual oppression’ (121).

To my way of thinking, this argument fails to see how truly radical gay marriage is. Acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage would necessarily involve a greater acceptance of non-traditional family structures. The societal distinction between married and unmarried is of less and less importance in recent times. In my experience, gays and lesbians do not seek marriage in order to be part of an esteemed social order (the ‘married’), we seek it because it is a fundamental civil right, and because it formalises an expression of emotional commitment. The idea that unmarried queers would be even further marginalised does not hold a great deal of weight, for in sanctioning gay and lesbian marriage, the state tacitly (or openly) sanctions gay and lesbian relationships – if this were not so, there would be far less political and religious opposition to the issue of same-sex marriage. If same-sex marriage were legalised, this acceptance – and its trickledown effect within broader communities – would not only extend to married couples, but to all gay and lesbian people.

I don't see how this could not be the case. I have more to say on this issue ... but I'll save it for the next post.