Steve Lavoie ’07

Before I begin, I wish to preface this article by stating that I support the dismantling of all institutionalized discrimination, and that every person should enjoy the fundamental liberties of egalitarian society.

The fight for equal rights for gay and lesbian persons has recently become centered on the topic of gay marriage. Doubtless, there are other topics that are also central to the gay rights agenda, but it seems that gay marriage is now the focal point, the core of a discursive center that is becoming less critical of itself and consequently, parochial and facile. The gay rights discourse is shifting in such a way that normative structures are in a position to become strengthened, not weakened.

This is not to say, however, that the marriage norm will not be transmuted to include members of the gay and lesbian communities. Given the recent progress of the gay rights movements with respect to gay marriage, it is certain that the institution of marriage will undergo some change; but the changes that are evolving, particularly those that have yet to evolve, may only further marginalize those who are left outside of the societal norm.

Sexuality has been defined so that it is already thought of in terms of marriage (within it or outside of it) and marriage is thought of as a—if not the—legitimizing praxis of sexuality. By embracing marriage as an instrument of sexual legitimacy, do we not categorize that which falls outside of it as sexually illegitimate? Within the framework of the current debate over gay marriage, those normal couples seeking to be married can be looking toward a time of future legitimacy, but the framework that is being used to fight for the right to marry, to be legitimized, is also working to eliminate the possibility that legitimacy could be conferred on other types sexual relationships (i.e., those which fall outside the normative two-person relationship). This elimination comes as a result of the narrow lens of the gay marriage movement, which is inherently constricting sexual options and deciding what will be included in the norm.

The gay rights movement has made a considerable effort in recent years to distance itself from that which falls in the realm of the sexually perverse, and to make it known that many of the same sex couples wishing to be married are no different than any other American family—they have children, help their neighbors, go to PTA meetings, are involved with their local religious center, and most certainly, they are people who do not flaunt their sexuality, nor is their exterior sexual image one that would be perceived as perverse (‘They are really just like you’). Moreover, they will argue that their sexuality does not define them—that they embody a more elevated gay identity, one purportedly not defined by sex.

Certainly, one will point out that flaunting sexuality and displaying perverse sexual traits brings shame to heterosexual couples as well—our society does not want hyper-sexualized displays. Of course, this is what marriage censures. In the normative sense, marriage bespeaks stability and is a social beacon, signaling that one has grown-up. Marriage is the structure that signifies that you are legitimate—you have put your hyper-sexualized self in the past and you are ready to be part of a mature society. The very nature of marriage then is to constrict sexual possibility and define what is sexually intelligible. Given the sexual stereotypes of promiscuity, perversion and deviance attached to gay and lesbian communities, it is doubtless that members of those communities are seeking marriage as the method by which to legitimize their relationships, not in the sense of simply wanting recognition of a loving partnership, but rather to signal to society that many in the gay and lesbian community are not sexually perverse.

The intention of the gay marriage movement is dubious. This movement is something that has, at its center, a conservative element that seeks to constrict the discourse of sexual intelligibility in order to indicate that “I am not like the rest of them,” and that “I want to lead a normal life.” Does this then signal a fracturing within the gay and lesbian communities? Is it an affront to the efforts of those who, using their sexualized selves, fought to achieve the level of open-mindedness these communities enjoy today? It is distressing to think that groups of people who have fought to secure a basic recognition of sexual possibility may now be foreclosed upon because some within wish to distance themselves from sexuality.

One may argue that I am absurd, that the gay marriage agenda certainly could not be malevolent, and that I have completely missed the point. However, I do recognize the conspicuous disenfranchisement that gay marriage urgently seeks to mitigate. Indeed, equality within the law is central to the objective of gay marriage, and I am not discounting the importance of those gains. However, these objectives (broadcasting an apparently innocuous and principled goal) are precisely that which obscure the issue of sexual foreclosure and that which has reduced the gay marriage movement to a most facile state. What is needed is a politics of marriage that includes a critical perspective, one that is mindful the consequences of its goals, which should incorporate more complex and inclusive ideas of sexuality—ideas that are less about being normal and more about being queer.

Mikey Velarde ‘09

Let me begin by stating that this article does not even come close to scratching the surface of the myriad issues surrounding queer immigration, especially regarding how it factors in to the so-called immigration “debate.” (In fact, the term “queer immigration” is perhaps misleading.) What I’d like to do here is briefly sketch over some rudimentary ideas and concerns that I hope will generate a larger discussion within activist circles and intellectual conversations.

Taking a queer perspective allows us to actively and radically critique the normative, hegemonic ideas underpinning anti-immigration legislation and attitudes. In trying to “undermine the idea of sexual identities and orientation,”—going beyond traditional notions of gay, lesbian and heterosexual identities—queer perspectives focusing on immigration and border issues have the potential to denaturalize restrictive and deadly state projects and actions like border militarization.

However, a queer stance goes further than critiquing policy. Queer scholarship can illuminate the dialectic between sexuality and “citizenship” or “nation” by detailing how it forms and defines and is itself formed and defined constitutively by dominant, normative conceptions of these terms. Queer scholarship can thereby expand these notions in radical ways, noting the power relations behind it all.

One principle concern is that the state, by attempting to regulate the demography and quantity of who enters legally and subsequently “illegally,” effectively regulates identities. Although constrained (or perhaps liberated?) in some ways by the needs of global capitalism , and other powerful social forces, at least with regards to the U.S., the state has—from its infancy to the present—implemented policy that excludes all those it perceives of as “undesirable.” This entails not only the poor, women, people of color, and its political adversaries to name a few, but gays, lesbians, and all those who do not adhere sexually or in any other way to its standards. In regards to GLBTQ persons, United States policy thereby tries to “incorporate immigrants into hegemonic nationalist identities and projects” that reject sexually deviant or, again, “‘undesirable’ acts or outcomes.”

Beyond all the jargon and theory, we may be inspired to engage in immigration-related activism by noting three facts: According to a Lambda Legal pamphlet: “U.S. immigration law does not recognize same-sex relationships, and, as a result, same-sex spouses or partners are not eligible for immigration benefits.” This may not be surprising, but it certainly rarely factors in to the immigration “debate.” Furthermore, as a recent court case demonstrates, asylum is rarely granted or even considered on the basis of oppression due to one’s sexual orientation. In order to be granted asylum, in general, an individual must “demonstrate past persecution or well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular group, which now includes homosexuals.” Lastly, I would like to point out the somewhat obscure fact that the U.S. removed its ban on lesbian and gay immigrants in 1990.

Amidst a hailstorm of anti-immigrant sentiment, we too are feeling the sting. And as May Day (now operating as an immigrant rights day of action in the U.S.) arrives, not only should we push for more “comprehensive immigration” legislation, we should strive to thoroughly interrogate all its normative assumptions. We need to link up with grassroots organizations representing peoples deemed “undesirable.” We need to be out there on the streets, together in the multitude, demanding justice—not simply in the form of “policy,” but in the form of something entirely more profound.

Will Nyasha Zichawo ’10

Vassar’s Eating Disorder Reachout Service (EDRS) recently screened the documentary Do I Look Fat: A Documentary on Gay Men, Body Image, and Eating Disorders. Profiling the lives of eight gay men, whose backgrounds and age ranges varied widely, the documentary dealt with issues of eating disorders and distorted body image, internalized homophobia, substance abuse, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Having never have seriously considered how, as a gay male, image is an automatically integral part of my existence, this documentary made me realize how profound the focus on body image and appearance are in the gay community. The idealized form of male attractiveness is found frequently in depictions of gay men in popular culture, including pornography, fashion and gay-centric magazines. This prototypical gay may is either the über-thin, toned guy or the hyper-muscled, gym frequenting guy; there is no middle ground. Holding onto these physical forms as paramount forces gay men to cheat ourselves by not appreciating our natural body forms which may, for all intents and purposes, suit us best and actually make us genuinely sexy, as opposed to what the latest heavily edited cover of Out Magazine portrays as being desirable.

This is not meant to disparage men who care for their health and fitness by eating properly and working out; I simply take issue with the obsession with looking ‘good’ (i.e thin) that then leads to eating disorders and low self-esteem, even leading to promiscuity and sexually transmitted diseases. I would like to think there is more to life than starving oneself, abusing substances, or obsessing over how our bodies are acceptable to the gay community or to society in general. In Do I Look Fat, a psychologist marveled at how he had never encountered a gay male who was entirely satisfied with his body; there was always more weight to be lost or more muscle to be gained, all in pursuit of an elusive goal that is both unrealistic in its depiction and unfulfilling in its attainment.

So what’s the alternative, inquiring minds may ask. How about not measuring our worth as gay men and women by how many pounds we lose or gain or who we take to our room at night, but by applying our intellects and emotions to truly go beyond the superficial and explore what really makes us happy—to consider what matters versus what does not. Having the faculties of mind and the privilege, especially here at Vassar, to be fully out and unafraid of what some homophobe might do to you with a baseball bat on the street corner, it is imperative for us to use this opportunity to go beyond just merely existing.

Sure, these issues of body image are found in the heterosexual world as well, though in different manifestations. However, we find ourselves at a crossroad, with a world increasingly open to acceptance of homosexuality pitted against an older generation of policymakers who seek to restrict our rights in any way they can. What will our response be? To fight for equal rights and recognition or a continued myopic preoccupation with body “improvement” that, in the end, is trivial and unfulfilling?

Evan Casper-Futterman ‘07

As many national political issues are wont to do, it seems that the debate on gay marriage in the United States has become rather monolithic—as if to suggest that it is the universal and uncontested desire of all gays and lesbians to share equally in the institution of marriage. On March 29th, the Queer Coalition of Vassar College screened the film Homotopia, which presents a strong critique of the gay marriage movement as it currently manifests itself on the political landscape of the United States.

Depicting a very traditional-looking white middle class gay wedding reception—interrupted by a strike team of young gay and transgender men, drag queens, and lesbians throwing water balloons and knocking over trays of drinks and snacks—the film and the filmmakers encourage us to re-evaluate how we think about gay marriage because of the post-colonial perspective they employ. Their critique is that the current gay marriage movement co-opts queer identities into discourses of middle class consumerism and mainstream patriotism. While I don’t believe that marriage—regardless of the sexualities of the individuals involved—is inherently middle class or materialistic, the filmmakers’ point is timely and deserves more attention.

In addition to challenging my own views on the issue of gay marriage, the movie went further and challenged my relationship with straight marriage as well. Previously, I had decided to forgo marriage in order to achieve solidarity with gay and lesbian couples that do not have that privilege of choice. Presently, I understand my own choice as one that is also relevant to other heterosexuals. And why not? As the movement for gay marriage brings “the American family” into the political spotlight, would it not behoove straight people, as the principal consumers of marriage, to consider our relationship to it, as well as with each other?

The involvement of those directly implicated in the issue at hand—in this case, heterosexual couples with the privilege of marriage—can provoke rapid and profound changes in any social movement. Other than simply offering themselves as allies of gay activism, heterosexuals would do well to take cues from the creativity that many queer, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists have brought to the issue of marriage over the past decades in order to push the debate around marriage beyond its current simplicity. The current public discussions surrounding marriage and the family in the United States could allow for significantly broader changes than the simple inclusion of same-sex couples into the institution of marriage—if heterosexuals dared to think as creatively as their homosexual activist counterparts.

It would not be unprecedented, either. Heterosexual couples have historically demonstrated a transformational impulse when it comes to marriage: The realization comes to us that heterosexuals transformed the institution of marriage from one exclusively of economic security and class status into one of two individuals who are in love.

Yet the heterosexual impulse and innovative imagination has been silent for the last few centuries. I fear we have become too complacent with a marred and inferior institution. So as long as we’re on the subject of imagination, I have my own idea for a movie—I think I’ll call it Heterotopia. We see panic and terror in the American heartland—“family values” country—and Fox News running the emergency broadcast system as the nuclear patriarchal normative “family” threatens to collapse.

This crisis of “the American family,” so long a fear of the conservative Christians is, in my movie, brought about not from allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, but rather because marriages have ceased outright. Hundreds of thousands of straight couples across the nation relinquish their privilege to marry because they view their own marriages as less sacred considering the historically violent and presently exclusive boundaries of the institution.

They would not be doing this out of a sense of “guilt.” Rather, quite the opposite: It would be an action taken because of an abundance of innocence. It is innocence that is the driving force allowing a heterosexual couple to accept their privilege of marriage without understanding its direct connection to the exclusion of homosexual couples. The idea that a privilege such as marriage can exist justly for some while being withheld from others is as flawed as those who disputed Lincoln’s claim that our country could not survive half enslaved and half free.

“The harvest is great, but the laborers are few,” as the saying goes. Why, at this crucial moment in the history of the institution of marriage, are heterosexuals leaving the transformation to others when they could become a juggernaut in the fight for a more just and equitable family life in this country? While I don’t think my movie will be in theaters anytime soon, I believe the time has come for heterosexuals to more fully accept and engage with their enormous socio-political potential that has languished for the last few centuries. Heterosexuals must come to grips with their own innocence and re-evaluate their participation in the institution of marriage. At the urging of the queer activist community, it seems that the time has come for people of all sexual orientations to come together to think about a future beyond marriage.