You May Now Kiss The Groom (Or Not)

“Because of the diverse conditions of humans, it happens that some acts are virtuous to some people, as appropriate and suitable to them, while the same acts are immoral for others, as inappropriate to them.”
—Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae

Recently I have seen an increase in the number of rainbow flag banners in other blogs, which indicate that the blog’s author is in support of gay marriage. So I pondered, rather briefly, adding it to mine, and decided against doing so. However, as a gay man with liberal political beliefs, and someone who fancies himself a queer theorist on his social networking profiles, I felt that I should at least offer up some small explanation as to why the rainbow flag banner does not grace my blog with its presence.

It seriously warms my heart to see that banner on other blogs, because it means that the individual in question supports, on some level, at least, tolerance and acceptance of homosexual unions for those who actually want it. And, yes, I do agree with such writers on the subject as Michelangelo Signorile or even (and I cannot believe I am writing this) Mr. Andrew The Far Right Conservative Talking Head Of The Gay Community Who Advocates Monogamy And Chastity And Leads A Secret Life Of Barebacking Sex Parties Sullivan, and his view on this topic only, who think that any positive movement toward the legalization of gay marriage is a good thing. But I am rather indifferent on the topic, personally. Yes, it is a good thing, because symbolically the legalization of gay marriage would represent a positive change in the social mores of our lovely “United” States of America in 2004. But at the same time, wouldn’t we also be losing just a little bit of what makes us “queer” in the first place?

queer (kwîr) adj. queer·er, queer·est
[1] Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
[2] Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric.

Exactly what about the act of marriage is “queer”? Not to shit on the concept of a heterosexual union, but what is it about queers, besides the symbolic elevation of social tolerance I mentioned earlier, that makes us want to be just like the straight people, and have our own little ceremony, and get our nice little marriage certificate, just like the “normal” people? Is it because we are jealous that we cannot marry, as well? Is it because we think that little certificate makes the relationship with the other person somehow more special, more lasting? Is it because we want the same tax breaks that heterosexual married couples enjoy? Or is it just that we want to be seen as more “normal”? And if so, why?

In college I wrote a tome entitled “You May Now Kiss The Groom: A Study of Homosexuality, Social Tolerance, and Christianity in the Middle Ages” for a history lecture called “The Making of Europe”. The paper focused primarily on homosexuality, homosexual unions, and the shifting social tolerance toward each during the early and high middle ages, and Christianity’s influence of such tolerance. I focused primarily on the work of John Boswell, late historian at Yale, and one of his observations that struck me most deeply was that, “[...] same-sex unions among men might easily co-exist because they didn’t compete with marriage; they bound individuals only, not families, dynasties, or landholdings. Heterosexual marriages usually took place outside, since they were generally business arrangements and involved exchanges of land and money, whereas the same-sex ceremony occurred indoors, since it was about love and companionship.” And so I think it’s rather ironic that most traditional heterosexual unions are now held where? Indoors. Do we really want to be assimilated into a tradition that was essentially co-opted from us in the first place?

We want the right to marry, ostensibly, because we want to have the union recognized in the same way as are heterosexual unions. Do we think that makes us more “normal”? That it makes the love that we share with the other person any more valid, or, more importantly, more accepted by society? Do we think that just because we get married, buy a house in the suburbs, adopt two kids, and drive an SUV that our heterosexual straight neighbors won’t still look down on us because we take it up the ass (even though the straight husband probably begs the straight wife every night for the same thing)?

I guess I just personally do not see the need to have my love, or my relationship, validated in any way by society, government, or law. I guess I just do not see the point of fighting for something in a society and culture that will always be intolerant of my sexual orientation, no matter what new law is passed, no matter how legal my union with my partner actually is. I guess I just do not feel the need to be accepted, nor to have my relationship legally sanctioned, by such a society.

And perhaps the biggest issue I have with the entire gay marriage thing is this: I do not need to be like the “normal” people, nor do I need to assimilate myself into their traditions. I am quite happy being “queer,” and living in the margins.

Because it is quite frankly far more interesting there.

Filed under: Academia, Blogging, Books, Editorials, Net Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Relationships, Writing , being a gay, being servicey, questions