| Same-sex
marriage. Who'd have thunk?
As I write this, same-sex
couples are flooding San Francisco City
Hall to tie the knot, and the California
courts are not stopping it. Meanwhile, back
East, the Massachusetts Supreme Court may
have given us our very own Brown v. Board
of Education. Boston is getting ready for
a veritable orgy of weddings as same-sex
couples from around the country flood in
to join in holy matrimony. It's a good time
to own a bed-and-breakfast in Cambridge.
Isn't it great?
Yes, it is. It truly
is. We've come a long way baby, and we ain't
looking back. I couldn't be happier for
it. Yet something about the debate troubles
me.
Is it because our success
right now is precarious at best? Will there
be a federal constitutional amendment against
same-sex marriage next year? How about a
state one? Fact is, the time in history
before the present that was most accepting
of GLBT people was the 1920's in Berlin.
How'd that turn out?
Is it because I am ambivalent
about marriage in general? At the risk of
sounding like a member of some queer cultural
revolution, marriage is a tool of the patriarchy.
I have to ask: why the rush to become the
Cleavers? Why not work on creating a system
where all unmarried couples have legal rights?
No, while these are
good reasons to be troubled, they are not
my reasons.
I'm troubled because
of a policy letter I received from the National
Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association
(NLGJA), a group seeking to advocate for
GLBT people in their profession. The letter
said, "The terms 'gay marriage' and
'same-sex marriage' are inaccurate and misleading.
The accurate terminology on-air, in headlines
and in body type should be 'marriage for
gays and lesbians.'" While I personally
am not heading to Massachusetts anytime
soon, what if I decide to marry a same-sex
partner someday? Will I, a card-carrying
bisexual, be out of luck? And more immediate,
do all my bi friends in long-term same-sex
relationships have to cancel their travel
plans? |
 |
Of
course that's not what's going on. In the
case of Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial
Court made no distinction for sexual orientation;
they simply said that people of the same
sex who want to get married couldn't be
denied the same rights different-sex couples
enjoy. That's good news for all of us: bisexuals,
gays and lesbians alike.
Journalists are the
arbiters of language, and rather than allow
the inclusive nature of the ruling, NLGJA
opted to make bisexuals invisible. It would
be as if after the Emancipation Proclamation
the story in the Picayune Times read, "All
people whose ancestors came from the Congo
are no longer slaves." If yours were
from Cameroon or Gabon you have got to wonder
what's going on.
Interestingly, the NLGJA
claims to work from within journalism "to
foster fair and accurate coverage of lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender issues."
So guys, how's it going fostering fair and
accurate coverage of bisexual issues?
Unfortunately, none
of this is new. Just because an organization
says they are "GLBT" doesn't mean
they actually work for the B or for that
matter the T. Using GLBT in a name or mission
statement is easy, actual inclusion is harder.
And frankly, I get a little tired of being
treated like the crazy aunt in the attic.
Meanwhile, I guess I
should resign myself to attending lots of
weddings in the future. Even though I'm
not big on the Hokey-Pokey, you know I'll
be there in support.
--
William Burleson
is a freelance writer and Author of the
upcoming book from Haworth Press: Bi America:
Myth's, Truths, and Struggles of an Invisible
Community.
|
