I spent the entirety of last Saturday, at a wedding.
Not a “queer wedding”, not a “feminist wedding”; There was no female clergy person, no exchanging of rainbow encrusted diamond rings; the gifts were more than likely purchased at Target or Macy’s, not Smitten Kitten or True Colors Bookstore…
It was just, a wedding. Heterosexuality and all.
One of my jobs is as an assistant in a photography studio, and when I first got the job, I was well aware of the fact that spending my weekends choking on tool and patriarchy, was a serious possibility. I’ve spent the last 3 months avoiding its devilish clutches, but when it showed up on the calendar, I knew my time had come.
It was pretty, but not too fancy. The bride was through her third Miller Light by the time we got started on family pictures. It was a little crazy, a little white trash, and surprisingly not too terrible to endure.
Minus the fact that it was…ya-know…a wedding.
With issues of social concern taking up my brain 24/7, it was impossible for me to get through the day without viewing it through that lens. I held my tongue as I saw bridesmaids (origin: to confuse men whom would try to capture the bride)and groomsmen (origin: a band of the strongest men to fight off those whom might try to steal the bride) dressed in “appropriately gendered” attire; listened in to talk of their upcoming honeymoon (origin: named for the act of getting the young bride drunk on Honeyed Ale so that she would be so plastered she wouldn’t know what the hell was going on); I hid my drooping mouth when my boss started shooting images of the wedding veil (origin: what if the bride in the arranged marriage just isn’t sexy enough?) and wedding rings (origin: this woman is mine). And through all my critiques, I stood strong; I bottled up my concerns for the sake of my job, and my disdain for those whom so often make a situation about themselves, when it is clearly not.
But it got me thinking: What does my future hold?
In all honesty, getting married has never been a part of “The Plan”. When I was younger I imagined running away, being artificially inseminated, and living the single life on a beach somewhere in Cali. I am the product of a wrecked marriage, and though my relationship is still strong with each of them, Divorce is the kind of thing that ruins a person. But as I have grown older, the desire for a partner in my life has grown stronger. I now imagine my future containing someone else, even if I haven’t met them yet. I think about what it will be like to have someone I can share my life with completely; someone who will be there at the end of the day to hear about how awful my lunch was, or how great the meeting went; I in turn want to be the kind of person whom someone wants to share their ups and downs with. I look forward to growing older with someone.
But does it have to be marriage? And if it isn’t marriage, what do we call it?
I know that language says a lot about a society. The words we use to describe, often hold much deeper meanings then even we ourselves are aware of. My father changed my title for his wedding: I stood on his side, and was called a “Grooms-maid”. It was a play on words, and allowed me to represent the side I held a vested interest in: My Dad’s. But does the wording change anything?
I’m not so sure anymore.
See with marriage, we are at a crossroads. I can call it a partnership. I can abstain from a ceremony. I can refuse to wear a wedding ring. I can share my life with someone exactly like my father is sharing a life with my step mom, and I can do it all without signing a piece of paper. But isn’t it still stemming from a root called marriage?
Radical Queers spend their [our] days questioning heteronormative lifestyles and how we can best avoid them. Queer theory is somewhat dependent on de-valuing the norms of heterosexuality, but does that make heterosexuality wrong? Are Radical Queers so elitist that we can only accept those who abstain from any and all forms of heterosexuality? There is a sincere hatred of marriage in my community. I see it plastered on flyers for events, in the mission statements of groups, and in the language spouted off at coffee with friends. But shouldn’t we be hunting for something else, like marriage reform? I admit, I place about a million things ahead of marriage on my to-do list. But I do still have that dream about growing old with someone.
So, where does the line between a perfect “radical relationship” and “marriage” get drawn?
I think it’s all up to the informed individual. Abstaining from the paperwork and bridesmaids doesn’t make you any more of a feminist. Abstaining from a heterosexual marriage doesn’t make you any more of a queer. And reversing systems of control doesn’t make you any more radical. But finding love? That makes you beautiful.
ponyprince said,
August 24, 2009 @ 1:12 am
“And if it isn’t marriage, what do we call it?…But isn’t it still stemming from a root called marriage?…Radical Queers spend their [our] days questioning heteronormative lifestyles and how we can best avoid them.”
I do not think that you need to call it something else. It is a relationship, and, no, relationships are not stemming from a root called marriage, as you say. I also don’t think that radiqueerz stop at questioning and avoiding them. I think, at least the queerz I know, challenge them and queer spaces also are spaces where people can identify and determine however they want their relationships to be consensually.
“Queer theory is somewhat dependent on de-valuing the norms of heterosexuality, but does that make heterosexuality wrong? Are Radical Queers so elitist that we can only accept those who abstain from any and all forms of heterosexuality?”
I think there is a big difference between being heterosexual and having unchecked privilege. I don’t know a single queer who would hate someone if they identified as straight. Perhaps we are hanging out with different queerz. I think that you can hate, challenge, confront, and liberate yourself from heteronormativity and not hate anyone and everyone who identifies as straight.
“But shouldn’t we be hunting for something else, like marriage reform?”
What is marriage reform? What would that even entail? Again, reform ensures that systems of domination stay in their place. Things are relabeled and might function a little differently and are still upholding oppressions. Marriage reform is not the answer for the radiqueerz I know. I think marriage reform is what the assimilationist, primarily white and upper class gays and lesbians with groups like the HRC are doing.
“So, where does the line between a perfect “radical relationship” and “marriage” get drawn?”
I do not think there needs to be a line between anything. That creates a binary which states: this is good, this is lesser, and everything else is bad for not falling into one model. I don’t think that radiqueerz are trying to draw that line and or create that ontology nor is there a perfect relationship.
“And reversing systems of control doesn’t make you any more radical.”
I think that reversing (which could also be read as deconstructing dismantling and or destroying) systems of control is, at it’s heart, radical. Radicals are about destroying systems of domination. I think that would be a beautiful thing, as well. Liberation, along with love, is a beautiful thing.
Those are just some thoughts. Also, sorry that you had to spend the weekend at a wedding. Gross.