Out In The Montains : OP/ED

The marriage of same-gender couples is a radical act. Why? Because our very existence challenges the gender stereotypes that mold so many heterosexual marriages. Our society is based on the heterosexual paradigm, one that favors the one-woman-one-man model, and that, until relatively recently, has kept women in the submissive role. Since the majority of people are heterosexual, their lives are well served by the current system.

Same-gender relationships, no matter where they are on the scale of conventionality, don’t fit into the heterosexual model, making them inherently unconventional. Raising the legal status of same-sex relationships to the level of heterosexual relationships represents a radical societal shift.

Consider this simple example: to many heterosexuals, their gender roles support who they are and how they act in society. When they are thinking about same-sex couples, it is confusing not knowing who to ask the cup of sugar from and who will meet them when mowing the lawn. Many times, well-meaning people have asked me “Who takes out the trash?”

Many heterosexual couples are supportive of the freedom to marry. By and large, there are men and women who have broken away from stereotypical gender roles and have incorporated what is considered a “feminist” way of being into their lives.

When children raised in same-gender households are part of a discussion, many heterosexists argue that children need both male and female role models.

For a long time, queer families have been living in society without timeworn roles. As long as we were second class, or the law reinforced the heterosexist perspective of superiority, the majority population did not have to question gender roles. But the Baker decision gave legal bite to our contention that we, as gender-ambiguous people, are a valuable part of the human race and should be treated equally.

We are excited to be in families that function well without typical gender roles, with children or without. At Family Week in Provincetown recently, my family had the great fortune to be among 300 other intentional queer families. Talking with a father about my daughter’s early signs of being a fashion designer, we laughed at how incongruous her ability to coordinate clothes is with the fact that neither of her moms is fashion-conscious. He, too, shared the irony that his son is very athletic and he has little interest in sports. However, we shared great pride in our children, and I know that our children’s interests will be supported not because we share their abilities, but because we honor their choices.

For us, the Baker decision is logical, and equality is a no-brainer. However, we understand that to those people clinging to the heterosexist paradigm, it is frightening to see those roles fluctuating. I also suspect that many of them see upholding the old paradigm as a way to honor the teachers and relatives they love and cherish; to accept a contrary mode is to be disrespectful to those from whom they have learned. The Baker decision and the civil union law forces these people to either question gender roles, or to defend a belief system that supports the status quo. Suffice it to say, for most people, it is easier to defend what exists than to accept change.

It is naive to think that the passage of marriage law, or even the compromise civil union law, will change people’s minds overnight. Look at how long it is taking women to reach equality in the workplace. But we are making progress.

So ask yourselves: is it the gender-roles dilemma at the bottom of this schism between those who support freedom to marry and those who oppose it? In asking for the right to marry, are we challenging society’s heterosexual privilege? Are emotions are being stirred because, even if marriage appears assimilationist, demanding equality for ambiguous gender roles is radical?

Radical or not, working to rid society of unfair privilege and breaking down the status quo is something I am proud to be a part of.

Bari Shamas lives in Putney.