Image Map

The Queer Thing About Legal Marriage

A giant expensive glass chuppah

This week the Supreme Court took up the debate over same-sex unions. As Justice Roberts remarked on Wednesday, political leaders have been "falling all over themselves" to endorse marriage equality. Fine. But why do so many gays and lesbians want their romantic relationships recognized by the state in the first place?

There are, of course, bureaucratic matters: tax breaks, hospital visitations, and other federal benefits many same-sex couples are currently denied. 

But why marriage?

Back in 2010, Kristin Perry (of Hollingsworth v. Perry, one of the cases now before the Supreme Court) testified that she wanted to get married because when you are married, "everyone can, in a sense, join in supporting your relationship." People "know what your relationship means." For many marriage equality advocates, marriage is about more than tax breaks and hospital visits; it's about making gay relationships visible to the world and legitimate under the law.

Until recently, I'd been a real crank when it came to marriage equality. I knew plenty of queer folks who weren't the marrying sort, and counted myself among them. And in so many instances, queers in non-monogamous, non-romantic relationships had raised children, comforted the dying, and sustained a culture. The marriage equality lobby seemed determined to rewrite gay history as a series of traditional love stories and to forget about other kinds of love, and other kinds of community.

Last winter, though, I was talking to two friends who had gotten hitched the year before. They told me about their reasons for getting married, and about the elements of Jewish tradition they'd decided to include in their wedding. For them, marriage hadn't been about erasing the other relationships in their lives; it had been about bringing all those other relationships to bear on the central romance.

It sounded like a beautiful wedding. Friends did a lot of the work: one designed invitations; another did most of the catering. A third carved wooden poles for the chuppah, the canopy under which the (in this case) bride and groom said their vows and symbolically established a home.

For this couple, marriage was a way of recognizing that their longstanding romantic relationship didn't exist in a vacuum. It existed, at least in part, because of the other people in their lives.

The wedding enacted this interrelationship. An artist and an academic, my friends had gotten used to moving from city to city, from apartment to apartment, at least once a year; the fragile, temporary shelter of the chuppah approximated their constant pack-up-and-go. During the ceremony, four female family members held up the four chuppah poles. The poles were too short to rest on the ground, so this meant real exertion. Four strong women literally held the roof over the couple's heads.

Consider this web of symbols, though, against Perry's reasons for wanting legal recognition for her romantic partnership. She wants "everyone" holding up her chuppah, as it were. She wants "people" in general to know what her relationship means.

Is legal recognition really necessary for that? Since when do we turn to the law to strengthen our communities?

It's a perilous tendency, to invest in legal status as a source of spiritual or emotional meaning. May we instead fly under the state's radar, and find our own ways of strengthening relationships, of preserving tradition, and of celebrating community. Whether we're able to get legally married or not, let's formalize and celebrate our relationships in ritual and public sharing—amen and hallelujah! But let's do that on our own terms. We can do better than the U.S. Legal Code for our sacred text.

If we get emotionally over-invested in legal recognition, we risk giving the law more sway over our lives, not less. And we risk undervaluing the relationships we might not have names for.

Think about it this way: modern law recognizes certain kinds of work (highway construction, investment banking) more than it does others (parenting, cultural transmission). And the more we invest in legal categories as a source of meaning, the more we forget about the parts of our lives that don't exist within legal categories. Just as queers have long formed relationships that the legal system didn't recognize, women historically performed work that the culture at large didn't (or, increasingly, doesn't) recognize as work.

Of course we should have female construction workers and female investment bankers, just as we should have queer husbands and queer wives. But let's not forget that just as parenting and cultural transmission are important work, so the relationships we have aren't any less real for lack of a federal statute.

 

Alexander Borinsky talks more about queerness and marriage on our podcast Popaganda. Subscribe to Bitch Radio on iTunes or Feedburner to hear him on the monogamy episode on April 3rd. 

Extravagant Chuppah photo via The Perfect Details

Bitch Media publishes the award-winning quarterly magazine, Bitch:Feminist Response to Pop Culture. Pitch in to support feminist media: Subscribe today

Subscribe to Bitch


Comments

33 comments have been made. Post a comment.

"If we get emotionally

"If we get emotionally over-invested in legal recognition, we risk giving the law more sway over our lives, not less. And we risk undervaluing the relationships we might not have names for."

oh god you can't be serious

why aren't you concerned with straight people letting their marriages have more value than other relationships? i am so sick of people thinking that being anti gay marriage is radical. social recognition is important to marginalized peoples. would you tell the suffragettes that the right to vote isn't really that important, that they could instead sit around opining about a magical patriarchy-free utopia where voting wouldn't matter and everyone's opinions would be treated equally instead? in fact, by campaigning for their right to vote, they're really undermining their own value? who cares if the legal decision making process excludes them? ridiculous.

if you don't think queer relationships are undermined and devalued without marriage, that people can freely visit their partners in the hospital, please let me know where this place is because i'd like to move there.

Thank you 'Anonynous', I am

Thank you 'Anonynous',

I am in complete agreement.

This article comes off as a distraction to the real debate, which has been thoughtfully described by this ('Anonymous') poster.

I get the impression that the article was written as a way to vent why, you would not care to have 'legal' family by your bedside in hospital, and your personal justifications as to why you wouldn't want to marry.

I appreciate you expressing your opinions, and my opinions are preeetty well in line with yours, but that is because I'm from the middle class, straight, and certainly not marginalized, and don't care for marriage, but that is not a part of the greater discussion we need to have, it is beyond the point, and I certainly would not bring it up in an intellectual debate about the right to marriage.

I just don't think this is the right place to be writing a piece like this.

Marriage isn't radical

Meanwhile, I'm so sick of people thinking that being pro-marriage is radical. Regardless of the gender presentation of the other person in your state-sanctioned, monogamous, sexual relationship, what you're doing is conservative, not radical.

http://www.yasminnair.net/content/gay-marriage-conservative-cause

As a "staunch" single

I must agree with the queers. I am tired of hearing about "marriage this" and "marriage that." The reality is that not everyone can get married. Last time I checked, marriage is a choice here in the USA, and I am tired of those choosing not to marry, such as myself and the increasing numbers of single people out there ... queer and not queer ..." be shamed and ridiculed for it. The concept of Equality is about ALL. Not the "select few."

As for the hospital? If I end up there, I prefer not having too many of my immediate family visit me. Please don't get started with the diatribes and unproven evidence about having immediate family visitors makes you heal. If your loved ones are the ones that constantly shame and blame you for all that is wrong with the world today, you do not want them involved in your healing process. Sorry, but I had to say it somewhere.

your personal interest in not

your personal interest in not having family visit you in the hospital has nothing to do with the fact that legally, if you are not married to your partner, they can be kept from visiting you. and that is a big deal for a lot of people. having your partner of 70 years not be your next of kin is a big deal, and when your legal next of kin is your mom who hates that you're gay, your partner could be left with nothing if you don't have an explicit will. the gay people most affected by the inability to marry are the poor and immigrants, not middle class white people who can afford to hire lawyers to draft marriage-like contacts for their relationships.

it's a big deal. and when marriage is legal for all sexualities, you can still choose not to marry if you want.

Not everyone can get married?

You say not everyone can get married, like who?

And who is shaming you for not getting married? I say who gives a fuck if you get married or not? It's your choice to let those kinds of comments affect you.

"The concept of Equality is about ALL. Not the "select few.""

And you mean what exactly by this?

"Please don't get started with the diatribes and unproven evidence about having immediate family visitors makes you heal."

Side-track tidbit here: Three-time cancer survivor, every time I had my family with me, and every time it made me feel better. And just because YOU don't want your family there doesn't mean other people don't.

"If your loved ones are the ones that constantly shame and blame you for all that is wrong with the world today, you do not want them involved in your healing process. Sorry, but I had to say it somewhere."

The discussion is about one's PARTNER, SPOUSE, HUSBAND, or WIFE.

It's so simple:

It's so simple, then *don't get married* if you're so concerned about giving the law more sway over your lives. If you don't want that, then *don't get married*.

What's also simple

In a system that links access to rights to membership in an exclusive institution, one must enter that institution to secure access to rights.

If we think marriage should confer rights, then the government doesn't have to confer rights to all people, just those who conform to the lifestyle model the government advocates.

We're letting the government off the hook! We're letting them get away with only offering basic human rights to people who are married, which is now less than half the population. That's not good enough.

What rights are you talking

What rights are you talking about?

"We're letting them get away with only offering basic human rights to people who are married"

What basic human rights?

Medical care, free travel,

Medical care, free travel, freedom from oppression are the ones that matter to me, but there are numerous basic rights now unjustly tied to marriage.

To clarify: in a

To clarify: in a rights-discussion "free travel" refers to the freedom to cross borders, not gratis cruises.

Well, it depends on the

Well, it depends on the company your significant other works for in regards to benefits, it's not necessarily a government issue. And they have an interest not to extend healthcare insurance to non-family members, as it's very expensive for companies to even provide benefits in the first place. Single people are also able to receive health benefits through their respected companies, I don't see how that's explicitly tied to marriage. Single people are also free to cross boarders as well, that's not explicitly tied to marriage, so I don't see what you mean by that in regards to rights exclusively afforded to married couples. I'm also not sure what you mean by "freedom from oppression" and how that relates to rights exclusively given to married citizens.

I don't want this to turn into an argument or discussion about immigration, but if you're not a citizen, you don't have a right to the US's health care or any rights that comes with citizenship. As far as I know, that applies to other countries as well. If I was an undocumented person living in Canada or France, I wouldn't expect them to grant me the same rights that they grant their citizens, so I guess I'm a little puzzled by your comments.

If you want the freedom to cross boarders without a passport or necessary documents, that has nothing to do with marriage or marriage rights whatsoever.

Privilege awareness

Miriam, have you ever thought about the privileges you enjoy? I assume from your comments that you are a US citizen. If you are so by birth, that means you had access to free K-12 education, student loans for college, a social security number to get a bank account and phone contract and further loans, permission to work in any job that hired you, permission to stay in one place for an extended period of time, ease of international travel, not to mention the international privileges of being a U.S. citizen.

Most people on earth do not enjoy these privileges. What makes you more deserving of the unfair advantages than they are? We have no right to be entitled. Citizenship is not a meritocracy: it is an accident of birth.

And life isn't fair. Is it

And life isn't fair. Is it fair that I've had cancer three times before the age of 28? No, it's not, but I don't complain and tell cancer-free people that it isn't fair that they're healthy and I'm not. Is it fair I was born in the US and am therefore a citizen? No. Is it fair that others are born into wealth? No. Life isn't fair. Get over it.

If you want access to those things, become a citizen. There are privileges that come with being a citizen of every nation. Something tells me you're one of those people who wants everything for free and that you don't want to work for any of it.

"Citizenship is not a meritocracy: it is an accident of birth"

And says who you can't become a citizen?

And I still don't see what this has to do with marriage or rights that come with marriage. What you're talking about are rights that come with being a US citizen. So.... what "rights" does marriage come with that you're missing?

Rephrases

This is the anonymous that agrees with the queers: What I meant to say in my previous post is that marriage is not for everyone, not so much as not everyone can get married. What I mean about equality for "ALL" is "All humans," and even animals if you consider them family, too. Still, I get so tired of all the pro-marriage people saying that marriage is the greatest institution on the planet. According to human history, and even my own personal experiences, marriage has also "failed" many people and made their lives and personhoods worse than "better." Ask someone who has experienced an abusive relationship, and/or experienced relationships where people have been taken advantage of whether they be physically, emotionally, or monetarily, and those indeed occur, married or not.

My apologies for coming across as a narcissist, but my attempt was in expressing an opinion that is outside of the "status quo," similar and in agreement to what Alexander Borinsky stated above.

Yeah, still not clear on what

Yeah, still not clear on what you mean by "equality for all" in the context of saying you don't agree with marriage.

that's fine to not want to personally get married. And yeah, people who are happily married are going to say it's the greatest thing ever, so get over it. I don't get offended when my gay friends say that gay sex is the greatest thing ever. I don't get offended when people who do coke say it's the greatest thing ever. Just because I don't have gay sex or do coke, doesn't mean that I think that they're shaming me for not doing it. Learn to ignore those comments if they bother you so much.

"According to human history, and even my own personal experiences, marriage has also "failed" many people and made their lives and personhoods worse than "better." "

Ok, but I don't see your point. The whole point of marriage equality is to open it to people who cannot get legally married under the law so they can decide for themselves if that's the right path. And while marriage has "failed" so many people, it's also been wonderful for so many people.

"Ask someone who has experienced an abusive relationship, and/or experienced relationships where people have been taken advantage of whether they be physically, emotionally, or monetarily, and those indeed occur, married or not."

Then they don't have to get married or have relationships if they don't want to. No one is forcing them. Yes, abusive relationships exist, what's your point?

If you don't believe in the institution of marriage or don't want to get married or think it's horrible, *that's fine*, just don't decide that for other people. Or try to stop others from getting married because you don't like it.

Oh, and one of my dear friends from middle school, who happens to be gay, thinks that marriage is absolutely the best thing ever. Another friend from high school thinks that being married to her wife is the best thing ever. I also have gay and straight friends who aren't digging the marriage thing, so guess what? They aren't getting married, but they aren't telling other people it sucks and to not get married because that would be selfish and shitty of them.

Access to rights

Why should my access to rights be dependent on my romantic success?

If health insurance is a basic right, then shouldn't there be universal healthcare, not healthcare for those with an insured spouse?

The U.S. purports to open their arms to the world's "huddled masses yearning to breathe free". Why should I have to marry someone with an eagle-crested U.S. passport for that opportunity?

Tax us progressively, giving back to those in need and taking from those with excess, not by regressively giving back to the disproportionately privileged minority of the U.S. who happen to have entered a monogamous sexual relationship of which you approve.

Give ALL individuals rights, not just those whose lifestyles strike your fancy!

Rights?

"Why should my access to rights be dependent on my romantic success?"

What rights?

"If health insurance is a basic right, then shouldn't there be universal healthcare, not healthcare for those with an insured spouse?"

Health insurance isn't a basic right. And if you want health insurance, get a job with health insurance. Or pay for it.

"The U.S. purports to open their arms to the world's "huddled masses yearning to breathe free"."

No it doesn't.

"Why should I have to marry someone with an eagle-crested U.S. passport for that opportunity?"

What opportunity? To become a citizen? Yes, either you have to, you know, work towards becoming a citizen, or have a legitimate relationship and marry someone with citizenship. You don't just get it handed to you because you want it.

"Tax us progressively, giving back to those in need and taking from those with excess, not by regressively giving back to the disproportionately privileged minority of the U.S. who happen to have entered a monogamous sexual relationship of which you approve."

Seriously?

These posts have got to be a joke.

Health care: the Universal

Health care: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 25 establishes health care as a basic human right along with food and shelter.

The U.S. welcomes the world's "huddled masses yearning to breathe free": that's a line from The New Colossus, which has hung on the Statue of Liberty since the monument's unveiling.

Regarding immigration, see Article 14 of the UDHR: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

Progressive taxation: for serious. Why? Because in an ethical society, no one is entitled to the unfair advantage of their privilege.

Really?

You have a right to health care. You don't have a right to free health care. You can go to the doctor, the ER, seek treatment, and you will not be denied. However, you have to pay for it.

And you do realize that immigration in the United States has changed drastically since the Statue of Liberty was built, right? It's not the same as it was 150 years ago. Even 100 years ago.

"Regarding immigration, see Article 14 of the UDHR: "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.""

Seeking asylum from persecution is not the same as immigration. Example: Leaving Germany during WWII because you are a Jew is seeking asylum from persecution. Leaving a country because there aren't many opportunities or it's poor or you don't like it isn't.

"Progressive taxation: for serious. Why? Because in an ethical society, no one is entitled to the unfair advantage of their privilege."

See, this is why I think either your posts are fake (or you're just dumb/ignorant). The United States has one of the largest progressive tax systems in the world. That's why I said "Seriously?"

I'm really happy to see this

I'm really happy to see this on Bitch! as a radical queer who BELIEVES all couples should have the right to marriage but is also very hesitant about further legitimizing the state/statuos quo/legal system and who worries about the MANY ways in which gay marriage has come to be seen as the only viable queer issue, I think it's important and valuable that an article like this can show up on Bitch.

if you don't like reading this kind of article, I don't think you're paying enough attention to the nuance of this discussion and this historical moment. maybe check out http://www.againstequality.org/ and all three of their amazing books about why seeking state recognition of queerness through inclusion in military, marriage, and hate crimes laws is a disastrous, wrong-headed, harmful strategy that actually DOES leave the most marginalized people out.

again, it's a huge relief for me to see this article on Bitch. these perspectives are important, and you're not going to find them on Huffington Post's Gay Voices section.

Well?

"why seeking state recognition of queerness through inclusion in military, marriage, and hate crimes laws is a disastrous, wrong-headed, harmful strategy that actually DOES leave the most marginalized people out."

Like how? And who? And maybe you could explain rather than hawking a website and telling us to read their books?

maybe you could read

maybe you could read something instead of expecting internet commenters to do the work for you!!

What I did read, was a bunch

What I did read, was a bunch of whining from people who don't want change and would rather just sit around and complain that other people want to be treated, ya know, like everyone else. Is it really so terrible to want to be able to get married to the person you love? Is it really so terrible, while serving in the military, to be able to talk about the person you love back home with your comrades? All I read on that website was criticizing gay people for wanting to get married and for criticizing them for wanting to serve in the military. Those people are protecting your right to talk shit about them. So please, shut the fuck up about criticizing the military.

This is what I don't get: You don't *have* to get married if you don't want to. If you're gay and in the military, you don't *have* to come out. It's a choice. But making these choices available is what a lot of people want. And if you don't want it, don't be a fucking stick in the mud and complain and bitch that other people want it and accuse them of wanting to be like everyone else.

If you want to exclude yourself and stay in your own little bubble of being excluded, go ahead. Just don't try to drag everyone else with you.

If you're against marriage, DON'T FUCKING GET MARRIED. If you're anti-war, DON'T JOIN THE FUCKING MILITARY. But don't you dare tell other people how they should think and feel just because they're gay.

wow. your comments are

wow. your comments are expressing a lot of hurt and frustration in this discussion, and I don't think the Internet is the time or place to sort that out. I'm sorry that what I have had to say has clearly hit a nerve for you.

your comment isn't really compatible with what I have to say, or anything I've read from Against Equality, and I find it really distasteful that you would use the word "bitch" in your comment as a derogatory term for a kind of "whining" you don't like--could you refrain from using that word while we're both talking about a blog post on none other than Bitch media? It's really sexist to use the word "bitch" like that, and it's disheartening.

anyway, I want to point out that anti-war activists do a lot more than "not joining the fucking military." anti-war activists seek to end wars and discourage militarism and imperialism and challenge the damage and killing that the US military does abroad. being anti-war is about more than just a personal choice for what I don't want for myself, it's about what I don't want for the world: unjust killing, aggression, and violence. in the same vein, I think the kind of politics that I support are about more than individual choices or criticizing gay people for wanting or doing certain things. the politics I support are about fighting oppression (racism, sexism, poverty, mass incarceration) from a very broad standpoint. I think Against Equality has a lot of really valuable insights to add to that kind of conversation. I'm sorry that they don't seem like insights that are relevant to you right now, and maybe you don't agree with this mode of thinking at all.

but don't call it bitching. and don't yell at me because I don't feel the same way you do about gay marriage.

please.

Then maybe you can enlighten

Then maybe you can enlighten me. You told me to read it myself. I did. And what I read was a bunch of ignorance and bullshit. That's what you get for not explaining yourself and telling me to "read for myself." If you're for a cause, you talk about it. You explain what it's about. You don't link to a website and tell people who ask what you mean to find out for themselves and to not ask.

But please, don't insult the military and base your opinion in a few things. You can be an anti-war activist, but don't you dare insult the servicemen and women and base your opinion on a few bad seeds. Because I read some of those articles and it was really, really offensive and reeked of someone who has never met someone in the military and based their opinion on what they read in the news.

"I think Against Equality has a lot of really valuable insights to add to that kind of conversation."

I would ask you what they are, but I know you're just going to tell me to figure it out for myself.

And I'm yelling at you because you're telling other people that wanting to get married is wrong or bad. You can be against marriage, but don't insult people who get married.

You don't want equality? FIne, but don't push it on me.

I didn't insult servicemen

I didn't insult servicemen and servicewomen, although I am staunchly opposed to the US military and to our actions in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war that I think you should be aware of, and if you don't believe me, you can check out the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. Real people, who really support soldiers, who are also against the Iraq War.

I also didn't insult anyone who chooses to get married. I said that I think seeking inclusion in state forms of recognition is a bad strategy for a queer politics that seeks to end oppression, I didn't say that getting married was a horrible choice and that I despised anyone who does it. You can choose to take my politics personally and believe that I'm judging other people for getting married, but I never said queer people getting married are bad people. You're the only one of us who said that.

You're right, I don't want equality. I want queer liberation, a world without prison, a world without war, free healthcare for everyone, trans people to be able to transition without any medical diagnosis, an end to national borders, food security, free college education for everyone. I can't take your desire for equality away from you, and your political goals are closer to being realized than mine are. Don't Ask Don't Tell has already been repealed (you won that one, I guess). And gay marriage will probably get legalized (so, you win again?). But as far as I can tell, we're both queer people, and we are both allowed to work for the world we want to live in. You're invited to dream the way that I do, but I would never force anyone to support the causes that I do.

I do wish you hadn't been so aggressively rude in claiming that I hate the troops or people getting married. That's really hurtful, and it's not accurate.

If you're against the

If you're against the military, you're against the people who are compromised of the military. You can be against war, and you can say that you think that the military presence around the world should be decreased (I do), but don't say you're against the military. Do you even have a shred of an idea of what else the military does besides be in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you know that the military is currently in Kosovo on a peacekeeping mission because of the fighting between the Albanians and the Serbs? that the Serbians routinely smuggle wood and illegally cut down trees so Albanians won't have enough wood to survive the winter and vice-versa. Our military presence is helping prevent that and bring peace to Kosovo and hopefully unite the nation, finally. Kosovo has no infrastructure. You want to live in a world without borders, without taxes (because how can we be taxed if there are no nations?), free health care, free college? How do you expect all of that to be paid for? No borders = no taxes = no infrastructure = no healthcare and no free college. And if you want free healthcare and free college (which isn't free, because it's paid for by higher taxes) then you're fine with a huge tax rate?

The reason why the United States has some of the best healthcare in the world (three time cancer survivor here) is because it isn't "free." And it's also why we have some of the top universities in the world as well.

The military also helped end World War 2, and liberate thousands of Jews in concentration camps (my Jewish grandfather was one of those soldiers who helped liberate Dachau. Without a strong military, you would not be living in the United States, free to say how anti-military you are. Hilter would have succeeded in murdering even more Jews and everyone else in the camps.

You keep making these blanket statements but never fully articulate, which leads me to believe that all of your opinions on marriage, and the military involving the gay community are nothing but pseudo-intellectual crap.

like,
"I said that I think seeking inclusion in state forms of recognition is a bad strategy for a queer politics that seeks to end oppression"

How? And it might not be for you, and that's fine, but last time I checked, just because it's not right for you doesn't mean it's wrong for everyone.

"I want queer liberation, a world without prison, a world without war, free healthcare for everyone, trans people to be able to transition without any medical diagnosis, an end to national borders, food security, free college education for everyone"

You can't be serious. The only thing that would ever remotely happen is a where trans people won't have to transition without a medical diagnosis. Human civilization has been this way for centuries. This isn't Star Trek. Who is going to pay for free college education? Free health care? Like I said above, how do you expect that to be paid for if we have no boarders? How do you expect to be taxed so your free healthcare and college can be paid for?

Maybe i wouldn't have been so aggressive and rude if you had bothered to explain yourself instead of chiding me to basically figure it out for myself.

So you're against inclusion because you're against society as a whole?

I'm not against society, I'm

I'm not against society, I'm against the state.
I'm not against the people in our military, but I don't want the US to have a military.
I don't want the US to exist.
And I'm not for higher taxes, because I'm against capitalism and money.
Have a nice day

I really, really hope that

I really, really hope that there's never a natural disaster in your area so bad that the National Guard is needed to aid your community because you obviously are totally ungrateful for the services that they provide. I also sincerely hope and pray that there is never another attack on our nation like 9/11 and that you aren't affected by it and need our military to protect you and us from those hostile against us.

If you want to live in a land without capitalism and money then go live in a society where that's accepted. If you don't want to pay taxes or don't like money, then don't, and don't get a job. But stop trying to interject queer politics into this.

but everything in your last

but everything in your last paragraph is exactly what queer politics means to me! except you forgot prison abolition (how can I possibly respond to rapists and murderers without prison, you may ask). thanks for summing it up so well for me.

long live queer politics and queer challenges to assimilation! <3

Once again, blanket

Once again, blanket statements without explanation or substance.

Um...how would society

Um...how would society function without some form of punishment for people who...you know, commit crimes. I guess in the impossible utopia you believe in crimes won't exist because laws/rules won't exist. So it will be fine for anyone to do whatever they want. Except we'll all have evolved into peace and love hippies who respect everyone and no-one ever gets robbed, raped, murdered, etc because that only happens in a capitalist society or one with laws or whatever. You should maybe read a history book if you're so anti-money and capitalism. I'm not a supporter of huge corporations or excessive wealth, but the fact is, communist societies don't work. They haven't worked. The best we could hope for is a capitalist society with socialist elements, which is kind of what we have (in theory).