Abstract
The Marrying Kind?: Debating Same-Sex Marriage within the Lesbian and Gay Movement, edited by Mary Bernstein and Verta Taylor, examines, discusses, and debates same-sex marriage and the debate within LGBT communities. This book contributes to the LGBT and social movement literature in three ways by discussing (1) the “normalization” of same-sex marriage, (2) “decentering and privatizing lesbian and gay identity,” and (3) the “misguided energy” of pursuing same-sex marriage instead of other social movement outcomes. The goal of this edited volume “is to understand the debate within LGBT communities over same-sex marriage; how this conflict has influence on the nationwide campaign for same-sex marriage; and the extent to which disputes and fears that surround same-sex marriage are justified” (p. 2).
Important themes of this book are the examination of discourse, framing, and identities. First, Jeffrey Kosbie’s chapter, “Beyond Queer vs. LGBT: Discursive Community and Marriage Mobilization in Massachusetts” examines the discourse to overcome internal divisions of intending to marry or not in MassEquality, a social movement organization. LGBT activists and heterosexual allies shared a collective identity of “marriage supporters” within the organization, but other identities, such as religious and heterosexuality, threatened shared goals of the organization. Kosbie concludes that common tensions in social movements are the debates between different internal groups and how shared and unshared identities can create tensions. Second, Katie Oliviero’s chapter, “Yes on Proposition 8: The Conservative Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage” examines discourse and framing by Protect Marriage Coalition (PMC). Oliviero argues that PMC deconstructed “the relationship between civil matrimony, state regulation, private emotions, and public values in similar but distinct ways to generate a competing frame of contention” (p. 170). PMC framed the same-sex marriage debate as protecting the vulnerable populations of children and communities of color. Third, Bernstein and Mary Burke’s chapter examines mass and movement-linked Vermont newspapers and the “marriage-equality movement as one aspect of the internal movement debate about normalization” (p. 320). They found that lower standing in one newspaper freed up discourse to question the institution of marriage and that in another newspaper, opposing movement frames led activists to make strategic choices by not engaging with queer critiques of marriage (pp. 337–38).
Part of the debate about same-sex marriage is that by promoting marriage, couples are assimilating to a patriarchal institution which disadvantages women. Bernstein and Taylor write that “Same-sex marriage will produce a new ‘homonormativity’ which will in essence demolish queer culture and move LGBT social movements from the public focus” (p. 13). Within this collection, there are chapters to support this argument. Arlene Stein examines gay and lesbian couples living in the New York City suburbs of Maywood, NJ, and Newark, NJ, with populations of predominantly working-class LGBT people of color. Stein writes that lesbian and gay couples living in Maywood want their identities reaffirmed by various actors, such as religious leaders and school teachers, but they are essentially assimilated into the dominant heterosexual culture. This in Stein’s view has “decreased the cultural and symbolic entity of the lesbian community” (p. 45). Stein suggests that for the Newark lesbian and gay couples, the focus is on social class and race rather than same-sex marriage. Like Stein, Kathleen Hull and Timothy Ortyl find that some respondents felt that the LGBT rights movement focuses too narrowly on marriage and LGBT individuals would like the LGBT rights movement to seek protection for a broader range of family forms. Stein concludes by suggesting that liberal (white) gays “find queer communities of color wanting” (p. 58).
However, other chapters in this book demonstrate that the debate of assimilation is still an open question. For instance, Melanie Heath’s chapter, “The Long Journey to Marriage: Same-Sex Marriage, Assimilation, and Resistance in the Heartland” demonstrates that couples in Oklahoma do not feel that they are assimilating by marrying in a different state or country. Heath incorporates a “multi-institutional political framework” to understand “local, state, and cultural ideologies that shape what resistance can mean” (p. 265). Many of the respondents defined same-sex marriage as political resistance. For these couples, marriage was not just about participating in assimilation, but was a symbolic journey of “coming out.” Additionally, Olsen, who interviewed members of Love Makes a Family of Connecticut writes that assimilation, “…lacks an understanding of the diverse ways that activists define subversive politics” (p. 370). Next, Katrina Kimport’s chapter, “Being Seen through Marriage: Lesbian Wedding Photographs and the Troubling of Heteronormativity,” examines photographic representations of San Francisco weddings, in which many of the photographs present nontraditional images of weddings. Interviewing gay and lesbian married couples, Adam Green’s chapter, “Debating Same-Sex Marriage: Lesbian and Gay Spouses Speak to the Literature,” discovers that many couples found a new sense of commitment to their relationship when this commitment was in front of and validated by others. However, Green argues that these same-sex marriages cannot be reduced to a new homonormativity. Two-thirds of the lesbian and gay couples in Green’s study did not believe in monogamous relationships, and many of those he interviewed after their marriage were not in monogamous relationships. Green’s study calls into question the assimilation perspective and the loss of “queer culture.”
This book contributes to social movement literature in a multitude of ways. Amy Stone’s chapter, “Winning for LGBT Rights Laws, Losing for Same-Sex Marriage: The LGBT Movement and Campaign Tactics” examines “internal and external factors to the study of campaigns to fight antigay ballot measures” (p. 136). Stone finds that both internal and external factors suggest successful or non-successful social movements. Stone argues that future research must account for both external and internal factors for analysis of successful social movement outcomes. Additionally, Taylor, Kimport, Nella Van Dyke, and Ellen Andersen’s chapter, “Mobilization through Marriage: The San Francisco Wedding Protest,” examines the dynamics and impact of performances at the San Francisco marriage rallies. This study, using multi-methods data, found that those who were married were 86 percent more likely to participate in activism to support same-sex marriage, which they suggest is an indication for the spillover effect.
The limitations of this collection are much like other scholarship about LGBT communities in that it lacks significant discussion of race (although whiteness is implied, but rarely discussed), social class (upper- and middle-class is implied, but rarely discussed), and locations of the studies. Three chapters incorporate some aspect of nonwhite individuals. Only two chapters discuss social class and different locations than the East or West Coasts. Hull and Ortyl’s chapter, “Same-Sex Marriage and Constituent Perceptions of the LGBT Rights Movement” examines LGBT individuals’ views on the LGBT rights movement and was one of the few chapters that had a significant sample of different social classes, transgender individuals, and LGBT people of color.