The Curious Case of the Missing Q

About a month ago I opened my email only to find an “Important Announcement from the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus,” a longstanding Harvard University community and alumni group with a deep and interesting history.  Apparently, the HGLC was going to become the HGSC, or Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus.  The message went on to explain the name-change in the following way:  “As many of you know, we have struggled to find a name that represents our diverse community and its values. When we have talked about simply adding to the HGLC acronym, there has not been any clear consensus about whether we should also specify transsexual, intersex, queer, and questioning members, and how we could keep the name from becoming increasingly unwieldy. Many of our members are strongly opposed to the term ‘queer,’ and feel that it does not represent who they are or the community they are a part of.”

I was frustrated with this decision by a group that I have had a longstanding affiliation with.  Not only did I believe that the ‘unwieldy’ acronyms that so many groups around the nation have persisted with better represent the necessarily conflictual and coalitional aspect of any (gender and sexuality) organizing, but so was I dismayed at the ongoing attempts to erase those of us who are queer (Q).  I blamed same-sex marriage and, more specifically, the hegemonic gay and lesbian politics of same-sex marriage.

This brings me to a question recently posed in the Supreme Court and, also, on Columbia Law School’s Gender & Sexuality Law Blog—Can You Oppose Gay Marriage and Not Be Anti-Gay?  In answering this question (in the negative), the author of this blog post excoriates the right-wing’s attempts to find a ‘rational’ reason to oppose same-sex marriage.  Yet, the author—and so many others—have conveniently ignored left, or queer, reasons for opposing same-sex marriage; reasons which, to my mind, appear considered and rational and plausible. 

Obviously, there are many discussions and disagreements within queer circles, with much queer opposition to same-sex marriage taking on the class- and race-privileged nature of contemporary marriage in the United States, and the undesirability of expanding the reach of marriage any further.  The group ‘Against Equality’ (about which I will have more to discuss in later posts) has recently produced excellent work along these lines, as have many others before (and after) them.

While I generally agree with these queer critiques of marriage, in recent work of mine I have also attempted to more specifically argue the ways in which marriage is ‘majoritarian marriage’ in each of the different U.S. states, and the harms to LGBTQ people which can result from being absorbed/coerced into majoritarian institutions.  There are alternatives to marriage to strongly consider and also preserve, namely those alternative relationship structures (domestic partnerships, civil unions, others) which some states (e.g. California) have legislated and which hold out the possibility of different—and arguably better—notions of family/kinship, material support, and, yes, even love. 

I will have more to say about all of this in upcoming posts, but let me conclude by emphasizing that the issue of same-sex marriage has heightened already-existing disagreements in the ‘LGBTQ’ community, so much so that some queers are arguing for a ‘breakup’ with gays and lesbians.  So, yes—and no—you can be against gay marriage and not be anti-gay.

Comments

[I. Glenn Cohen]

Great post Jeff. Two questions: (1) Can you offer us a succinct definition of what you mean by "queer" (which seems for you to be interestingly identitarian). I think many people who encounter the term outside law and sexuality or sexuality studies don't know what it means, or think it means something different from what you think it means. (2) From what normative frame would we determine with the break up of the LGBTQ coalition would be a good or bad thing?

[Orin Kerr]

Glenn asks two very good questions. If I may ask a third: What do you mean when you say that you have been "dismayed at the ongoing attempts to erase those of us who are queer (Q)." Specifically, what does it mean to "erase" a person?

[Peter]

Since almost everyone has a sexuality and gender how can there be a caucus of something that is universal? It's like having a caucus of human vertebrates - in their effort to be inclusive they've erased themselves.

[Jeff Redding]

Glenn, thanks for your questions. I understand queer to involve a perspective that is interested in exploring the non-normative (which, like the normative, shifts over time) and also one that places a high value on social diversity and pluralism and is, hence, suspicious of assimilation. In that sense, queer is ideological, and also, yes, often identitarian; unlike many queer theorists, I'm not afraid of identity and don't think it is necessarily a threat to queer politics. The queer critique of mainstream gay/lesbian (or 'GL') politics understands 'gay' and 'lesbian' to also be, at least in part, ideological identities, namely ones interested in preserving and propagating conservative institutions (namely marriage and the military). That being said, I don't mean to essentialize, and there can be intersectionality even here; so you might see, for example, 'queer lesbians,'gay queers' (GQs!), etc.

I don't have a good answer for your second question, but me say that I don't see anything inevitable here other than that the Human Rights Campaign et al. ("Gay, Inc.") will never fight as hard for an independent right to "civil unions" as they have for "marriage." Let me also say that, to be honest, I'm not sure what ties G&Ls with the Qs anymore *at all,* though the situation is different in different states, with there perhaps being more affinity between everyone in 'conservative' states (e.g. Missouri) and less affinity in liberal states (e.g. Massachusetts).

Thoughts? Thank for your questions again!

[Jeff Redding]

Orin, thanks for your question. I am using 'erase' more in the pencil/gum eraser sense than the Microsoft word sense... the pencil marks never get completely erased by the gum eraser, and continue to speak even when others don't want them to and are dismayed and angry at their existence (hence the furious rubbing action with the gum eraser). With Microsoft Word it's easier to just completely get rid of the offending sentence/remarks/typos. Not sure if that helps...

[Jake Stevens]

I couldn't agree more. My take, which I shared both with the head of the Caucus, and with friends, was : "I just was notified the Harvard Alumni Gay and Lesbian Caucus has renamed itself "the Harvard Gender and Sexuality Caucus." "Gender and Sexuality" sounds like an academic department, not a community. I fought for visibility and proud self-definition as a member and co-chairperson of the then Gay and Lesbian Student Association in 1982-86. The new name obscures that we are defined (many of us) by a specific sexual orientation or transgressive gender identify. All humans have gender. All humans have sexuality. But not all are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. Perhaps we have reached some post-queer world where the Caucus can dive into a tepid pool of universal inclusiveness. But the name of the Caucus will no longer be a clear statement that "we are here and we are queer." I'm not sure I can get used to it."

[Orin Kerr]

Thanks, Jeff. So to "erase" a person means to marginalize them in a debate, I gather?

[Jeff Redding]

Orin, yes, 'marginalize' is a good alternative way of getting at what I was trying to express here.