From the September 2004 Anthropology News

"Marriage," "Family" and Same-Sex Marriage
Are We Addressing the Right Questions?

William L Leap
American U

According to ongoing conversation within AAA regarding same-sex marriage rights, anthropologists should draw on insights from cross-cultural research to respond to "defense of marriage" initiatives. Such research confirms that " . . . a vast array of family types, including families based on same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies" (AAA Statement on Marriage and Family, February 26, 2004.) Viewed in terms of that version of the "great arc of culture," attempts to define marriage and family exclusively in heterosexual terms are limited in scope and efforts to enact such limited definitions in legislation and public policy should be targets of strongest opposition by our members.

As the co-chair (1993-1999) of the AAA's Commission on Lesbian and Gay Issues in Anthropology, I am delighted to see AAA taking a strong public stand on an issue of lesbian/gay concern. At the same time, as a gay anthropologist interested in the politics of lesbian/gay cultures in late modernity (academic politics, included), I think the anthropological task should extend beyond efforts to enhance current understandings of "marriage" and "family." Indeed, framing the task at hand in terms of "marriage" and "family" grossly underestimates the contributions anthropological inquiry can make to the marriage rights project.

Is Redefinition Enough?
Foregrounding "marriage" and "family" as the key concerns for anthropological inquiry predicts that we can secure marriage rights for same-sex as well as heterosexual couples simply by repairing defects in the current understandings of "marriage" and "family." This interpretation is a serious misreading of audience interest here. Alternative understandings of marriage and family like those referenced in the AAA statement often derive from cultural settings based outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition; groups seeking to maintain the heterosexual sanctity of marriage are not likely to find value in notions of "marriage" or "family" that derive from otherwise pagan, "unenlightened" sources.

Moreover, as a close reading of these groups' press releases and website postings will confirm, "marriage" and "family" are not the topics of discussion, so much as they are a thinly disguised index enabling a broader heterosexist and homophobic commentary. "Defense of marriage" is about disciplining dissident sexuality. Trying to refine meanings of "marriage" and "family" diverts attention from the workings of power in such instances, and from the need to explore these workings.

Social Justice
Foregrounding attention to meanings of "marriage" and "family" also diverts attention from questions related to the workings of power. Certainly, the legislative backlash unfolding in response to the same-sex marriage issue violates basic principles of social justice as commonly understood in academic and activist discourse. Not all lesbians and gay men may want to be married, but denying those who wish to marry access to marriage because of their sexual preference is defendable only on the basis of partisan, privileged ideologies. In a just society, those in power do not create a suspect class, then deny members assigned to that suspect class access to statuses, rights and benefits because of their assignment to that suspect class.

Social activists, anthropologists among them, have objected to such manipulative rhetoric when it has been used to inform policymaking related to issues of race, gender, school performance, workplace-related mobility and other special needs. We can and should expect that the same objections would be voiced from similar sources in the case of same-sex marriage. Simply advocating for a more inclusive meaning of marriage and family does very little to lay bare the injustice embedded within the proposed legislative and constitutional changes.

Diversity of Opinion
Media images and popular discourse to the contrary, there is no lesbian/gay consensus on the same-sex marriage question. Anthropological discussions of same-sex marriage that focus only on redefining "marriage" and "family" leave this diversity of opinion among lesbians and gays without comment, thereby reinventing an image of lesbian/gay homogeneity that recent scholarship and activism has worked hard to dispel. Certainly, interest in same-sex marriage has taken hold across lesbian/gay America, resulting in a grassroots campaign having many features of a "new social movement." Some lesbians and gay men are attracted by the transgressive allure of queering a traditionally heterosexual institution. Some seek social validation or spiritual sanctification of their partnered relationship. And some couples simply want to get married.

In contrast, some lesbians and gay men view marriage as a form of institutional practice they would personally prefer to do without, either because they see "lesbian" or "gay" as stances in opposition to mainstream social practice, rather than within them, or for other reasons. Faced with realities of job insecurity, ever-declining employee benefits, and inaccessibility of quality housing and health care, some lesbians and gay men see more pressing legislative priorities and political battles, and view organizing around marriage as an appeal to privileged interests with very little practical relevance for rank-and-file lesbian/gay America.

Additionally, there are lesbians and gay men who see gay marriage as a venue for continuing the "place at the table" rhetoric of Bruce Bawer, Andrew Sullivan and other Reagan/Bush-senior era homo-neo-cons. Under this argument, marriage becomes an avenue for building lesbian/gay respectability while curbing the improprieties of gay sexual excess. Interestingly, whatever their initial motivations for endorsing same-sex marriage agendas, national lesbian/gay political advocacy groups are now articulating variants of this assimilationist argument, insisting that lesbians and gay men want legitimacy in the eyes of the broader public and asserting that marriage is the best pathway for securing it. This argument, like ongoing anthropological conversations aimed at redefining "marriage" and "family," sidesteps the diversity of perspectives that inform lesbians and gay men's own positions on these issues. Avoiding lesbian/gay diversity in this fashion reproduces lesbian/gay weakness, at a time when anthropological inquiry could be working to promote alliances and advance struggles against sexual, racial, economic and other forms of inequality.

A Broader Context
Focusing on meanings of "marriage" and "family" disrupts a broader sense of context. It is worth noting that "defense of marriage" initiatives have become especially prominent during an intense phase of the war in Iraq and during intensive Homeland Security policymaking. Arguments related to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) insisting that "marriage" and "family" are the cornerstone of civilization as we know it take on an additional meaning when positioned within the rhetoric of post-9/11 discourse, and call to mind the linkages between anti-lesbian/ gay sentiment and fears of the pervasive Red menace during the McCarthy years. With each evocation by the US President of our need to protect "civilization," thousands are rigidly cast as potentially fearful and harmful enemies to our good and just "civilization."

In this sense, time spent on definitions of "marriage" and "family" is time not spent in thoughtful critique of war policies and Homeland Security practices in the US, or in consideration of the ways in which these seemingly self-evident questions about terminology are in fact related to larger issues of social order and power in late modern US society. While the AAA Executive Board should be commended for taking a strong stand in opposition to DOMA, rank-and-file anthropologists can take a much stronger stand by drawing attention to the many issues being addressed through such attempts to regulate marriage in heterosexist terms. At best, limiting discussion to questions of definitions engages only the superficial features of such governmentality.

William L Leap is chair of the department of anthropology at American University. He presented a version of this commentary at the 2004 Society for the Anthropology of North America meeting.