By Angelica / @Riotstarz
I am shocked to discover marriage bill creates a system in which fulfilment of human necessities is contingent on legal sanction of one’s relationship. That many people may be forced into unions that could restrict their freedom and safety in order to access necessary services. That this institution creates a mechanism that can be used to beat poor and racialised people and attribute blame for their own oppressions. That it will create a hierarchy of relationships in which those organised in the fashion most amenable to Capital are legally privileged. That it may be used in justification of turning away at the borders those whose relationships are not sufficiently palatable or “convincing”. … Oh. Wait. That’s just what marriage has always been.
A reminder, then, that marriage is not “unequal” merely because of who it excludes, but because of what it fundamentally is. And that whatever needs you have that are currently not met, it is not the lack of marriage that is denying them to you. Again and again: “I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.” So, can we have a bit of, “You can shove your same-sex marriage up your arse,” at the forthcoming Prides and Dyke Marches?
Original Tweets:
Shocked to discover marriage bill creates a system in which fulfilment of human necessities is contingent on legal sanction of one’s r/ship.
— angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
That many people may be forced into unions that could restrict their freedom and safety in order to access necessary services. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
That it creates a mechanism that can be used to beat poor and racialised people and attribute blame for their own oppressions. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
That it will create a hierarchy of relationships in which those organised in the fashion most amenable to capital are legally privileged. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
That it may be used in justification of turning away at the borders those whose relationships are not sufficiently palatable/”convincing”. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
… Oh. Wait. That’s just what marriage has always been. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
A reminder, then, that marriage is not “unequal” merely because of who it excludes, but because of what it fundamentally is. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
And that whatever needs you have that are currently not met, it is not the lack of marriage that is denying them to you. — angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
Again and again: “I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a conservative.”
— angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
So, can we have a bit of, “You can shove yr same-sex marriage up yr arse,” at the forthcoming Prides and Dyke Marches?
— angelica (@riotstarz) May 20, 2013
2 Comments
Forgive me for being ignorant, but how does marriage disproportionately affect the poor and racialised?
The point in the tweet was that it’s used disproportionately to stigmatise people who are poor and/or racialised – those who are unmarried in particular are deadbeats, or welfare queens, or suchlike, and the idea that it’s marriage that meets people’s needs rather than, y’know, actual necessities has been used as the basis for attacks on welfare entitlements (in the US in particular, but it’s increasingly part of the moral basis here). Beyond this, it’s people who are poor and/or racialised who are most likely to be in circumstances that compel them to marry – again, something increasingly pertinent here as the universality of welfare provision and the NHS are undermined.