OutRight

Gay Marriage and Women’s Equality
Some feminists say that a lesbian needs a wedding ring like a fish needs a bicycle– perhaps they haven’t been to Vermont lately.
by Dale Carpenter

From its infancy, the fight for gay marriage has been derided by some feminist gay-left writers as a movement of, by, and for gay men. Marriage is valuable chiefly to the privileged, they have argued, not to the marginalized. Grant us gay marriage, they have predicted, and gay women will neither much benefit from it nor much want it. No wonder the most vocal and articulate advocates of same-sex marriage have been conservative gay men like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch.

But new statistics from Vermont, the state with the closest thing we have to gay marriage in this country, tell a different story. They show that gay women value same-sex marriage even more than do gay men. In short, it appears the feminist critics of gay marriage do not speak for many women.

The feminist critique of same-sex marriage starts with a suspicion of all marriage: "Steeped in a patriarchal system, … the institution of marriage long has been the focus of radical feminist revulsion," wrote Paula Ettelbrick in a famous 1989 essay entitled "Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?"

Starting from this base of deep skepticism, the feminist critique next focuses on the danger that marriage rights will lead to "assimilation," the reactionary idea that gay people are a lot like straight people. Marriage, argued Ettelbrick, "is antithetical to my liberation as a lesbian and as a woman because it mainstreams my life and voice." Ruthann Robson and S.E. Valentine have written that "[t]he specter of lesbian marriage … threatens to hetero-relationize and erase lesbianism."

These feminist critics have contended that same-sex marriage may help gay men but offers little to gay women. In her essay, Ettelbrick compared the gay marriage movement to the effort by white firefighters in Birmingham, Alabama, to end affirmative action in the local fire department. In other words, it’s the fight of the already-privileged for more privilege.

"Those closer to the norm or to power in this country are more likely to see marriage as a principle of freedom and equality," wrote Ettelbrick. "[M]ore marginal members of the lesbian and gay community (women, people of color, working class, and poor) are less likely to see marriage as having relevance to our struggles for survival."

That hypothesis is being put to the test in Vermont, where same-sex couples can get licenses for civil unions. Under state law, civil unions are marriages in all but name. From July 1, 2000, when civil unions began, through Jan. 4 this year, 3,471 licenses for civil unions were issued. According to the Vermont Department of Health, 1,180 of those licenses went to male couples and 2,291 went to female couples. That means about two-thirds of the unions were between women.

That disparity is significant enough by itself. But consider that most studies have concluded there are about twice as many gay men as gay women. This suggests that gay women are approximately four times more likely to get hitched than gay men.

What might account for the gap? The most obvious explanation is that gay women benefit more from marriage. (Another possible explanation is that there are far more gay women than gay men in Vermont and surrounding states, but there is no evidence to support that view.) Women understand this comparative benefit in a way that feminist critics never have.

Marriage is accompanied by a strong, socially supported ethic of caring, cooperation, and commitment. This ethic provides those most disadvantaged, those who are furthest from the center of power and acceptance in society, with an additional layer of comfort and security in life. The power to pool resources–augmented by marriage–is just not as vital to the privileged.

Allowed to wed, gay women have access to health care, tax breaks, and Social Security benefits they would not have on their own. The better physical, emotional, and financial health enjoyed by married couples (as compared to unmarried cohabitants or singles) is finally available to them. Women, whose desire for variety in sexual partners is on average lower than men’s, also fit more comfortably with the social expectations of monogamy in marriage.

Then there’s the fact that gay women are more likely than gay men to have children. Esther Rothblum, a psychology professor at the University of Vermont and editor of the national Journal of Lesbian Studies, hypothesizes that "the relationship with the children is more important" for women and that this might explain the gap. The legal benefits attached to marriage assist in raising those children.

This is not to say that gay men get nothing from marriage; marriage provides them with the many benefits, including companionship and social support, that everyone else gets. It’s only to say that their need for it, to the extent they are really "closer to the norm or to power in this country," may be smaller than for gay women.

So the abstract talk about marriage not being "relevant" to women’s lives, and the hysterical fears that it will "erase lesbianism," seem pretty far afield from the preferences and concerns of actual women. Those women appear to think marriage is very important in their lives. And I doubt they see themselves as any less "lesbian" for wanting legal and social recognition of their commitment to one another.

Ettelbrick, for her part, has backed away from her opposition to gay marriage. But others on the feminist gay left cling to their discredited theories. Those gay patriarchs like Sullivan and Rauch, it turns out, have been working for women’s rights all along.