Divorcing Romance, Rights and Radicalism: Beyond Pro and Anti in the Lesbian and Gay Marriage Debate

Abstract

In this article about 'For Better or Worse? Lesbian and Gay Marriage' (Feminism & Psychology, 14[1]) we focus on the contributions to the special feature, the commentaries provided by Ellen Lewin (2004), Sheila Jeffreys (2004 and Sue Wise and Liz Stanley (2004), and on wider debates about lesbian and gay marriage and partnership recognition. We agree that 'there is a lot of confusion/ assumptions made about what "it" (i.e. "marriage") is' (Wise and Stanley, 2004: 333). Thus, when talking about same-sex partnership recognition we are concerned with civil marriage (or civil union, or civil partnership), and not religious marriage. Our emphasis is on the public not on the private sphere; we are less interested with the personal aspects of relationships (such as intimacy or commitment) than with their public function in, for instance, obtaining 'rights and responsibilities'.The lesbian and gay marriage debate in the Feminism & Psychology special feature and beyond is sharply polarized, and the terms of the debate are often conflated to the extent that what actually constitutes a 'pro' or an 'anti' position varies between authors (Walters, 2001). For instance, Sullivan's (1997) Same Sex Marriage: Pro and Con reflects primarily on public debates between the 'anti' religious right wing and the 'pro' liberal and rights-based arguments voiced by lesbians, gay men and their supporters. In contrast, Clarke (2003) focuses on the debate within lesbian and gay scholarship. Clarke -and the special feature as a whole (Clarke and Finlay, 2004) -reformulates the 'pro' marriage position as involving either the assimilation of lesbian and gay relationships within the pre-existing heteronormative framework of marriage, or transforming the institution of marriage through the extension of marriage to same-sex couples. In this context, the 'anti' marriage stance is upheld by lesbian and gay radicals rather than the religious right (Clarke, 2003). Thus there are two levels of discussion, cohering around different axes. These two different debates have been acknowledged (by, for instance, Sullivan, 1997;Walters, 2001), but there has been minimal movement beyond the assorted 'pro' and 'anti' poles. Two necessary precursors to transcending 'pro' and 'anti' marriage arguments are: delineating

“Seismic Cultural Change?”: British media representations of same-sex ‘marriage’

“…divested from connotations of religion and women as property (Peel and Harding, 2004). For childless same-sex couples, a lack of children may be a salient difference between the two as was evident in the third theme.…”

“…Constructions of civil partnership as different but equal (highlighted in the third theme) present civil partnership as 'substantive' as opposed to 'formal' equality (i.e., the impact of the law is equitable despite being applied differently for different groups, Peel and Harding, 2004). Such constructions may also have their positives and pitfalls.…”

“…(Walsh, 2005) Civil partnership is constructed here in ways which serve to bolster the institution of heterosexual marriage and traditional (heterosexual) values. It is described as an opportunity for lesbians and gay men to 'embrace conventional marital virtues' and proclaim fidelity, allying civil partnership with conservative relationship norms and values (Peel and Harding, 2004). There is no suggestion that same-sex couples who 9 enter a civil partnership may have very different relationships than that of their heterosexually married counterparts.…”

The Palgrave Handbook of the Psychology of Sexuality and Gender

“…In the United Kingdom, the legalisation of civil partnerships in 2005 generated much debate and research around same-sex marriage (e.g. see Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 2004;Peel & Harding, 2004) to the exclusion of that on same-sex relationships more generally. Therefore, we know very little about the functioning of, quality of, and satisfaction in relationships between women (regardless of whether or not they identify as lesbian; see also Bowes-Catton & Hayfield, Bisexuality, this volume).…”

Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Family Psychology: A Systemic, Life‐Cycle Perspective

“…Some gay activists/scholars have questioned whether movements to secure same-sex marriage rights are assimilationist in nature; others point out that marriage has historically been a vehicle for securing male status and privilege (Peel & Harding, 2004). However, among gay activists, even those who are the most critical of same-sex marriage agree that sexual minorities should have access to all of the practical benefits that are conferred on married heterosexual couples (Peel & Harding, 2004).…”