M.+Warner

Michael Warner, //The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life//


 * I will make this a short summary, highlighting key issues raised.


 * 1) Some politicians argue that the institution of "traditional" marriage is trivialized by same-sex marriage. If so, marriage becomes a selective institution, rendering some couples more legitimate over others.
 * 2) Gay marriage debates is a media parade, which has divided communities since the Clinton years. It has never been a broad-based movement among activists, but rather is a project of litigation.
 * 3) Anti-gay forces mobilized around the issue, reforming the institution of marriage by placing obstacles to marriage. The gay marriage debate will give us answers about the meaning and consequences of marriage.
 * 4) Since the 1970s, the heterosexuality of marriage has been visible. It gives rights to some (e.g., inheritance, tax advantages, etc), and denies those rights to others. Still, it was not a central part of gay and lesbian group politics until twenty years after that. The reason for this was that queer politics did not want to center their pursuits based on straight culture and a legitimacy of the institution of marriage - the regime of marriage itself was seen as inequitable.
 * 5) Gay marriage, pro or con? - this is a debate that may even be held within the queer community. The newest common sense view on the matter is that marriage is about personal choice and basic human rights, which should be granted to all individuals. This is a distinct issue from the desirability of marriage.
 * 6) Another view: In the modern era, marriage legitimates the state's withdrawal from the private lives of couples - the state only has an ability to regulate the sexual lives of those who do not marry. Warner believes this is false. Marriage does not privilege the private lives of some.
 * 7) And another: marriage is only about sanctioning your love for another. Warner rejects this, for many reasons. Love does not legitimate itself through a piece of paper. In any event, isn't the power of love supposed to transcend law or be lawless? Say, like "a blow job in a tearoom"?
 * 8) Most popular view among gay persons: marriage confers respectability and public acceptance.
 * 9) Marriage is a public institution, not a private relation. As such, it can be judges and carry ethical meaning. The ethical meaning transcends love, reaching to the point of gaining legal force and setting cultural norms. It is an awesome feat that some feminist scholars have dismissed the ethics of marriage in a radical and shallow way.
 * 10) The inequalities that result as a consequence of marriage should be challenged, not celebrated, as a condition of same sex marriage. They include: 1) the privileges, prohibitions tied to marriage by the state, 2) the privileges and prohibitions tied to marriage by civil society, 3) the matrix of state regulations of sexuality, 4) the broader cultural normativity of marital status. As such, with the reform of the institution of marriage as a result of gay marriage debates, the question becomes, "should we expand the benefits that marriage confers to all, or should we allow gay persons to gain the privilege of marriage's entitilements?" Are we validating a norm, accepting its legal and cultural consequences?
 * 11) Marriage isn't a way of life, it is a status that confers social and legal benefits on some individuals above others.
 * 12) Protecting marriage is promoting conservatism - normalization of queer life - reinforcing the damaging heirarchies of shame around sex - denying that the "gay way of life" is a welter of intimacies, most without labels, outside of the framework of institutions that distinguish couples from friends.
 * 13) Straight culture has much to learn about relationships.