Buy new:
$28.00$28.00
Delivery Tuesday, January 21
Ships from: Amazon.com Sold by: Amazon.com
Save with Used - Good
$6.38$6.38
This item cannot be shipped to your selected delivery location. Please choose a different delivery location.
Ships from: ThriftBooks-Atlanta Sold by: ThriftBooks-Atlanta
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
The Marrying Kind?: Debating Same-Sex Marriage within the Lesbian and Gay Movement Paperback – May 16, 2013
Purchase options and add-ons
As the fight for same-sex marriage rages across the United States and lesbian and gay couples rush to marriage license counters, the goal of marriage is still fiercely questioned within the LGBT movement. Rarely has an objective so central to a social movement’s political agenda been so controversial within the movement itself. While antigay forces work to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, lesbian and gay activists are passionately arguing about the desirability, viability, and social consequences of same-sex marriage.
The Marrying Kind? is the first book to draw on empirical research to examine these debates and how they are affecting marriage equality campaigns. The essays in this volume analyze the rhetoric, strategies, and makeup of the LGBT social movement organizations pushing for same-sex marriage, and address the dire predictions of some LGBT commentators that same-sex marriage will spell the end of queer identity and community. Case studies from California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Canada illuminate the complicated politics of same-sex marriage, making clear that the current disagreements among LGBT activists over whether marriage is conforming or transformative are far too simplistic. Instead, the impact of the marriage equality movement is complex and often contradictory, neither fully assimilationist nor fully oppositional.
Contributors: Ellen Ann Andersen, U of Vermont; Mary C. Burke, U of Vermont; Adam Isaiah Green, U of Toronto; Melanie Heath, McMaster U, Ontario; Kathleen E. Hull, U of Minnesota; Katrina Kimport, U of California, San Francisco; Jeffrey Kosbie; Katie Oliviero, U of Colorado, Boulder; Kristine A. Olsen; Timothy A. Ortyl; Arlene Stein, Rutgers U; Amy L. Stone, Trinity U; Nella Van Dyke, U of California, Merced.
- Print length384 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherUniv Of Minnesota Press
- Publication dateMay 16, 2013
- Dimensions5.5 x 1.1 x 8.5 inches
- ISBN-100816681724
- ISBN-13978-0816681723
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customer reviews
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star5 star100%0%0%0%0%100%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star4 star100%0%0%0%0%0%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star3 star100%0%0%0%0%0%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star2 star100%0%0%0%0%0%
- 5 star4 star3 star2 star1 star1 star100%0%0%0%0%0%
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
- Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2013I learned a lot. I like that they use real life expamples of the differences and simalarities. They base their premice on a diverse population.
- Reviewed in the United States on November 26, 2018In the news and media, one often hears mainly of one generic and oversimplified view of same-sex marriage – as if all people in the LGBT movement are unified and want marriage equality as the core priority and goal of the movement.
However, as this collection of sociological and historical studies clearly shows, the reality is way more complex for people in the LGBT community. For example, the book reveals many surprising things such as: that though many in the LGBT community do not mind having marriage equality, many feel that it helpful but not essential; same-sex marriage seems to be more of an issue for wealthy white homosexuals than for poor non-white (blacks, latinos) homosexuals or bisexuals or transsexuals; non-monogamous and nonexclusive sexual relationships quite acceptable to gay and lesbian married couples and single gays and lesbians in general – which can question the purpose of marriage; there are many paradoxes and contradictions among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals on the necessity and utility of marriage; many LGBT members do not feel that they are adequately being represented by the LGBT movement and nearly half feel ambivalent about the movement; transsexuals and bisexuals feel that the LGBT movement has ignored or put very little resources to issues that affect them; etc.
Here are some things that will be found in the book:
Introduction: Marital Discord Understanding the Contested Place of Marriage in the Lesbian and Gay Movement - Mary Bernstein and Verta Taylor
“The goal of this book is to understand the debate within LGBT communities over same-sex marriage; how this conflict has influenced the nationwide campaign for same-sex marriage; and the extent to which disputes and fears that surround same-sex marriage are justified. The essays in this volume analyze the discourses, strategies, and composition of LGBT social movement organizations pursuing same-sex marriage. They also explore the complexity of the LGBT movement's opposition to marriage by addressing the dire predictions of LGBT activists that same-sex marriage will spell the end of queer identity and community. Case studies of Oklahoma, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Canada illuminate the complex politics of same-sex marriage, making it clear that the current debate among LGBT activists over whether marriage is assimilationist or transformative is far too simplistic. Many gay marriage activists are motivated by a desire to build bridges toward the dominant group. At the same time, others, both within and outside the marriage-equality movement, maintain a sustained critique of heteronormativity (the social system of heterosexual privilege). In short, these positions are not always opposed. While infighting is often seen as weakening a movement, the essays in this book reveal that conflict is one of the major ways activists make decisions about goals and strategies (Ghaziani 2008).” (2); “The first time that the lesbian and gay movement publicly put marriage on its agenda was in 1987 at the third national March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights. Couples, Inc., a Los Angeles—based organization fighting for recognition of lesbian and gay couples, organized "The Wedding," a ceremony celebrating gay relationships and demanding that gay partnerships be accorded the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples (Ghaziani zoo8). Although several thousand gay and lesbian couples participated in The Wedding, it turned out to be the most controversial event of the march. Critics argued that, despite its campy in-your-face quality, The Wedding promoted traditional relationships and patriarchal family forms that are inconsistent with, even opposed to, the gay lifestyle and signaled a dangerous redirection of the movement toward a more mainstream agenda. The 1987 March also sparked a movement to achieve domestic partnership laws and policies designed to provide some recognition to same-sex couples by employers and local and state governments. Such recognition would result in the achievement of a limited set of benefits for same-sex partners, including health insurance, family leave, and so on (Raeburn 2004). Regardless of whether or not it was considered desirable, LGBT activists believed at the time that same-sex marriage was a political impossibility.” (3); The history in the book gives lots of historical context to the origins of gay sexuality (1960s/1970s) and same-sex marriage (1987): “The late 1960s saw a shift from a more cautious homophile movement that advocated legal and social tolerance for lesbians and gay men to a more radical politics that sought to challenge dominant cultural norms as oppressive. The gay liberation movement that emerged in force in the early 1970s faced an inhospitable political climate and a nearly complete lack of political access (Bernstein 2002). Building on the hippie and free-love movements, gay liberationists sought to challenge dominant cultural norms about gender, sexual identity, and relationship forms (Teal 1971; Marotta 1981). In the eyes of gay liberationists, relationships, instead of being shackled by the dominant norms of society, presented an opportunity to produce new, more voluntary and egalitarian forms of intimacy. In "A Gay Manifesto," one of the defining statements of the gay liberation movement, Carl Wittman (1970) laid out a cogent argument for why lesbians and gay men should avoid marriage. Wittman discussed the need for alternatives to marriage that recognize a variety of types of intimate relationships: “People want to get married for lots of good reasons, although marriage won't often meet those needs or desires. We're all looking for security, a flow of love, and a feeling of belonging and being needed. These needs can be met through a number of social relationships and living situations. Things we want to get away from are: 1. exclusiveness, propertied attitudes toward each other, a mutual pact against the rest of the world; 2. promises about the future, which we have no right to make and which prevent us from, or make us feel guilty about, growing; 3. inflexible roles, roles which do not reflect us at the moment but are inherited through mimicry and inability to define equalitarian relationships. We have to define for ourselves a new pluralistic, role free [sic] social structure for ourselves. it must contain both the freedom and physical space for people to live alone, live together for a while, live together for a long time, either as couples or in larger numbers; and the ability to flow easily from one of these states to another as our needs change. Liberation for gay people is defining for ourselves how and with whom we live, instead of measuring our relationship in comparison to straight ones, with straight values.” Wittman painted a picture of sexual liberation as fluidity in relationship form, a deprivileging of monogamy, equality between partners with an end to inflexible gender roles, and the development of a new set of values. However, gay liberation was short-lived, and by the mid-1970s had given way to an LGBT politics focused more on obtaining legal and political rights (Bernstein 2002).” (8-9)
Part I. Marital Discord
1. What’s the Matter with Newark? Race, Class, Marriage Politics, and the Limits of Queer Liberalism - Arlene Stein
Comparison of Maplewood, NJ (which has a wealthy white homosexual population) and Newark, NJ (which as a mainly poor black and latino homosexual population – about half are black and one third are latino); median income in Maplewood is $100,000 and in Newark it is $35,000; same-sex marriage and gay identity seems to be a wealthy white people issue since homosexual blacks and latinos tend to care more about health insurance, employment opportunities, safer streets than they do about marriage issues; in general, poor people (both straight and gay) do not marry as much as wealthier people since more pressing issues like economic instability and single parenthood are more relevant issues they have to deal with
2. Same-Sex Marriage and Constituent Perceptions of the LGBT Rights Movement - Kathleen E. Hull and Timothy A. Ortyl
How do LGBT members feel about the LGBT movement?; of the general LGBT community, 32% have positive opinions of the LGBT movement, 20% have negative opinions of the LGBT movement, and 48% have mixed (positive and negative) opinions of the LGBT movement (78); only one third of the LGBT community felt they were adequately represented by LGBT movement (mainly white homosexuals), while the rest either felt they were represented in some ways but not others or that they were not represented by the movement (mainly racial minorities, bisexuals, transsexuals, non-upper class) (82); issues that LGBT want seen addressed more are things like perceptions of LGBT people, youth issues, healthcare, transgender; 60% of LGBT community have positive feelings of how LGBT movement has handled family/marriage issues, while 34% have mixed feeling, and 6% have negative feelings (89)
3. Beyond Queer vs. LGBT: Discursive Community and Marriage Mobilization in Massachusetts - Jeffrey Kosbie
Pro-marriage and critics of marriage stuff
Part II. Marriage Equality Opposition
4. Winning for LGBT Rights Laws, Losing for Same-Sex Marriage: The LGBT Movement and Campaign Tactics - Amy L. Stone
Internal and external factors that affect winning and losing on LGBT issues; 1974-1996: some ballot measure wins for LGBT, 1997-2003: the greatest number of ballot measure wins for LGBT, 2004-2012: decline in ballot measure wins for LGBT; strategies by those supporting and opposing same-sex marriage
5 Yes on Proposition 8: The Conservative Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage - Katie Oliviero
Strategies by those supporting and opposing same sex marriage in California; ad campaigns
Part III. Marriage Activism
6. Mobilization through Marriage: The San Francisco Wedding Protest - Verta Taylor, Katrina Kimport, Nella Van Dyke and Ellen Ann Andersen
Like it says
7. The Long Journey to Marriage: Same-Sex Marriage, Assimilation, and Resistance in the Heartland - Melanie Heath
A couple getting married in Cherokee land but prevented from proceeding due to changes in Cherokee Nation law; protest against their community’s prejudices in Oklahoma; the impact of diverse gay relationship configurations on marriage in general (see 281-285): open marriages, nonexclusive marriages, and non-monogamous marriages come with same-sex package
8. Being Seen through Marriage Lesbian Wedding Photographs and the Troubling of Heteronormativity - Katrina Kimport
Seeing different gender roles played out in lesbian wedding photos: male looking-female and female (traditional heterosexual marriage emulation) photo, gender similarity and difference photo; based on the “Chronicles” online album of same-sex weddings in San Francisco 61% of photos depict two women of similar gender representation whereas 39% depict two women with different gender representations
Part IV. The Impact of the Marriage Equality Movement
9. Normalization, Queer Discourse, and the Marriage-Equality Movement in Vermont - Mary Bernstein and Mary C. Burke
Internal debates
10. What Happens When You Get What You Want? The Relationship between Organizational Identity and Goals in the Movement for Same-Sex Marriage - Kristine A. Olsen
Once same-sex marriage was achieved in Connecticut, one LGBT organization called Love Makes a Family (LMF) closed for good since it was no longer needed; reconsidering goals for LGBT organizations once same-sex marriage is achieved – may lose focus and influence; Queer critiques of marriage such as seeking alternatives to marriage like polyamorous relationships would have given wing to same-sex opponents who said that same-sex marriage would result in a slippery slope of multi-spouse marriages and bestiality
11. Debating Same-Sex Marriage Lesbian and Gay Spouses Speak to the Literature - Adam Isaiah Green
“Same-sex civil marriage is increasingly a legal reality for lesbian and gay couples throughout North America and Western Europe. And yet, if there is a dearth of empirical attention to same-sex marriage, there has been no lack of speculation on the topic as activists and social critics contemplate the social consequences of same-sex marriage from a wide spectrum of cultural and political standpoints. Typically, these standpoints are marked by distinct forecasts regarding the effects of same-sex marriage on same-sex couples and on the larger society.” (375); study is based on in depth interviews of married gay and lesbian couples from Canada; sexual dynamics form already married same-sex married couples:
“SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: DYADIC INNOVATION AND DEPARTURES FROM TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
If same-sex marriage is a conservative phenomenon that reproduces the traditional, Western, twentieth-century family ideal, it is also the case that same-sex spouses in this study do not uniformly embrace traditional principles of marriage—including marital monogamy and a gendered division of labor—but instead hold a variety of views and engage in a range of intentional practices that depart from traditional marriage. One of the most pronounced ways in which the same-sex married spouses of this study depart from traditional marital conventions is through the adoption of nonmonogamous norms and practices. While nearly 100 percent of U.S. heterosexual married partners were found to expect sexual exclusivity from their partners (Laumann et al. 1994), and support for marital monogamy among the American public has actually increased in the last three decades, with 92 percent of respondents reporting that extramarital sex is "always wrong" or "almost always wrong" in 1998 (Cherlin 2002)—two-thirds of same-sex spouses (40 percent female, 6o percent male) in this study do not believe that marriage need always be monogamous. What is more, nearly half of male same-sex spouses (47 percent) report an explicit policy of nonmonogamous practice, as did one female same-sex spouse. In fact, of this latter group (eight spouses), three reported that they became nonmonogamous only after civil marriage. Finally, monogamous practice itself is not typically taken for granted by either male or female same-sex spouses but instead emerges in a reflexive process (Giddens 1992) organized more by the personal needs and wants of the partners than by the heavy hand of heteronormative tradition. Among the same-sex spouses with open marital relations, Giddens's notion of "plastic sexuality" is seen in the decoupling of sex and love (in which the former is distilled from the latter). In this regard, while marriage should be based in love, it need not preclude extramarital sexual relations.” (388)

