It’s the little things that can unnerve

This morning’s edition of The Courier-Mail (Queensland newspaper, owned by News Limited) features an article by Ainsley Pavey that mentions how the former partner of a millionaire has won a big settlement partly due to the fact that the partner undertook significant housekeeping duties during the relationship.

The judge’s ruling gave that as the reason for rewarding the settlement.

Pretty cut and dry, and not too shocking in this era of multi-million dollar divorces, etc.

However this is the headline: “Millionaire’s former gay lover wins a slice of his fortune for being housekeeper during their relationship.”

When I mentioned in yesterday’s post that homophobia in media is a problem that can be addressed now, this is a prime example. I do not know Ms. Pavey, but I will make a fair-minded assumption that she’s not intentionally homophobic, and that the copy editor who proofed this article was not governed by trafficking in homophobia in order to bolster sales. Rather, I’ll just assume that they had a deadline and that for whatever reason old offensive lexicon fell through the cracks. Maybe it needed some extra pizzazz beyond “property developer and ex-partner resolve 3 year legal battle.”

(Disclosure: I have a subscription to the Courier-Mail and I’m for Queensland too…except at State of Origin, but even then…)

The headline says “former gay lover.” Apparently having money puts you above sexual orientation, but being the financially dependent partner is another matter entirely.

The headline and article also uses the word “lover” and “ex-lover” throughout.  While the gay community has used the word “lover” in the past, present-day discourse actually uses the word “partner” to refer to those in a long term relationship. Given that the Australian government has had legislation for de facto partnerships (inclusive of same-sex ones) for quite some time, and the general practice is to use the word “partner” instead of “lover,” the article infers an inequality between same-sex partnerships (who can’t marry) and heterosexuals who choose not to. Again, perhaps the person who proofed the article hasn’t bothered to ask any of the gay people they know as to what the proper term is. It’s not an offensive question though, feel free to ask.

The article then launches into the standard summary of the judge’s findings.

Now, this is up for interpretation based upon how familiar one is with how gay men have been treated in media through the ages:

Now, with that build up before getting to the actual basis of the judgement (the judgement is oddly enough a sign that same sex relationships are equal), the article immediately distances itself from any gay readers.

To a reader that may not have as much knowledge of gay representation on film, the archaic phrasing of “former gay lover” is in itself off-putting. To a reader, particularly one who is aware and knows openly gay people, this particular article recalls the “bad old days” when to be openly gay in Queensland was a crime.

 

Advertisements

And after marriage…?

Let me just get the following statement done and dusted:

I believe that the right to marry and the benefits that come with it should not be prohibited on the basis of sexual orientation.

The US Supreme Court is currently hearing two cases that could potentially legalise same-sex marriage in the United States. One of which would look at the legality of California’s Proposition 8, which overturned the California’s same sex marriage legislation. The other one, which is the big one on a national level, is looking at the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevents federal benefits being sent to same sex partners, as well states that the federal government will not recognise same sex marriages and says that US states are not federally required to recognise a same-sex marriage performed in another.

What concerns me most about the tone of the same sex marriage debate is how little of it (particularly in gay media) is concerned with life after marriage equality.

Why aren’t we talking about gay divorce? Because it’s not legal?

Why don’t we talk about the ins and outs and hard, and yes boring work of relationships and the fact that not all of them will end well.

Actors Mike White & Justin Long appeared in this particular ad when Proposition 8 was on the ballot in California. It’s “realness” was breath-taking:

I think that was a brilliant ad, because that is what the reality of married coupled life is. It’s not fabulous, it just is.

I would like to hear more stories about how boring and mundane married life is in addition to how fulfilling it can be. (Indeed, research has shown that there are health benefits in being married.)

Without a doubt, I see myself being married as opposed to just being de facto*, and I don’t look down upon those who opt not to do either. If you’re not a relationship person, then don’t get in one, and vice versa.

But in reading and observing the gay media and gay-oriented social media conversation, the marriage equality conversation, I believe, obscures another debate that the gay community in particular seems a bit scared to have, which is where does gay culture go afterwards?

There are some who feel that we, as gay men, will lose our “specialness” by being forced into the same monogamous relationships as heterosexuals, and that “gay culture” will end.

Personally, I think gay culture will shed any residual Peter Pan complexes as a result, and that is a good thing. (It’s equally ludicrous to think of the heterosexual community as this being monolithic bastion of monogamy.)

But part of that growing up process means thinking about relationships that don’t go smooth and things that aren’t romantic:

It means addressing issues like the suicide rate amongst the LGBT-identified, providing safe spaces for LGBT-identified homeless, HIV/AIDS education, bringing LGBT identified seniors into the greater LGBT conversation, getting rid of social homophobia in media and in day-to-day life.

Same sex marriage may go some ways towards working to resolve this issues, BUT the absence of same sex marriage DOES NOT PROHIBIT US from working on them now.

Rather than reading yet another post or article about  how “everyone should have the right to marry, because it’s the right thing…” I’d rather read about how steps are being done to get rid of homophobic language in film.

I’d rather be doing my bit, not by agitating for marriage, but by helping create a better life for all, and marriage equality might be the remaining legal barrier, but there’s a lot of societal work to do, and we are all up to the task.

We owe it to ourselves and more importantly, to those who will come after us.

*In Australia, there is legislation providing for “de facto” partnerships, which confers many of the rights, benefits, and responsiblities of marriage in any long-term relationship, regardless of sexual orientation. The closest thing the US has to it–and legal recognition differs wildly by juristiction–is common-law marriage.  Where it differs from civil unions is that there is no need to publicly make a declaration of your relationship.

Related articles