Maddow: gay culture at risk from marriage
Openly gay cable news anchor Rachel Maddow has revealed she’s unlikely to marry her long-term partner any time soon, and worries something is being lost in the fight for same-sex marriage.
The top-rating host of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show has long championed marriage equality on her program, but in an interview with the The Hollywood Reporter she admits that she’s actually ambivalent about the cultural impact of gay marriage.
“I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognising relationships,” she said.
“And I worry that if everybody has access to the same institutions that we lose the creativity of subcultures having to make it on their own. And I like gay culture.”
Maddow has been with partner Susan Mikula since 1999. They live together in Massachusetts – a state which has laws allowing same-sex marriage.
“We know a lot of people who have gotten married,” she said.
“But I don’t think we feel any urgency about it.”
Read the full profile over at The Hollywood Reporter.
Always liked Rachel, pity she doesn’t get more coverage in Australia. And I agree with her. The evidence is already around us in Sydney…
Mardi Gras is nothing like it used to be (we all know it!).
After 28 years Sleaze Ball was canceled this year.
Need we remind ourselves again of the venues lost in the past decade: Albury, Beauchamp, Beresford, Flinders, Manacle, Newtown Hotel???
And the marriage lobby dominates the gay media.
Don’t tell me there’s not a pattern there.
Extending choice to those wanting to marry will not change the unique alternative relationships people have made, gay or straight. I would though, like to see a removal of all discrimination, against the relationships of people who choose not to get married.
I for one completely agree with her.
When was it a crime to express an opinion different to the norm……isnt that what the gay community has been critised for 3 decades now.
Surely you should respectfully allow her and others have their say without attacking them like they are some sort of leper because they do not agree with your opinion.
Some people still see ‘marriage’ as it has been – a contract of ownership for 2,000 years. This is how I see it and I do not wish to have it in my life. others see it as the absolute expression of their love. Neither opinions are wrong and both are right (depending on the individuals concerned).
If you want to get married – go for it, I will congratulate you and sincerely wish you and your partner the very very best. But all some of ask is respect that this will not suit everyone and we like you are people that are entitled to an opinion.
Rachel- This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. Loss of gay subcultures, really???? Same sex marriage will give us so much more than we stand to lose, if we stand to lose anything at all.
Ofcourse its a huge risk to the Gay Culture and life-style.
Alot of gay men wont give up the “Scene” and the hunt for the ultimate fuck.
Going out,taking Party drugs,buying new clothes,being seen on the scene,Marriage would fuck that.
The only ones screaming the loudest for Gay marriage would be Laywers,as divorce would be rampant.
Having the right to marry will not erase discrimination against gays, we have a long,long way to go. A large chunk of society will still discriminate against gays for a number of years. Blacks received civil rights in 1965, it wasn’t until nearly half a century before a black person could get elect president. black community continue to care their subculture into the mainstream even after a black president, so will gays. We will also have a pocket of gay subculture, there is no free of it being subsumed into the whole. And yes, even straights have a subculture. We will tend, as gays, toward what we really desire in our hearts, as we always have, except we will soon have more access to more alternatives, and isnt that gays have always been about?
“I feel that gay people not being able to get married for generations, forever, meant that we came up with alternative ways of recognising relationships” Really? According to statistics, old gays are significantly more likely to be single compared with straight people. Gays are also several times more likely to commit suicide in most Western countries. “And I like gay culture.” Fair enough, but I don’t. No gays should be forced to live a typical “gay lifestyle”. You can live your current life style irrespectively whether gay marriage is legal, while I’m denied the right to live in the way I want. Just like how homophobia is wrong, those gays who don’t want to get married should realise and respect that some gays are different from them.
I think some people fear gay marriage will somehow stigmatize those who choose not to get married. Gay men have their cake and eat it too by being outsiders. We don’t have to act like straight men, as we are not really “legal”. We were outsiders, different, and discriminated against, so we were able to do what we wanted, act how we wanted and defined what is acceptable behavour for ourselves.
What happens to all of that when we are not discriminated against? What happens when we are able to get married?
Does getting married come with an expectation, a generally it does in straight culture, of having one and only one sexual partner ?Or do we continue on, as is, albeit with rings on our fingers, declaring to one and all “Married”, while having open relationships? Do those who sleep around become cheats, adulterers, or sluts? The changing of society with regards to our acceptance will probably come with some caveats – and is that a bad thing? Probably not.
It’s an important perspective to get out there and I really like Rachel maddow. We cannot assume every gay person wants gay marriage for themselves or even for other gays.
“we came up with alternative ways of recognizing relationships”
In response to outandout, I wonder if this reference was to all the kinds of relationships we have in gay culture.
I’m here thinking about some of the tenets of gay lifestyle that unite gay people and are, arguably, a result of the absence of institutions like marriage. It’s encouraged a camaraderie among groups of friends that last longer than they otherwise may have enabling a broader and richer experience of life and people. It encouraged cross generational relationships, be they romantic or platonic, to thrive so one could be twenty five and have many friends over 40 which is less common among heterosexuals of the same age. We were able to be students of life for longer, travel more, and all without any sense of an imperial expectation to push humanity forward. I am pro gay marriage and see great value in the role of family in society but one cannot be blind to the sacrifices to be made.
I’m not sure what she means when she says “we came up with alternative ways of recognising relationships”, as if it is somehow fundamentally different to anything in mainstream culture. And I’ve seen plenty of subcultural creativity there, too: communes, polyamory, group marriage, flower children…all partaken by heterosexual men and women who (theoretically) could choose to go the path of legal marriage, too. So I guess I’m not sure what will really be ‘lost’ other than necessity? People like Rachel & her girlfriend will still be able to define their relationships however they want.
BTW, I like “gay culture” too, but I don’t expect it to remain the same always. Compare the way we were 30, 20, even 10 years ago, to now. Everything changes, and not all change is bad.