Just this past week in Connecticut, advocates and supporters of gay rights scored another apparent victory-the implementation of civil unions throughout the state. Despite this victory, however, for many groups, civil union is not a sufficient endgame. Yet, it does appear to the goal of the nationally prominent gay rights movement. Two gay rights groups in particular, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Love Makes a Family, are currently focusing disproportionately or exclusively on marriage rights. To the outsider, it would appear that the entire Gay Rights movement hinges upon gay marriage, given the emphasis put upon it by various human rights organizations. Nevertheless, one cannot look at the media circus surrounding the issue without asking why gay and conservative groups have made marriage the penultimate issues of their respective campaigns.

The simple answer is assimilation. If the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities can form families that are in exact emulation of the heterosexual archetype, then, the impression seems to be, how would it be possible to justify discrimination against them? In a sense, the goal of groups like HRC is apparent: "Look, we are exactly the same as you, we just have sex in a different way. Otherwise we are completely 'normal.'" The problems with this goal are numerous, and they probably irritate conservatives as much as they do me. I, like the majority of conservatives, do not view gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, pansexuals, omnisexuals, or however you want to say queers as "normal" people. Which isn't to say they're not "normal" in a bad way.

The queer community is one that subverts and undermines the patriarchal power structure that marriage embodies. The queer community, in my opinion, is one that seeks to find its own diverse and rich traditions that break down the racist, sexist, chauvinist, heteronormative and classist ideologies of the father culture rather than embracing them whole-heartedly. This community creates safe spaces for all people to express themselves free of the constraints of gender and other imposed structures. On the other hand, I am not in the least opposed to marriage. I believe marriage is an institution that has many positive social and economic advantages. It offers assurances and streamlines an endless number of procedures, and it provides yet another arrangement in which children may grow up happily.

Marriage is, in short, a wonderful thing. But, in countless ways it is a privilege for the white and wealthy men and women of the gay and lesbian communities. The gay rights movement should not embrace such a concept without at least first examining its history, meaning and the effects it will have upon the community at large. Some of the most fabulous and weird members of the queer community are left out of the HRC's picture portraits of gay families with picket fences in the background. The transsexuals, genderqueers, urban poor, minorities and just about anyone else who doesn't fit into the soundbyte the HRC wants to manufacture for mainstream consumption is left out, forgotten and marginalized in the goals of the greater American movement.

Rather than trying to create a larger space for the whole community, a lopsided focus on marriage has created yet another box for a community that at one time could not even be contained in a rainbow. Diversity aside, it also just seems frivolous to devote such a large portion of the national movement to a single issue when in the majority of the country things such as workforce anti-discrimination, hate-crimes and anti-bullying laws in schools do not include sexual orientation on their list of protections. Securing such basic rights for all would seem a much better use of a group's time instead of working for the rights of the privileged. Realistically, the marriage issue is a juggernaut, one unlikely to end at any point in the near future. So, unfortunately, all the rest of us can do is just be the funky and strange queers God meant for us to be.

Clark can be reached rclark08@amherst.edu