But, it seems like the author of the article is perpetuating the ostrasizement (is that a word? doubtful) of gay black men from being able to identify with any sort of group....Or am I totally missing something?
Originally Posted by JillH410
Here's his overall argument. The gay rights movement has been focused on white middle/upper-class men (which is true). This means that gay marriage, like straight marriage, would be tainted by societal racism. Therefore, gay people should not be allowed to marry. He uses the "marriage is bad, so gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry" argument I wrote about above.

On the other hand, some queer rights activists believe that marriage perpetuates a number of oppressive systems, including the gender binary, misogyny, people as commodities, etc. (And yes, "queer" is the correct and non-offensive term to use in this context.) They say that marriage should not be the main goal of the queer rights movement, because it represents everything that queer people have the opportunity to reject. However, I don't believe that most people who subscribe to this argument are against gay marriage, per se. They're just against the idea that the goal of the queer rights movement should be so bourgeois and traditional. They'd prefer something more revolutionary and less restrictive.