What's So Special About Marvel's Gay (Mutant) Wedding?

[CBR News]

With the X-Man known as Northstar his boyfriend in June, Brett White asks, what does Marvel's latest plot development say about modern comics and American culture?


Full article here.

[darknessatnoon]

I always laugh at that "right side of history" bromide. More like the neo-liberal side of queer politics.

[Dr. Sonic]

I always laugh at that "right side of history" bromide. More like the neo-liberal side of queer politics.

Interesting. Ms. Redburn makes some insightful points, but it's always tricky business to associate correlation with causation. The homeless, children in foster care, disenfranchised gay youth, et al. have constantly remained invisible groups, those whose plights remain under the radar of your typical liberal thinker - it's a bit paranoid to think that gay marriage has been put to the foreground simply to distract people from the pressing needs of such groups.

[durkadurka]

"Northstar doesn't angst over marriage inequality, and Gambit and Iceman don't flinch when offering their teammate relationship advice (although, man, could Northstar have chosen worse guys to get advice from?)."

To be fair, is there anybody in the X-Men that has a good relationship track record? Even in the Marvel Universe as a whole, you really only have Luke Cage and Jessica Jones, and that's only because of the relative newness of that relationship.

[darknessatnoon]

Interesting. Ms. Redburn makes some insightful points, but it's always tricky business to associate correlation with causation. The homeless, children in foster care, disenfranchised gay youth, et al. have constantly remained invisible groups, those whose plights remain under the radar of your typical liberal thinker - it's a bit paranoid to think that gay marriage has been put to the foreground simply to distract people from the pressing needs of such groups.

It's part of a general movement of privatization within gay politics (following Stonewall's 20th Anniversary). Michael Warner makes the more extended argument (as do a million other people), but Lauren Berlant makes it better. Beth Povinelli makes the more historical version of the argument here and here, though she doesn't credit anyone involved in making it.

[goneandromeda]

I always laugh at that "right side of history" bromide. More like the neo-liberal side of queer politics.

I. Love. You.

[xhx23x]

I would've like to see what the View thought of Danger or Ord.

[Dr. Sonic]

It's part of a general movement of privatization within gay politics (following Stonewall's 20th Anniversary). Michael Warner makes the more extended argument (as do a million other people), but Lauren Berlant makes it better. Beth Povinelli makes the more historical version of the argument here and here, though she doesn't credit anyone involved in making it.

I'm familiar with Berlant and Povinelli, but have not yet heard of Michael Warner. There are certainly benefits and detriments to be subsumed into the mainstream. Yet, when it boils down to safety and civil rights, the sad truth is that stateways need to proceed folkways. That is to say that sometimes laws need to be passed to force acceptance and, as time goes by, the specific law and the values behind it become accepted. The legalization of gay marriage may, in some ways, feel like a assimilation of one culture into another, but may also prove an essential step toward protecting people's rights.

[darknessatnoon]

I forgot that Lisa Duggan does a lot of research on the topic in the context of New York/US politics.

[Optic Rage]

I feel like I've been hijacked.

[Soundrave]

Uhm . . . awesome cover?

It's nice to see that someone (artist, writer, editor, or all of the above) took the time to include relevant wedding guests, and not just the usual MU suspects that you see in many other group shots (cough, Bendis, cough).

[darknessatnoon]

I'm familiar with Berlant and Povinelli, but have not yet heard of Michael Warner.

lol, I'll have to quote that one. They'll be happy to hear that.

There are certainly benefits and detriments to be subsumed into the mainstream. Yet, when it boils down to safety and civil rights, the sad truth is that stateways need to proceed folkways. That is to say that sometimes laws need to be passed to force acceptance and, as time goes by, the specific law and the values behind it become accepted. The legalization of gay marriage may, in some ways, feel like a assimilation of one culture into another, but may also prove an essential step toward protecting people's rights.

It's not about mainstreaming. Ryan Conrad puts it better than I can do while multitasking: "The entire framework that we use to understand our "resources," like health care or housing or knowledge, etc. is of the economic model of capitalism and scarcity. Here in the States, through marriage we see the privatization of what we believe are collective benefits, like access to health care, to specifically classed family units. Instead of fighting for everyone's right to live, like queer folks did so loudly and proudly here and elsewhere in the 80s, we see LGBTs now demanding that only married people have the right to these things." Though I think it's about more than just housing/healthcare, etc. It's about who counts as sane, according to Gay Inc. What's a legitimate life-plot (see the late Bert Cohler), etc.

[Drax1981]

Interesting. Ms. Redburn makes some insightful points, but it's always tricky business to associate correlation with causation. The homeless, children in foster care, disenfranchised gay youth, et al. have constantly remained invisible groups, those whose plights remain under the radar of your typical liberal thinker - it's a bit paranoid to think that gay marriage has been put to the foreground simply to distract people from the pressing needs of such groups.

Yeah. I see the point where it's profoundly cynical to praise the idea of marriage equality on the one hand while slashing funding for programs that directly help queer youth. I didn't see anything that points to these ideas being mutually exclusive.
And what exactly did Crate & Barrel do to this poor woman?

[darknessatnoon]

Yeah. I see the point where it's profoundly cynical to praise the idea of marriage equality on the one hand while slashing funding for programs that directly help queer youth. I didn't see anything that points to these ideas being mutually exclusive.
And what exactly did Crate & Barrel do to this poor woman?

What part of neoliberal privatization is hard to understand?

[Dr. Sonic]

t's not about mainstreaming. Ryan Conrad puts it better than I can do while multitasking...

I'm also multitasking, and this has moved beyond what I can do while doing something else (so sorry if my thoughts on the matter are a bit half-baked).
A former classmate of mine just published a book called Going 'Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone' (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...oing-Solo.html). He makes something of a similar argument not only for those among the LGBT community, but for straight people as well - i.e. this notion that 'being married' legitimizes or actualizes one's existence.