| |
Jessica Nathanson, Visiting
Assistant Professor, Augustana College
TYING THE KNOT by Jim de Sève
In an era that has seen both giant leaps forward for gay civil
rights and an enormous backlash against them, Jim de Sève’s
TYING THE KNOT, a documentary film about same-sex marriage, is not
only timely but sorely needed. Opponents to legalizing same-sex
marriage present marriage between a man and a woman as traditional,
as sacred, and as the cornerstone of the family and the nation.
But this film challenges such rhetoric, reminding us that the meaning
of marriage has always been culturally constructed and historically
situated. Further, the film examines the way in which legislation
designed to “protect” or “defend” marriage
by defining it as only between a man and a woman actually works
against families by stripping gay and lesbian families of survivor
benefits, inheritances, and other legal rights that are attached
to marriage.
TYING THE KNOT documents the historical struggle to have same-sex
relationships legally recognized. The film shows footage of James
Dobson declaring “I don’t believe that homosexuals really
want to marry. I think they want to destroy marriage and then recreate
it…with all of the benefits but without the commitment.”
But the film’s framing of this fight to marry, from the seventies
to the present day, tells a different story. We follow two lesbian
and gay couples in particular – Mickie and Lois, and Sam and
Earl – who illustrate just how committed same-sex relationships
can be. Mickie and Lois, both police officers, had had a wedding
celebration and had been married for nearly ten years when Lois
was shot and killed in the line of duty. Sam and Earl had been together
for 22 years – rivaling many different-sex marriages –
together raising Sam’s children from a previous marriage until
Earl’s death. Clearly, commitment is not a problem.
But benefits are. For instance, although Mickie took on the couple’s
financial responsibilities, she had not been named as Lois’
beneficiary on her pension; that right was only given to legal spouses
and next-of-kin. Likewise, when Earl died, his will directed that
his estate go to Sam. But Earl’s estranged cousins, as his
next-of-kin, challenged the will on a technicality and gained control
of the estate. Though even they acknowledged that Earl’s intent
had been to leave the estate to Sam, they still fought for –
and won – the estate because Earl and Sam had not been legally
married, and so Sam was not Earl’s next-of-kin. These two
cases underscore the manner in which marriage functions in the United
States as a legal contract, with legal benefits attached, as well
as the vulnerability of same-sex partners to the whims of their
families of origin.
The film documents a still-unfolding shift in the way that marriage
is conceptualized, not just in the U.S., but globally. It lays out
the timeline for the consideration of legalizing same-sex marriage,
from 1993, when Hawaii came very close to making same-sex marriage
legal, to the resultant backlash of the “Defense of Marriage
Act” in 1996, to Holland’s 2001 redefinition of marriage
as between any two consenting adults, to Massachusetts’ recognition
of same-sex marriage in 2003.
The film is particularly useful in that it contextualizes the
rhetoric that argues for a particular, selective history of marriage.
In her interview in the film, Brandeis scholar E. J. Graff, author
of What Is Marriage For? The Strange Social History of Our Most
Intimate Institution, explains that the nature of marriage itself
has changed drastically over the years, evolving from a secular,
legal contract to a sacrament, and from a financial arrangement
to a love relationship. Further, as marriage has evolved, Graff
points out, these changes have been perceived historically as threatening
the institution. In one particularly illuminating example, the film
explores resistance to interracial marriage in the 1960s and the
then-current definition of marriage as the union of a man and a
woman of one race. Viewing the two struggles side by side helps
to reveal same-sex marriage as both a necessary progressive change
and also part of a longer evolution of marriage that has strengthened,
rather than weakened, the institution.
And, indeed, what we are left with, regardless of our opinions
about the viability of marriage or the worth of the institution
itself, is the realization that the institution of marriage functions
to award privilege to different-sex couples. By highlighting the
devastating effects of such discriminatory practice on gay families,
the film will likely change minds and therefore legislation. It
is when we see Mickie and Lois, Sam and Earl, and other couples
interacting with each other, or sharing their love and loss with
the camera, that the film is at its most effective. By spending
time with these couples, we are reminded of what a marriage should
be. |
|
