Anonymous #1 1w

fr exactly. like yes i have a reasonable level of concern about the future validity of my marriage bc of a conservative supreme court + my dumbass got married in a state with a constitutional ban against gay marriage, but that is soooo far down the list of Issues Harming Queer People. like, i can’t update my passport now. incarcerated trans people are being forcibly detransitioned. queer immigrants are being rounded up into *actual concentration camps* and being deported after seeking asylum.

11

Anonymous #1 1w

i’m probably being harsh but like. this brand of “humor” is so tired and annoying.

5

Anonymous #1 1w

plus it’s lowkey trivializing to the history of lavender marriages and ignorant of queer people who actually enter lavender marriages today—both in the US and around the world.

10

Anonymous OP 1w

no ur not being harsh at all! icl a lot of lavender marriage jokes normalize the clashing of the capitalist realities of america with the feudal agrarian land-based kinship social orders in the global south! wealth is tied to land, land is passed down the male lineage in the kinship system. iirc this was where gender came into existence where women were forced into monogamy so men could police their sexuality / ensure the kids were theirs. matrilineality was erased

1

Anonymous #1 1w

in the absence of a strong state legal system, "honor" acts as a form of social capital; women’s bodies and reproductive choices are seen as "vessels" for property transmission. An "unauthorized" marriage or relationship is viewed not just as a sin, but as an economic threat—a potential "leak" of land or inheritance outside the kinship group. so gender (fluid, relational) calcifies. queerness is literally a subtle form of ‘resistance’ in this regard, even though it still depends on the person

1

Anonymous #1 1w

they often remain tied to the feudal social creditsystem back home to maintain status, property, and power in their village of origin. they use this wealth to buy more land back home. to protect that investment, they must adhere to the local social hierarchy. arranged marriages and "honor" enforcement are ways to cement these transnational economic alliances. until women’s independent labor more valuable than their ‘reputational’ capital.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

i’m going back and forth BUTTT my point is that people who romanticize ‘lavender marriages’ (yes the wording itself and the way it’s sensationalized in tiktoks as jokes can seem innocuous yet also insidious…) but it almost espouses arranged marriages. and these are the conditions that we are trying to eradicate back in the global south. american south as well as sicily and greece also had honor systems until it shifted from land preservation to labor and consumption control.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

the nuclear family as a unit of consumption made it shift from control of women by village elders/caste councils etc. to the individual breadwinner as transitions happened with the economic base. but yeah, lavender marriages are so regressive & reactionary, bc it’s like the framing doesn’t imply that they’d be honor killed if they didn’t partake in one. otherwise, why would they admit to the performance? the performance is survival, life or death. like wtf??

1

Anonymous #1 1w

it’s so weird to me because people who don’t have a choice bc of their background are caught in double binds. it’s the same people who uncritically parrot “lavender marriages” while racializing the people who are forced into smth that isn’t biological it also perpetuates that fucking “dual income” weird saying like i know what you are when you say “dual income” as a preference…very hetcoded.

1

Anonymous #1 1w

it’s so weird that a) they ignore that not everyone can actually HANDLE a ‘lavender marriage’ bc it demands strict adherence b) they ignore that those who can’t handle the forced marriage cannot escape if it’s imposed, not out of volition c) they racialize the people who are forced into it bc they view arranged marriage as a third world “backwards” thing and here it’s their fetish LMAO. (not to mention that bc intl law which facilitates global south-north fissures enabled slow racialized pops.)

1

Anonymous #1 1w

and they use the presence of semi feudal social orders back at home to say that this is justified (like bro if you can call it a ‘lavender marriage’ there’s not much semantic flexibility…not only do i know what u mean, but i know that you’re not in precarity if you can romanticize it!). circular reasoning makes ur head hurt to see the wild justifications for this 💀

1

Anonymous OP 1w

They said they won’t turn over previous marriages but won’t allow new ones

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Thankfully it didn’t even get to there but still as of right now if they decide to your marriage will most likely be more protected than people who were planning on it

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

if they overturn obergfell and it gets thrown back to the states, each state will then be allowed to determine how to handle it—in some states it will still be legal to get married in the future and in some states it won’t. it is absolutely possible for states with constitutional bans to determine the marriage license was invalid at the time it was issued. no one knows what will/can happen, and it’s honestly irresponsible to suggest that you do.

8