INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be fmrn any type of computer printer,

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reprodudion.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e-g., maps, drawings, &arb) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to tight in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6' x 9" black and Mite photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustratims appearing in this copy for an additional charge. UMI directly to order.

Bell 8 Howell Information and Leaning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600

"WE ARE FAMILY'?": THE STRUGGLE FOR SAME-SEX SPOUSAL RECOGNITION IN AND THE CONUNDRUM OF "FAMILY"

lMichelIe Kelly Owen

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of

Copyright by Michelle Kelly Owen 1999 National Library Bibliothiique nationale l*B of du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services sewices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nre Wellington ottawaON KlAON4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde me licence oon exclusive licence dowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prGter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fih, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts fkom it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent &re imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. "We Are Family'?": The Struggle for Same-Sex Spousal Recognition in Ontario and the Conundrum of "Family" Doctor of Philosophy. 1999 Michelle KelIy Owen Department of Sociology and Equity Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

ABSTRACT

In this dissertation I ask if it is possible. or indeed desirable. to tisht for same-sex spousal recognition while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and conception ot' "family" operating in this strug_ele. I investisate this question within the context of Bill 167. the Equal*

Rights Srarure Amendment Law, introduced by the governing Ontario in

1994. to extend the definition of "spouse" to include partners in same-sex relationships. In the aftermath of the defeat of this proposed legislation. the judiciary has stepped in to till the void

Ieft by elected politicians. Theoretically. I employ a feminist postmodern framework informed by anti-oppression politics. Methodologically. I incorporate critical autobiographical narrative. and discourse analysis of documentary sources and oral histories collected from community activists.

In the opening chapters of this thesis I review bodies of thought and theory that have laid the groundwork for the assumptions and beliefs that shape the debate around "t'r~miiy"and same- sex spousal rights taking place in contemporary Ontario. The starting point for this analysis is my own participation in, and re-thinking of, the struggle for same-sex spousaI recognition, as

I outline in Chapter One. I continue in Chapter Two to argue that the concept of "experience" is problematic and hence must be deployed in a critical fashion. Neither the descriptisn of different experiences nor deconstructive analyses of how difference is produced constitute the ..- 111 "whole story." Likewise "family" is simultaneously an interpretation and in need of interpretation. This became most apparent in my interrogation of the dominant ideology of "the family" and the organization of families in Chapter Three. Upon highlighting the tension in writings between a "pro-family" and an "anti-family" stance. I conclude that this binarism is inadequate. Simply deconstmcting "family" or valorizing queer families is restrictive.

In the second half of my dissertation 1 turn to look at the poiiticaI and legal manouverin_e around same-sex spousal rights in this province. Chapter Four consists of an examination of the contestation of "family" in the political. rather than the theoretical. realm. in particular a detaiIing of the rise and fall of the ONDP's Bill 167. In Chapter Five I shift the focus to the grassroots lobby efforts for same-sex spousal recognition legislation in Ontario. I explore the perspectives of variously-situated queer community activists in regard to the strugle around Bill

167 in particular. and "family" in general. In the tinal chapter I provide a brief review of the evoIving state of same-sex spousal rights in Ontario and Canada since the defeat of Biii 167. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many wonderful people supported me through this journey, and I am grateful to each and every one of them. Writing this dissertation would have been an infinitely more difficult task without the aftinnation. assistance. and encouragement which I received from friends. "family." and colleagues too numerous to mention. Such relationships are truly a gift.

I would particularly like to thank my thesis supervisor. Ruth Roach Pierson. who has been a part of my doctoral education from the beginning. Her input, advice. assistance. and guidance were invaluable. She is a mentor and a friend. I am also gratetirl to the other members of my thesis committee. Kari Dehli and Kathleen Rockhill. for putting a great deal of time and energy into editing my dissertation and offering suggestions. Lastly I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my examiners, Margrit Eichler and . who reviewed my work and asked insightful questions.

As a student and a teacher my ideas have been constantly challenged. and I am thus indebted to my many teachers and students. The thesis goup to which I belonged while I was writing was another important sire of intellectual growth. Thanks to Holly Baines. Michelle

Cohen, Patricia Molloy, and Lauri Sanci for their critical readings. I am also grateful for the opportunities which I had to deveIop my musings by presenting parts of my dissertation at various conferences. And. of course, none of this would have been possible without the oral narratives of queer community activists. I am fortunate that they so generously shared their

"experiences" with me. Finally, the scholarships which I received from the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Ontario Graduate SchoIarship Program were much appreciated. v

The idea for this thesis was sparked by my former . Lisa Jeffs. I will never forset

the role she played in my life. Karen Barrett, my life partner. was with me during the tatter stages of the writing process. Her kindness and iove and generosity made ail the difference. I

look forward to moving ahead with her. embracing and deconstructing our connection.

By way of ending and beginning, I would like to quote a passage written thirty years ago by Ursula K. Le Guin in The Left Hand of Darkness. These words have been. and will continue to be, personally/politically inspiring: "when action grows unprofitable. sather information: when

information grows unprofitable. sleep. I was not sleepy. yet." TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE Looking Back: A Critical Re-Thinkinp

CHAPTER TWO The Dis/Comforts of Home: "Experience" as a Site of Contestation in Feminisms

CHAPTER THREE Family Matters: "Normal to be Queer?"

CHAPTER FOUR "We Are Family'?" I: The Political Drama of BiIl 167

CHAPTER FIVE "We Are Familyb?"11: Queer Activism and Bill 167

CHAPTER SIX Looking Forward : In the Aftermath of Bill 167

APPENDIX A Abbreviations

APPENDIX B Interviews

BIBLIOGRAPHY CHArnER ONE

Looking Back: A Critical Re-Thinking

Introduction

In the summer of 1995 I was searching for a topic for my doctoral dissertation. I had considered a number of topics. all in the areas of feminist and . social and political thought. postmodern analysis. women's history, and cultural studies. Ar the same time I found out that I had helped to set a federal precedent allowing same-sex couples to collect

Unemployment Insurance (U.I.). When I was accepted into the doctoral programme at the

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) in Toronto, I was living with my former partner in London, Ontario. After I commuted for a term between the two cities. we decidcd to move. According to the rules of U.I. at the time. a partner in an opposite-sex reiationship

(whether common-law or Iegafty married) could collect benetits if she or he had to quit a job to relocate when her or his partner obtained ernpioyment in another city.

As my partner had to quit her jobs to come with me to Toronto. she applied for U.I. and was subsequently denied benefits. We took our case to a U.I. Commission Appeals Board and the Board of Referees ruled in our favour. The U.I. Commission subsequently appealed this decision. Before our case got to court the federal government dropped its appeal.' When 1 learned of this outcome in 1995 I was overjoyed: what a milestone! The victory seemed particularly sweet in the aftermath of the failure of the Eqrraliry Rights Stature Amendment Law

(Bill 167) in Ontario.' It had been just over a year since the provincial New Democratic Party

(ONDP) had introduced legislation that would extend the definition of "spouse" to include partners in same-sex relationships.' The bill was defeated after second reading in June 1991. and events had been occurring around the city to mark the loss.

t -3 On July 7. 1995. the first page headline of Xtra!, Toronto's and lesbian biweekly

newspaper, read "UI Spousal Benefits Won."' Again. I felt proud of what had been

accomplished. Upon reading the article. however. I was dismayed to learn that my former

partner did not feel the same way. "It's a win I suppose. technically." she said in the inter vie^.^

She went on to explain that in her opinion same-sex spousal benefits merely emuiate a

heterosexual model of dependency. This was no longer a struggle she could wholeheartedly

support.

My first reaction was anger: how could she diminish everything that we had fought for'?

But then I started to critically re-think the goals of the struggle for same-sex spousal rights. I had

volunteered my time at the Campaign for Equal Families (CEF) and ?one on the marches to show my support." And yet. as a queer/bisexual feminist woman. I did not and do not consider this fight an unproblematic one. For one, I do not wholeheartedly support the legal-political trend to treat opposite-sex common-law couples as if they were married opposite-sex couples.' But here I was tighting for equivalent rights for same-sex couples. Moreover. in the process of this battle, I myself had become a "spouse" (albeit after the dissolution of the relationship).

And this leads to my second concern. namely the boundaries around identity that became rigidly shored up during this debate. The image of the "lesbian-gay family" which emerged during this time period was quite normative. For instance. the families which were highlighted by politicians and activists were predominantly white. midcite-class. nuclear. and -headed .'

All "others" were deemed inappropriate and relegatedlregulated to the sidelines. This marginalized contingent included a heterogeneous range of sexual and gender minorities such as , bisexual women and men, and transgendered people, as well as working-class and and lesbians and gay men of colour. 3 Despite these problems I supported (and continue to support) the political struggle for same-sex spousal recognition in this province. this country and around the world. I have experienced and first-hand and I seek to combat this injustice. But not uncritically: there is too much at stake.' Thus I landed on this thesis topic. The first pan of my title. "We Are points to the doubts 1 have surrounding this slogan which was so prevalent in the summer of 1994 and. in fact. became the rallyins cry of the 1995 Pride Day celebrations in Toronto." Who is this "we"? Who is inc1udedg?Excluded'? Who gets to decide?

What criteria are used'? How are they regulated'? What is a "family"? Is it a desirable institution'?

How is this desire shaped'? Does it promote a dependency model of intimate relations'? Is it inherently heterosexual'? Patriarchal'? Is it raced and classed'? How'? What happens to groups when they receive support from the government? What happens when they do not?

The Thesis of the Thesis

I am thus left with a dilemma. Is it possible. or indeed desirable. to tight for same-sex spousal recognition while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and of the conception of "family" operating in this strugg1e6?That is the central conundrum which I will investigate. within the context of Ontario's Bill 167. in this thesis."

Positionings

This work. like any work. will be limited in a number of ways (only some of which I can see from my current locations). Firstly. the literature reviewed is in no way complete. but is restricted by time and space. And like any author(ity) attempting to craft a successful argument,

I highlight certain points at the expense of others. Secondly, as I will try to show by statin, some of my personal/political positionings below, the questions 1 pose (like any questions posed by 1 anyone) are in no way unbiased. Rather. the topics examined herein are indicative of where and

how I tive.

I have endeavoured to write this piece in anembodied. engaged. and responsible manner.

My inspiration for this type of scholarship comes from Donna Haraway's concept of "situated

knowledge^.":^ The view from the body necessarily implies a partial perspective rather than a

presumprion of infinite vision. or what she refers to as a "god trick."!' Moreover. as Haraway

points out. there are no "innocent politic^."'^ My identities include being a white. English-

speaking. urban. First World. able-bodied. thirty-something bisexual queer feminist woman

studying in a Sociology and Equity Studies department at a Canadian graduate school of

education. Acknowledging that I inhabit privileged locations as a member of various dominant

Lgroups. I will strive to work within an anti-oppression framework.'" P~liticalI~~and conceptually

my positionings can be located at the intersections of feminist theory. social justice activism.

postmodern analysis. queer strugges. existential philosophy. and leftist politics. "

I feel that I am in a unique position to tackle this topic (which is not to say that my

"experience" is beyond critique).'" have been involved in committed same-sex relations11ips and I have fought to have the same rights in these relationships that 1 have been accorded in opposite-sex relationships. In my everyday life I constantly struggle as a queerlbisexual with the system of compuisory heterosexuaIity which orders the world in which I live.'Y With a man I am given heterosexual privilege: we can hold hands in public. move in together. take vows. have children. In short. our "opposite-sex " relationship is publicly recognized as legitimate. " normal. " and good. This is not the case when I am involved in an intimate relationship with a woman.

Public displays of affection are met with disapproval, fear. hatred, and sometimes even violence.

Cornmi tted partners face many obstacles to setting up households together and havinglholding on to children. Benefits and pensions are sometimes withheld by employers. Ceremonies are not "legal." In short. same-sex relationships often go unrecognized or they are deemed illegitimate.

"abnormal," and wrong.

As a white. able-bodied. educated woman living in the Western world. I feel and benefit from a sense of entitlement. iMy various privileged positionings. which are mainly unearned and unacknowledged. offer me protection which I have come to take for granted." The fact that I am legally denied certain rights when I am in one kind of a relationship makes me indignant. No matter how responsible I try to be. for example not flaunting or misusing my heterosexual privilege with men or treating relationships with women as less important. the government makes

(and enforces) its own value judgements. It tells me. my lovers, and the rest of society that only male-female couplings are worthy of official recognition. In order to receive certain benefits I must be with a man. For being heterosexual I will be duly rewarded. I rebel against this regulation of my desire wich every fibre of my being: I will love and build a Iife with whomever

I choose in any fashion I desire. Moreover. I expect to be treated equitably whether I am involved with a woman. a man, a fransgendered person. all of the above, or on my own.

\I*Story

According to Sidonie Smith. with the shift in discourses from the coherence of the modem individual to the fragmentation of the postmodern subject. "life writing" has become an increasingly complex endeavour." I have certainly found this to be the case as I struggIed to insert my own voice into this thesis without essentializing "my self. " Moreover. as Sherene

Razack cautions. in this historical period it is crucial that we question our choice of narrative strategies. Story-telling is less risky for those in racially dominant positions than it is for people of colour." Keeping these points in mind, I will proceed to tell parts of my story." 6 Born in Toronto. Ontario. in the mid-1960s to a working-to-middle class. heterosexual

(sometimes) nuclear family. I grew up hearing various social justice movements. including what were then referred to as the women's iiberation movement and the civil rishts movement.

News of marches. riots and "bra-burning" came into my home on a fairly regular basis via the mass media.'' In the early eighties I focused on (white. mainstream) women's issues in my high school assignments, and sought to raise my friends' and family's awareness of (white. liberal) feminism. But it was not until I began university in 1984 that I actually joined a political group and besan referring to myself as a feminist.

Throughout the course of my undergraduate years in Political Science. women's studies classes were just getting off the ground. Around the same time I discovered professors who were teaching various forms of critical theory. When I began my Master's degree in the early nineties. at The Centre for the Smdy of Theory and Criticism at the University of Western Ontario

(UWO). ferninisms and postmodernisms were embedded in my work.5 Race and class. however. had not become central oqanizing categories of my work but only minor considerations. I rarely took into consideration difference based on such factors as ability and

age .'h

By the time 1 commenced my Ph.D. in Sociology in Education at OISE. and was teaching university courses. I had "come out" as bisexual and was primarily involved in same-sex relationships." When my social location shifted. so did my scholarship. As 1 became increasingly aware of the heterocentricity of the world around me. it was harder to ignore other forms of systemic domination (i.e.. . classism. ableism. etc.). Moreover. I began to realize how I as a white woman benefitted from and was implicated in this racist order. I can no longer pay mere lip service to these structures of oppression in my life or in my work.'" 7 Theoretical Framewrork(s)

My work is marked by the influence of two related philosophical modes of inquiry.

namely existentialism and postmodernism. In this respect I believe that the work of Friedrich

Nietzsche, with its deconstructionist impulse, signals a turning point in the history of Western

political thought. When Nietzsche's "madman" proclaims to a group of onlookers in the

marketplace that God is dead. and that they have in fact killed him. the crowd does not

understand: "I come too early.. .my time has not come yet. "-"I What he was pointing to is [hat

humans creatc.1 the concept of "God." "God" did not create humans.

In a similar vein Jean Paul Sartre wrote in the 1930s that "existence precedes essence. "w

The search for origins. for causal links, the projects of determinism and structuralism are, from

his perspective. merely ways of denyins freedom. Humans create their own realities anci usually

forset that they have done so. In this manner concepts take on a life of their own and we

mistakenly treat them as "natural." somethins which exists before and outside of social existence.

Simone De Beauvoir. writing in the same period, pushed this line of thought even further when

she made the social construction of gender the focus of her intellectual work and proclaimed that

"[ojne is not born. but rather becomes a woman."" In other words. the catesory "woman" is something which humans have created and imposed onto certain bodies.

Part of what I have taken from the aforementioned theories/theorists is a desire to pull apart notions which appear self-evident. Hence it is not my intention to merely expand the definition of concepts such as "family" and "experience" but rather to interrogate the categories

themselves. I have already pointed to the fact that my scholarship incorporates a feminist- postmodern (postmodem-feminist?) stance." In this regard I concur with Nancy Fraser and

Linda J. Nicholson that feminist activists/schoIars need both to be critical of grand narratives and to make use of concepts such as gender3' In general. postmodem-feminist theory would be pragmatic and fallib ilistic. It would tailor its methods and categories to the specific task at hand. using multiple categories when appropriate and foreswearing the metaphysical comfort of a single feminist method or feminist epistemology.*

Obviously. though. there are some drawbacks to this strategy. As Jane Flax states. "our lives and alliances belong with those who seek to fur~berdecenter the world--although we should reserve the right to be suspicious of their motives and visions as

IMichel Foucault's analysis of power and knowledse has been important to feminist theorizins. In place of a linear vision of power. he suggests that power be regarded as a network of force relations. That is. "[plower is everywhere: not because it embraces everything. but because it comes from everywhere."= Foucault is critical of the idea that power is separate from knowledge and is a unified. coherent force which emanates from a single point of domination.

Thus. in his vkw. power cannot be seized, but only exercised at various points. This can be an empowering model because it allows us to act from where we are. Instead of a revolution,

Foucault posits a "plurality of resistance^."^' And yet his writings. oblivious as they are to gender. race, and class. are certainly not unproblematic.'" &

Feminisms and Postmodernisms/Poststructuralisms

What is postmodernism'? Poststructuralism'? What is the difference'! (Is there a difference'?

Does it matter'?) How have these new scholarships impacted on feminist theories'? What sort of effects have feminisms had on postmodernisms'? What are the implications of feminist postmodern/poststructural (de)(re)constructions of "women" and "homosexuals" for epistemology and political action? Are these modes of scholarship principally the possession of white privileged men and some women'? And if so. how does that matter to the issues at hand in this work'? The various resistances to and relationships between feminisms and poststructuralisms/postmodenisms 9 are fascinating. intricate. and complex. Attempting to set limits on these terms is an

ovenvhelming (and. some would say. contradictory) task. Nonetheless. I feel it is useful to posit

provisional definitions for the purposes of this text.'"

It is, in my opinion, extremely problematic to talk about "feminism" and/or

"postmodernism" in the singular. These terms are not homogeneous. stable. distinct or parallel.

Consider. for instance. the way these terms are framed by the editors of the collection entitled

Frt?rinisrn/Postt?rader1tisn2.They write that: "if postmodernists have been drawn to such vieics

[critiques of modernity] by a concern with the status of philosophy. feminists have been led to

them by the demands of political practice.""' Unlike Fraser and Nicholson. I do not see

"feminists" and "postmodernists" as solid. mutually exclusive categories of people. I am deeply

suspicious of the tidy manner in which these terms are employed in the above quotation. even

while I appreciate the difficulty of writing comprehensibly about "feminisms " and

'I p~~tm~dernisrns" ."

"Postmodernism" is. in my understanding, a less precise term than "poststructuralism."

The latter is generally used to refer to a critique of the structuralist school of thought.

"Postmodernism" can indicate anything from an architectural style to a literary senre to a mode of psychoanalysis to the epoch following the "modem" period. Like "feminism."

"postmodernism" and "poststructuralism" can be viewed not as positions "but rather a critical

interrogation of the exclusionary practices by which 'positions' are established."" I prefer to employ "deconstruct" as a verb." Similarly, I like bell hooks' phrase "feminist movement,"

which indicates action. over "feminism" or even "feminisms. "" From "Homosexual" to "Queer"

Allow me to provide a brief sketch of the terms I use throughout this thesis in reference

ro .'l According to Jonathan Ned Katz. "" is not an ahistorical

concept but is rather a modem notion dating back only to the late nineteenth century." "Since

heterosexuality didn't exist. " he writes, "it had to be invented. "" It is important to deconstruct

this dominant ideology because it has come to be perceived as "normal" and "narural" and thus

extremely powerful. Katz traces the emergence of "heterosexuality" and "" to the

mid-1800s in America and Germany." In 1860 Walt Whitman was writing about a variety of

eroticisms, including intimate reiations between men." The term "homosexual" was coined in

1868 by the sodomy-law reformer Karl Maria Kertbeny. who had been working on other names

for men who loved men including the "Urning." or the Non-True man.^" "Homosexual" was

used publicly for the first time in 1869 in a legal appeal?

Interestingly. Katz points out that the term "heterosexuality" did not come into beins and

use until after the term "homosexuality." "Heterosexuality" was used initially in 1580 in a defense of homosexuality. This, he writes. is "one of sex history's grand ironies."" In 1889

"heterosexuality" first appeared in the fourth edition of a German medical text by Dr. Richard

Kraft-Ebing as a way to describe relations between men and women." His definition of

"heterosexuality" as the norm and "homosexuality" as deviant ultimately prevailed in western societies. despite some disagreement within the medical community .s

The homosexual emancipationist's word homosexual was appropriated by Kraft- Ebing and other late Victorian German medical men (and later. by American doctors) as these Dr. Frankensteins' way of naming. condemning. and asserting their own right to regulate a group of homoerotic creatures just then emerging into sight in the bars. dance halls, and streets of their country's larger cities."

"Lesbian" predates the binarism outlined above, although the English word has been in use only since the late 1800~.~Theterm "lesbian" has its roots in the writings of the poet 11 Sappho (c. 600 BC). who described love between the women on the isle of Lesbos. located in the Aegean Sea.'? In Stupassing rlze Love of Men: Ro~nanticFriendship and Low Benveen

Women from tlze Renaissance to rhe Presenr, Lillian Faderrnan writes that " ' [llesbian' describes a relationship in which two women's strongest emotions and affections are directed toward each other. Sexual contact may be a part of the relationship to a greater or lesser degree. or it may be entirely absent- " j" Her definition of "romantic friendship" between women is nearly the same. the major difference beins the opportunity in the modem era for two women to build a life together. Faderman credits lesbian-feminism for women's greater independence from men. especiaiIy in economic terms."

In contrast to "lesbian." "gay" (as applied to men who have relations with men) is a relatively new tenn originating in the 1960s. Accordins to Barry Adam. the slogan "say is sood" was used to mount a challenge to the more conservative associations in the mid-sixties in the U.S."' Significantly. some men defined themselves as "gay. " and in doing so attempted to distance themselves from the heterosexual/homosexual schema."' In this way movements were born. As Jeffrey Weeks writes. "the appropriation of the word 'gay'" is an important turning point:"'

What mattered was not the actual word itself but the fact that it was self-adopted. A term like "queer" was a label from the oppressive culrure; its use by homosexuals was a sign of oppression i~ternalised. "Gay" suggested a new defiance of moral norms and a new sense of pride in self. It was a public affirmation of the validity of homosexuality.")

"" is also about choice and a theoretical redefinition of categories."

Historically the concept of bisexuality has been examined by the likes of Sigmund Freud and

Alfred Kin~ey.~In Vice Versa: Bisexrrafiy and the Emicisnz of Evevda?, Life, Marjorie Garber states that the tenn is problematic." "Bisexuality" does not refer to a sexual minority, she writes, but rather to the fluidity of sexuality itself." It is "not just another but rather a sexuality that undoes sexual orientation as a category. a sexuality that threatens and

challenges the easy binaries of straight and gay.. .. "^% In the (post)modern context. bisexuality

can mean anything from an attraction to people of both genders. to sexual relations with men and

women. to occasional same-sex experimentation. For this reason bisexuals have been cast by

some heterosexuals and lesbiansigay men as greedy. avant-garde. indecisive. and/or hypersexual.

Like "bisexuality" (and perhaps even more than "bisexuality ") "queer" is not so much a

sexual identity as it is a challenge to sexual identities. "Queerness." particularly as it is used in

theory. signifies a critical space from which to cross boundaries. trouble and subvert identity.

and locate exclusions."' In the early 1990s the political action group "" was

formed: "[alppropriatins a former term of shame. Queer Nation constructed a confrontational

identity that put perversion in the public's face. ";" As a form of protest, "queer" can be viewed

as a response to the essentialism of the lesbian and gay movement.'' As Mary McIntosh puts

it in "Queer Theory and the War of the Sexes"

Queer is a form of resistance. a refusal of labels. pathologies. and moralities. It is defined more by what it is against than what it is for. Its slogan is not "zct out of my face" (let alone "gay is good"). but rather. "in your face. "-'

The term "queer" has been criticized for both lacking speciticity. and beins gendered

male. Certainly the word has a long and varied history." I would argue that for older generations "queer" carries more nezative associations. and is more closely linked with men. than

for younger people. For many of us who "came out" in the 1990s. "queer" poiitics and theory are an integral part of the postmodern landscape. That the term "queer" is tluid and non- exclusive is precisely what makes it so attractive. particularly in social constructionist academic circles. As Teresa de Lauretis explains:

In a sense. the term "Queer Theory" was arrived at in the effort to avoid all of these fine distinctions in our discursive protocols, not to adhere to any one of the -given terms. not to assume their ideological liabilities. but instead-. to both transgress and transcend them--or at the very Ieast problematize them. -

From her perspective. the coupling of "lesbian and gay" often serves to gloss over differences."

Self-proclaimed gender outlaw Kate Bornstein (formerly A1 Bornstein) struggles to

(re)define her existence as a woman who once lived as a man, had a wife. and fathered children.'" She wonders. for example. if the fact that her lover is a woman means that she can call herself a lesbian'?" But rather than rely on old terminology. Bornstein seeks a word which. like "queer," troubles the rigid boundaries of . To this end she suggests that

" transgendered. " or " trans(gressive1y) gendered. " be implemented in a more inclusive manner.

This umbrella term would encompass all sexual and gender minorities: lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. queers. post-op [after sex change] and pre-op [before sex-change] . no-op

[no sex change] . cross-dressers. SilM [sadism/masochism] players. etc. This is an innovative suggestion in that it valorizes one of the most marginalized groups both within and without queer communities.

In this respect. consider the evolution of the namins of political groups over the last three decades. In Ontario most groups began as "homophiIe" associations in the late sixties and early seventies. Only a few retain this name today, such as the Homophile Association of London

Ontario (HALO). Next came organizations which called themselves "gay. " for instance the

Toronto Gay Action network (TGA). Some exclusively "lesbian" groups were also formed in the

1970s. Lesbians Organization of Toronto (LOOT) being a case in point.Vn the eighties many organizations became "gay and lesbian." and then "lesbian and gay." The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. (CLGRO), for example. was formerly the Coalition for Gay Rights in Ontario (CGRO). "Bisexual" has now been added to the name of some organizations. The

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Committee (LGBC) of the Ontario New Democratic Party underwent a 13 number of name changes as it sought to be inclusive. Today this group, like many others.

struggles with whether to add "" or "." or to do away with listins sexual

identities a1 together and use "queer" instead."

There are. of course. a whole range of terms which I have not touched upon in this

section: ". " "fairy. " "bulldagger." "butch, " "," "switchhitter." "."

"tribadist." "scone butch." "moftie." "man royal." et~.~iMoreover. despite the socio-political significance of the terms I have investigated, it is important to note that each has been. or is. marked white and/or middle-class ." Take the word "queer" for instance. Once a workins-class designation. it is today embraced by privileged activists and academics. In "'Queer Nigger':

Theorizing 'White' Activism," Helen (Charies) asks: "Are black lesbians and gay men becoming accommodationist while being co-opted into Queer?""? This possibility should be of grave concern to all people engaged in queer theory and queer politics.

Acknowledsing the limitations of the term "queer." such as the danger that race and class difference may be subsumed. I often use it in this work." 3 considered implementing

Bornstein's " transgender. " or even " trans(gressive1y) gendered. " as an inclusive category.

Ultimately I decided that the terminology. despite its potential. would be confusing to some and open to misinterpretation. Furthermore, the gesture could have the effect of eclipsing the uniqueness of a group which is just gathering political force. "Queer" is appealing to me as a term which catches many people who are not primarily heterosexually-identified. and even some heterosexuals who are critical of heterosexuality." Precisely because it is not specitic or restrictive, "queer" is a useful term which allows me to signify in an expansive manner.

As unwieldy as it is, I do sometimes write out lesbian/gay/bisexuaI/ transgendered/queer/etc., or some variation thereof, when I deem it necessary to spell out these terms. Other times I use the words individually or in combination. I generally do this when I am 15 referring ro a particular group of people or person. One example would be when gender is highlighted. and it is necessary to differentiate lesbians' and bisexual women's issues from those of bisexual and gay men. Or. for instance. when the concerns of lesbians and gay men on the one hand, and bisexuals. transgendered people, and queers on the other hand, do not coincide.

Finally, there are points when my language echoes legal or political discourse. Much of the ofticial discussion pertaining to same-sex spousal rights. as we shall see. is limited to lesbians and gay men. In these cases I refer to this group specitically. while noting e.uclusions. or use the more inclusive phrase "same-sex couples. "=

Methodologies

Before I launch into "the body" of my thesis. 1 feel it is necessary to elaborate upon the var ous methodologies which I will be employing. To begin with. my voice is woven rhroughout and I use my own experience as a starting point of analysis. "Critical autobiosraphy." or life- writing which strives to be non-essentializing. is an important strategy for me. as it both locates

me within my writing and strengthens the ties between the "personal" and the "political. " I am a "participant observer" in these strugles: this is not just abstract theory. this is my life.'"

In this respect I am inspired by Maria Mies's methodological guidelines for feminist research." Her work passionately demands that research is (and indeed should be) politicized.

Mies does not believe in detached. neutraI(ized) forms of scholarship. Likewise. it is crucial for me that my academic work engage with my political activism. and vice-versa. Although Mies's

+widelines are not entirely unproblematic. they are useful nonetheless." In brief. her seven

'tp~~tulate~'tare as f01lo~vs.~~

For one, "value free research" is rejected in favour of "conscious partiality. " This move becomes possible "through partial identification with the research objects. "'" Secondly, the 16

"view from above" is replaced with the "view from below. "" Thirdly. "active participation in actions, movements and strug_ples for women's emancipation" takes the place of "uninvolved

' spectator knowledge. "'*' As political struggles are never static. the research of such stru@es must be equally dynamic. Fourthly. researchers must strive to change the status quo. As Mies puts it: "If you want to know a thing, you must change it. "" Fifthly. "the research project must become a process of 'conscientization'" for both the "subjects" and the "objects" of research. In other words. the "researched" become active participants in the research." Sixthly. women's

(and again I would add other marginalized groups) individual and social histories must be added ro the process of "conscientization."~ Finally. women (and "other others") must "begin to coIlectivize their experiences. ""

A second mode of academic practice used in this dissertation is discourse analysis. On a very fundamental level 1 am committed to unsettling assumptions and pulling apart social- discursive constructions. In the opening chapters of my thesis. I review bodies of thousht and theory that have laid the groundwork for the assumptions and beliefs that shape the debate around

"family" and same-sex spousal rights taking place in contemporary Ontario. For my specitlc analysis of the struggle around Bill 167. I have researched popular journals. mainstream newspapers such as The and , non-mainstream newspapers. such as NOW, and specifically lesbian and gay publications such as Xtm!. In addition I have made use of other primary sources such as The Ontario Legislative Assembly Official Report of Debates

(Hansard), documents from lesbian and gay rights groups (CEF, CLGRO), legal cases. and relevant government documents.

Thirdly, I have incorporated insights gleaned from interviews I conducted with lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered/queercommunity activists. It became increasingly clear to me as I explored this topic that an important piece was missing. The viewpoints that were difficult 17 to locate were those of the people directly involved in the grassroots struggle around Bill 167.

Apan from a few pamphlets and the occasional newspaper (mis)quote. 1 had almost nothing to

+20 on. As I went on in my research. this absence became more and more difficult to ignore. The

voices that were absent were the ones I most wantedheeded to hear?

Unable to locate the information I desired elsewhere. I embarked upon an oral history project.'" This was not always an easy process. as I shall discuss in more detail. but it proved to be an invaluable one. The narratives 1 collected from queer community activists enrich my analysis by addins voices which rarely appear in other texts. In addition. they serve to support andlor contest my argument(s)." Describing this aspect of my research methodology to an acquaintance. I was surprised by her assumption that I would just keep hearing the same story uver and over again. From her perspective. an event had taken place fir, this case the unsuccessful bid for same-sex spousal recognition) and there could only be one accurate account.

In other words. there may be minor variations on the tale. but in the end the "real" history world emerge.

As a self-described feminist postmodernist. I am sceptical of this belief in objectivity and in the singularity of truth."" There are. in my opinion. many "truths." aIways partial and incomplete, a variety of ways to re-member. I realize that this may be perceived as a dangerous position. As someone who strives to be a responsibte scholar. I do not believe that every version of history is equal; often this perspective is held by people who wish to further their own right wing agendas. Rather. I am gesturing in a Foucauldian fashion to the complexities and contradictions of piecing topether stories. histories. Much depends upon the social and personal location of the person interpreting events. As Alessandro Portelli puts it: "The first thing that makes oral history different ...is that it tells us less about events as such than about their 18 meaning. "'" And indeed, the activists I interviewed (de)(re)constructed events in diverse and

often conflicting ways.

The Project

The main purpose of my study was to investigate the experiences. thoughts, feelings.

ideas. retlections. and opinions of ten queer community activists in Ontario in regard to the struggles around Bill 167 in particular, and claims to "family" in general. I initiated this process ivith an Ethical Review. designed to protect both the researcher and "the living human subject. "

To this end I outlined the objectives of my study and explained how the data was to be collected. in this case audio recordings of open-ended interviews. I explained that I would solicit volunteers through both personal contacts and contacts made through organizations with a view towards

Cgetting a diversity of subjects in terms of sexual identification. race. ethnicity , class. ability. age.

Lrreographical location. etc."" (The "etc." is. in my opinion. vital in order to keep catezories open.) As well. I would strive for gender balance. I should add here that my definition of

"activist" is quite broad. I did not want to Iimit my project to the political leaders. but was aIso interested in the perspectives of queer people who were involved in variety of other ways.

From each interviewee I proposed to collect the following biographical information: I.

Name and Place of Residence: 2. Gender: 3. Age: 4. Sexual Identification: and 5. Race/Ethnic and Class Identification. The specific questions which I outlined read as follows: 1. Describe your background re: lesbian/gay/bisexuaI/ transgender/queer activism; 2. Were you directly involved in any kind of action around Bill 167 (same-sex rights bill)'? If yes. what type(s)?: 3.

What did you think about the introduction of Bill 167 by the Ontario New Democratic Party?;

3. What did you think about the subsequent defeat of Bill 167?; 5. What does "family" mean to you?; 6. Where do you think "we" should go from here?: 7. Where do you think "we" are 19 8. have 9. bgoing'!: Looking back. would you/should "we" done things differently'!: What do you

think of where "we" are now'?: 10. Is there anything you would like to add'?: and 1 I . Do you

have any suggestions re_earding other activists who should be contacted'?

Next I composed a Letter Outlining Research that was to be given to each subject prior

to the interview. In this letter I explained the degree which I was pursuing, the department and

institution I was located in. and the title and a brief summary of my thesis. I informed the

interviewee that s/he would have the opportunity to review the quotations I selected. and the context I was using them in. I also offered to make a copy of my dissertation available to the people I interviewed upon request. In this manner I hoped to create an atmosphere of openness.

As Geiger writes. "[iln a feminist relationship between oral historians and researcher. existing differences will be recognized and conditions of mutual respect will be sought. ":";

In addition. each person was asked to sign a Letter of Consent to Participate in Research.

I explained that the data from this research may be used to publish an article or may lead to further research on the subject. The interviewees were also informed that although I would make every effort to ensure that her/his opinions had been accurately stated and not distorted in any way, the interpretation of that material would be my own and could include views which were critical of their analysis. It was necessary to state this clearly so that the people I spoke with would not be under the impression that 1 was merely transcribing their narratives. Rather. I intended to both give voice to a marginalized group, namely queer community activists. and interrogate the "authority of e~perience,"~"Finally. I wrote that anonymity would be maintained. the data would be stored securely and that shelhe may request that I destroy tapes and/or transcripts.

I encountered two dilemmas at this initial stage of the research project. For one. it took me many drafts before I was satisfied with the language I used in the letters. It was important 20 to me that I make the letters accessible without oversimplifying the content. Probably the biggest stumbling block was the brief description of my thesis. Obviously this was an academic endeavour. as the titie suggested. but I was afraid of completely alienating community activists by using abstract, theoretical language. As an academic. I feared that my commitment to

torassroots activism would be seen as suspect. (As is my commitment to academe. given my -grassroots activism'?) Moreover. it was pointed out to me by a colleague that my description of the central question of my thesis assumed that fighting for same-sex spousal recopition and remaining critical of "family" was necessariiy a desirable goal. As I was to learn. not everyone shared this ideal.

Secondly, and related to the above point, I felt an ovenvhelming need to make myself appear legitimate as an activist to the people I was interviewing. It was not good enough, I surmised. to point out that activism and academia (should/could) inform each other. that my academic pursuits were inherently political. and my politics were inseparable from my theoretical framework. Thus I included in the description of my research the fact that I had landed upon the idea for this dissertation when a former partner and I successfully challenged the detinition of

"spouse" in the U.I. Act. :''

This revelation was a calculated strategy and risk which I believe paid off. In one sentence I "came out" and demonstrated that I occasionally left the ivory tower. Although some interviewees might infer that I was therefore uncritical of same-ses rights which emulate heterosexuat unions, I hoped that it would have the effect of building trust. However. I deleted another sentence which located me as a member of the LGBC. While declaring this involvement may have built my credentials as an activist. it would have also made some people reluctant to talk to me because of the way lines were (re)drawn during the Bill 167 struggle. Again. I feel in retrospect that this was a good decision. "Fieldwork"

And so. with the paper work out of the way. I set out to conduct the actual interviews.

Needless to say. the gathering of oral histories was much neater on paper than it was in practice!

Ultimately I learned not only about the matter at hand. namely Bill 167 and "family." but also much about the interview process itself. For one thing. I had not factored in how much time would be spent phoning people. leaving messages. calIing again. leaving more messages. setting up meetings. rescheduling meetings. etc. I came to this project with some firm ideas about how to "choose" panicipants. as I have outlined above. What I had not expected was that participants would also choose (or not choose) me. ..-

This twist had implications in terms of representation- It was important to me. as I have nmltioned. to speak with activists who occupied various locations in terms of sexual identification. gender. race. class. age. geographical location. and (dis)ability. What quickly became apparent was that 40-somethins. white. able-bodied. middle class. gay men 1iving in constituted the most accessible goup of volunteers. There are many reasons for this including: high public profile, the financial and social privilege to be "out." tlexible jobs. fewer family responsibilities. and residence in a large city centre with thriving queer communities. Interestingly. this privileged positionins is the reason that these same men are involved in the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition, often in positions of leadership. It could also be argued that this group has the most to gain from the passage of such legislation in that they are more likely to have jobs with benefits. insurance policies, and pension plans.

Similarly situated lesbians were the next easiest group to contact. although they are generally less publicly visible and their time is more apt to be restricted by family responsibilities. These factors also dictated how much energy white. middle-class. ntk-bodied women could put (or not put) into zgitating for Bill 167. Ironically, many lesbian and bisexual mothers are busy looking after their children. while same-sex family rights are being contested.

Women and men of colour and Native men and women were. not surprisingly. difficult to find

and interview. Being an "out" political activist requires a certain amount of privileee. especially

in a racist and homophobic society such as ours. Moreover. I am separated from these queers

by my whiteness. Finally, it was also a challenge to speak with people outside of Toronto in

particular, and large cities in general.

All in all, the ten people whom I interviewed ended up looking a lot like the general composition of queer community activists: white. middle-class. able-bodied. in their late 30s to early 40s. self-identified as lesbian or gay. urban-dwelling. and supportive of Bill 167. However.

I did interview one Black man. who identified as same-sexed. and a Native woman who sometimes uses lesbian but prefers to describe herself as two-spirited. I also spoke with three people, all white. who identified as something other than lesbian or gay: a bisexual woman. a drag queen. and a queer/pervert. One of my volunteers was a female who was youns at the time of Bill 167 (early twenties). As well, I interviewed a gay man in his seventies and a lesbian in her late fifties. Three of the activists identified themselves as lower or working-class (two of them added that they had come from middle-class families). Finally. three of my respondents were quite critical of the concept of same-sex spousal recognition.

Once I actually started to meet with people T was pleasantly surprised by how much fun it was listening to their stories. I learned a lot. and was inspired and re-invigorated by many of these meetings. I was also struck by the intensely personal nature of the interview process. Many times I had to hold myself back from revealing more about myself and my own experiences. This unbalance felt uncomfortable at moments, partly because many of the activists included in my study were political allies."" Thus I did not, on the one hand. want to re-enact the traditional notion of the interviewer as objective and non-involved as deconstructed by Ann Oaklejl. But on the other hand. I was not simply conversing with friends.'"' On a related note. I sometimes found myself wanting to correct andlor share information during an interview. But I also wanted to let the narrative flow. and I worried that this sort of interruption would be disruptive.

Moreover, gaps in knowledge as well as misinformation were highly informative. In these situations I made judgement calls. which usually resulted in my discussing such points after the interview was over.

For example. I received conflicting accounts of crucial events such as the amendments proposed by the ONDP just prior to second reading in the provincial parliament. (This is. in fact. still a hotly contested topic with few paper trails to follow.) Some people were also confused by the distinction between , which is mainly a federal matter, and the proposed legislation, which paralieled common-law heterosexual unions. -4nd some interviewees were not clear on the rules governing in Ontario. especially adoption as a lone parent versus as a couple. and stranger versus step-parent adoption. I shall revisit these issues in subsequent chapters.

Moreover, on two occasions I had to deal with situations which I found unsettling.'""

In the first instance. a white lesbian activist became angry and was reluctant to speak with me after readins the description of my thesis because she interpreted my framework as "anti-family."

As she gave me her opinion of such scholarship. she dispiayed pictures of her partner and their child. I clarified my stance (zlthough I have to admit that I toned down my critique somewhat) and we proceeded with the interview. In the second case, when another white lesbian made a blatantly bi-phobic statement. I was too stunned and hurt to react. Each of these incidents, but particularly the latter. highlight the problematics of being a queerlbisexual researcher when the

"researched " are lesbians and gay men. Iff'

Many of the activists I interviewed wanted to talk about issues which I did not ask them about. This was. in my opinion, significant and thus I rethought. reworked. and revised the 24 questions in order to keep them somewhat fluid. My queries were general enough to allow for this type of flexibility. and thus the interviewees were able to "reflect upon their experience and

choose for themselves which experiences and feelings are central to their sense of their past. ""O

Firstly, almost everybody told me their corning out story. This was. of course. vital information in terms of their personal histories and their activist backgrounds. Secondly. many of the interviewees wished to discuss their families of origin. partners. and children. Again, this was important given that my research topic was "family" and families. Thirdly, Pride Day. particularly the one held in Toronto. came up over and over again. This event is about community (or. in some cases. lack of community). which was also critical to the topic at hand.

Thus I attempted to Ieave a space open for interviewees to discuss their families and community affiliations. I should clarify that although I asked peopie to tell me what "family" meant to them. I did not enquire directly about either their relationship status or their family situation. as that felt too much like prying into their personal (as opposed to activist) lives. In retrospect. this distinction feels artificial. Moreover. this information is important because it affects how the interviewees perceived "family" and same-sex spousal recognition. Fortunately. as I have alluded to above. many of the activists I interviewed offered this information even though it was unsolicited. In this regard I believe that my focus on analysis nearly got in the way of listening. Or. as Kathryn Anderson and Dana C. Jack put it: "the scholar's search for -generalizations undermined the interviewer's need to attend to an individual's experience. ""' In terms of gathering biographical information (which was a more extensive exercise than

I had envisioned). I encountered some resistance. Volunteers were. of course. under no obligation to answer every question and did not have to offer any explanation. Thus I can only speculate why some bits of information were revealed while others were concealed. For instance, some people were visibly uncomfortable with the question pertaining to class. and gave me little 25 information or refused to answer altogether. However. I was able to set at class location to some

extent by inquiring more spec itlcally about educat ionai background and career.

I had a similar reaction from some (primarily white) activists in response to my attempt

to solicit information about raceiethnic location. Unfortunately. I was unable to come up with

other quesrions to help me in this regard. As well, a couple of the people I interviewed chose

not to reveal their age. Finally. the query pertaining to gender provoked a spectrum of reactions

from interviewees. I included this question as a way of acknoivledsing thar sender idencithtion is not a simple matter for some (i.e.. transgendered people)."' While most activists simply answered "male" or "female, " I received a few more intricate answers.

At the stan of the interview process. I realized that I had failed to include an important issue in mjr list of proposed questions. Nameiy. I wanted to know what the activists thought about the charge that BiIl 167 was primarily a white male struggle. This opinion surfaced in my research. and I feIt that it should be addressed. Partway through the interviews. I began to ask each interviewee for her or his reaction to the passage of same-sex spousal rights in British

Columbia. Not surprisingly. many of the activists had been closely following these events. I also asked for input regarding the questions I had asked and offered to answer any further inquiries regardins my research. In this way I hoped to continuaily improve upon the interviews.

Finally, I had to grapple with an unexpected development: almost every person I interviewed did not care about anonymity. In fact, some activists specitically did not want their names left out. This issue typically surfaced at the end of a session when I would ask for other contacts and people would ask me who I had already spoken to. In hindsight. this only makes sense. For one. "anonymity can not be guaranteed by changing names and places. ""'Queer political activists are few enough in number in this province that it would be difficult to disguise their identities . This is particularly true in Toronto, where community leaders are well-known, 26 especially those involved in the fight to pass Bill 167. Secondly. given that I was speaking to

"out. " high-profile activists in many cases. there is no reason that they would not want credit for the work they have done."'

Eventually I had to send out a revised form asking interviewees if they wished to remain anonymous in my work or not. This raises a number of issues in that the interviews were conducted as if the participants were to remain unidentified. I wonder about the implications of this. Would people hme censored themselves a little more if they thought their names would be artached to their words? My concerns are perhaps unfounded. as all but one person indicated to me that they wouId like their names used. and only a few interviewees even wished to examine the transcripts of our conversation. Discussing this matter at an academic conference. I was surprised to learn that I was not the only person who had struggled with this particular dilemma. 'I5

In what follows I wit1 provide a biographical sketch of each of the ten activists with whom I spoke. As well as personal data. I have included any information I was ziven in resard to each person's queer activism outside of or prior to Bill 167. The purpose of this seciion is ro situate each interviewee in a social and political landscape. I believe that it is crucial to know something about where a person is speaking from, personally and politically. This background information will be important throughout the rest of the thesis. but especially in Chapter Four. where I examine the struggle around same-sex spousal recognition in some detail. and Chapter

Five. where I take a close look at what the interviewees said about "family" and families. I will present the participants in the order in which I interviewed them. The Activists

Don Franco is a 74-year-old. single. gay male with whom I worked on the LGBC of the

ONDP. Born in Toronto in 1923. Franco graduated from Victoria College in 1916 and went on to earn his teaching certificate. For the next two decades Franco worked as a school teacher in

Welland. Ontario. and Toronto. In 1967 he was out-ed. an experience which Franco describes as "tragic." He went on to work as a librarian until he was forced to resign his position in 1969.

In 1978 Franco was involved in the Bath House Raids in Toronto and helped start up the Right to Privacy Committee (RTPC)."Ve was also a founding member of Gay Alcoholics

Anonymous (GAA) and the Community Church (MCC). "'Moreover, Franco was involved with the Community Homophile Association Of Toronto (CHAT) and The Body

Poliric.:'"ince high school. he has been an active member in the Co-operative Commonwealth

Federation (CCF)."' and was recently honoured with a lifetime membership by the ONDP.

Finally, Franco revealed to me that he is a "leatherman" and participates in sadism/masochism

(dm) activities.

Kathwn Payne is a 26-year-old. sinsle. bisexual. queer female"" with whom I had become acquainted through the CLGSA. Although Payne currently resides in Toronto. she was a young activist in Ottawa during the Bill 167 struggle. She holds a BA and an MA in Women's

Studies and describes herself as an academic/activist/artist who teaches at George Brown College.

At the present time Payne is self-supporting, as her upper middle-class family cut her off after she "came out" (first as a lesbian, and then later as a bisexual). Although she was on Social

Assistance in 1993. Payne acknowledges that "class is complicated" and she carries privilege.

She is white and "more or less" able-bodied. Payne refers to herself as a "university dyke. " and has run a bisexual discussion group at the Women's Centre at Carleton University. She has also been involved with the lesbian and gay film festival, the Ottawa Pride Day Committee, the 28 Political Action Committee and then the Board of Directors of Lesbians and Gays of Ottawa

(LGO). and the Ottawa chapter of the . Payne helped to get bisexuals included

in the names of the latter two groups. She has also done work in the peace and sreen

movements.

Sky Gilbert is a well-known drag queen in Toronto. In his own words. "one of the few

out and articulate drag around.""' He is a 45-year-old gaytqueer man. who describes

himself as "very white" and lower class now, although his background is middle-class. As an

artist. Gilbert has championed drag. promiscuity. s/m. and other aspects of queer culture.

Because of this. free speech issues have always been particularly important to him. For example.

when he was the Artistic Director of Theatre ("Buddies") in the early

1990s. he helped to organize s/m workshops at the Queer Culture Festival.'" When the theatre

was attacked by some Toronto councillors. and received negative coverage in The Toronro SL~

Gilbert led a march in drag on the pa~er.'~As well. the theatre took legal action against the

newspaper. Gilbert is also a playwright who has written works which challenge moralistic

attitudes about queer sexuality. Finally. he told me that he is involved in say marches like Pride

Day.

Laverne Monette is a 44-year-old Ojibway woman who prefers to identify as "two-

spirited" althouzh she also uses the term Iesbian."' I recognized Monette from the films Thank

God 1'171 a Lesbian and Forbidden Low. She was born in Winnipes. lived in Thunder Bay. and

now resides in Toronto. Monette holds a law degree from the University of Toronto. although

she no longer practises law and, in fact. calls herself a "recoverin_g lawyer." In response to my questions regarding class location, Monette explained that in relation to other aboriginal people

she is very educated and makes a lot of money. But she is not highly paid in comparison to Bay

Street lawyers. At the current time. Monette works mainly in the area of AboriginalITwo- 29 Spirited Aids issues and is the Executive Director of Two-Spirited People of the First Nations.

She also has done government work and public education. especially around homophobia.

I also recognized Chris Phibbs from Thank God I'm a Lesbian. as well as the publicity shots taken of her with her partner of nine years. also named Chris, and their son Zack. She is a 39-year- old female who identities as lesbian.'" Phibbs is originally from Alberta. but has lived in Toronto since 1981. She also has gay siblings who have moved to large cities. Phibbs has a BA from UWO and started (but did not completej an MBA at . Her employment background includes work in the civil service. non-profit housing. and community development at places such as Community Centre."' At the present time Phibbs works for Kyle Raye. the first "openly gay" (she emphasized the "openly" pan) Toronto City

Councillor. Outside of Bill 167. when she was involved with the CEF and later pan of the legal challenge to the adoption law. her activism has extended to Pride Day events. When asked about her race/ethnic/class locations. Phibbs repIied that: "I generally identify as lesbian or woman first, speaking ethnically.. . ." She went on to explain that she is Angio, white, and that she comes from an "ashamedly" upper-middle class Western family. Phibbs added that although they do not own a car. her own family "is probably starting to look a lot like most middle-class families in the sense that we bought a house. we have a little yard. we have a kid ...."

Bob Gallagher is a 43-year-old gay, but more "queer" or "pervert" as he said. male who has lived in Toronto since 1977. He has a Ph.D. in Political Science (in his thesis he explored issues of sexual identity and political theory), and has taught at Trent University. Gallasher also has an extensive background in political organizing. and has been active in lesbian and gay politics in Toronto since the Iate seventies. As he explained to me. his interest in lesbian and gay rights was mainly academic until the Bath House Raids in February 1981. Already involved with

The Body Politic, Gallagher then became Chair of the Political Action Group of the RTPC. 30 Gallagher led the fight for same-sex benefits for employees of Metropolitan Toronto, and was the Co-ordinator of the Bill 167 lobby effort in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). He is currently

;I political analyst for the radio station CKLN. where he provides a queer/left perspective. He has worked for and with both city councillors and Olivia Chow. Gallagher has been involved with CLGRO. the LGBC. the Youthline. and the Board of Buddies. In response to my question regarding race/ethnic/class location. Gallagher responded that he is a Marxist and aware of class politics.

Tom Warner is a 45-year-old say man who now lives in Toronto. In 1971-1972. Warner helped start up the first gay student association at the University of Saskatchewan. He came to

Toronto in 1973 and became involved with the Gay Alliance Toward EquaIity and The Body

Politic. Warner has been involved with CLGRO since 1975. Up until 1986 Warner lobbied through CLGRO to amend the Canadian HRC to include sexual orientation. After that victory he turned his energies to changins the definition of "spouse." and was CLGROfs main spokesperson from 1989 on. In 1991 Warner became one of the co-chairs of the CEF.

Shirley Scarrow lives in London Ontario. She is a 57-year-old iesbian from a German background who locates herself as lower- middle-class. I became acquainted with Scarrow through my work in the LGBC. She has been an active member of the ONDP in London for many years. and has worked to build up a gay/lesbian membership in that city. Scarrow has also participated in Weekends over the years in both London and Toronto. As a government employee in health care, Scarrow has worked with kids with sexual ident~ty problems.

Alison Kemper is a 41-year-old lesbian who resides in Toronto. She holds a BA from

Yale and a Master of Divinity and Theology from Trinity College, UT. Both Kemper and her partner were formerly Anglican ministers. When they entered a relationship with each other as 3 1 "out people." they were asked to leave the Church. At the present time Kemper. who has worked in the non-profit sector for the past 18 years. is Executive Director (ED) of the 519. When asked about her social location. Kemper described herself as middle-class. pretty WASP (or "ori-

WASP"), and told me that she is "most comfortable working in much more diverse communities versus WASP amongst WASPs." Since attending her first "gay rights conference" in 1989.

Kemper has worked for say rights in a variety of places including women's eroups. immigrant

5 to bcroups. and faith groups. The first battle she undertook as ED of the 19 was the attempt get cays and lesbians included in employment equity legislation in 1992-1993. Finally. Kemper was b one of the lesbians involved in the adoption court challenge following the defeat of Bill 167.

"M"'" is a Black male who resides in Toronto and identifies as same-sexed.'"l He holds a Ph.D. and has taught Sociolosy. Social Work. . and Criminology. 34 has been invoived with the NDP. at the federal. provincial. and municipal levels. for the last decade.

For instance. he has been a candidate for nomination and done work in the area of equity. He has also been involved with the African-Canadian Legal Clinic, the Foundation for Equal

Families (FEF), and sat as a member of the Board of Directors of the 519. Finally. M does work with Btack youth and in the prison system.

Conclusion

In this first chapter I have explained how I came to this topic. stated my thesis. acknowledsed the limitations of my work. positioned myself, outlined the theoretical frameworks which have been intluential to my scholarship. posited provisional definitions of key terms, described the methodologies I will be employing, analyzed my oral history project. and given biographical data for the activists whom I interviewed. In the next chapter I will proceed to critically investigate the concept of "experience" within feminisms. ENDNOTES

1. See Eleanor Brown. "These Two Women Are Spouses: Appeals board acknowledges lesbian moved to 'maintain committed relationship.' " Xtra! no. 240 (January 7. 1994). 1.

2. Bill 167 was introduced in Ontario by Attorney-General of the New Democratic

*oovemrnent in May 1994. This omnibus bill. designed to change the definition of "spouse" in the provincial Human Riglzrs Code (HRC) and over fifty Acts. was defeated on second reading. In Chapters Four and Five I will examine this bill. and the events surrounding its rise and fall. in detail.

3. It is important to note that Bill 167 would not have allowed lesbians and gay men to legally marry, as marriage is primarily a federal matter.

4. See Eleanor Brown. "UI Spousal Benefits Won." Xrra! no. 279 (July 7. 1995). 1

5. Lisa Jeffs as quoted by Brown. "UI Spousal Benefits Won." 1.

6. The CEF was formed in 1994 to lobby for Bill 167. I discuss this organization in later chapters.

7. I have to admit that I waffle a bit on this point ... .On the one hand, legal marriage serves to enshrine heterosexuality and patriarchal power. But on the other hand. I have known feminists who defend this contract on the grounds that it protects women. I shall come back to explore this tension more fully in Chapter Three.

8. I return to this issue in Chapter Three.

9. I will revisit this point throughout my thesis. Brenda Cossman. for example. warns that "[llegal victories are never unequivocal" and they often are accompanied by backlash. Brenda Cossman. "A Marriage of Convenience." Xrra! no. 320 (January 30. 1997). 21. See also Carol Allen, "Who Gets to be Familyb?,"in Linda Carty, ed., And Srill We Rise (Toronto: Women's Press. 1993). In this essay Allen argues that poor women of colour have the most to lose from Iegal recognition of same-sex relationships.

10. "We Are Family" is the name of a popular song by Sister Sledge. After I chose this title for my dissertation, I came across other pieces with similar headings. See. for example. Karen Andrew, "We Are Family, " ffealrhsizaring (Fa11 1989): Katherine Arnup. " 'We Are Family! ' : Lesbian Mothers in Canada. " Resources for Fenrinist Research 20. no. 34 (FallIWinter 199 1). 101-107; and Didi Herman. "Are We Family?: Lesbian Rights and Women's Liberation." Osgoode Hall Law Jorirnal28 (Winter 1990), 789-8 15. I find the different variations on a theme quite interesting.

11. The official name of the Pride Day Committee, the one which appears on letters of incorporation. is the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Transgender Pride Committee of Toronto. This is commonly shortened to Lesbian and Gay Pride, or simply . According to David Clark of Toronto's Lesbian and Gay Pride Day Committee. the orsanizins body is committed to all of the above groups.

12. Ultimately my work is not so orderly as it would appear from reading this question! Many of the issues examined herein form a type of "web" and are thus impossible to isolate.

13. Donna Haraway, "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." Feminist Studies 14, no. 3 (Fall 1988). 581.

14. See Haraway. "Situated Knowledges" 583 and 589.

15. Haraway. "Situated Knowledges." 585.

16. Kathleen Rockhill is "troubled by." and troubles. the concept of privileze. Privilege. from her perspective. should not be regarded as a "state of being" but rather as power and acts. See Rockhill. "And Still I Fight." in Shelley Tremain. ed.. Prcshing the Limits: dimbled dykes produce crrltrtre (Toronto: Women's Press, 1996), 186.

17. This self-description is of necessity incomplete. On the one hand. I believe partial disclosure necessary in order to point to my political agenda. On the other hand. reivealing too much can result in an artificial and potentially stitling presentation of a coherent and unitied self. (Besides. to reveal something is always to conceal something else.. ..)

18. I will further deconstruct authority based idon experience in the following chapter.

19. In Chapter Three I examine 's notion of "compulsory heterosexuality."

20. Peggy McIntosh defines white privilege as "an invisible package of unearned assets." In this article she goes on to document the daily effects of white skin privilese in her own Iife. including not being penalized for remaining oblivious to the language and customs of people of colour and being able to buy "tlesh" coloured bandages that match her skin. Pesg. McIntosh. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. " ?ndepe~zde~~rScfloof (Winter 1990). 3 1-36. See also Ruth Frankenberg. Wzire Wornan. Race Marrers: The Sockf Corzstnccrion of CYflifeness (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1993). Frankenberg argues that a1 though white people have had the privilege to regard themselves as "racially neutral." they are in fact "raced."

2 1. S idonie Smith. "Who's Talking/Who's Talking Back'? The Subject of Personal Narrative. " Signs 18. no. 2 (Winter 1993), 393.

22. Sherene Razack. "Storytelling for Social Change. " Gender and Educmion 5. no. 1 (1993), 55-70.

23. Part of my motivation for situating myself in this manner is to disrupt the illusion of the disembodied author/authority. This is particularly important because I am working with other ~eopIe'sstories. One of the main critiques I have of Frankenberg's work is that she asks her interviewees to reveal intimate details about themselves. but she herself remains illusive. 24. Since that time I have learned that women did not actually bum their bras (at least in public!). This makes me wonder what other myths I have been carrying around with me all of these years.. . .

25. The Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism offers a cross-disciplinary Master's degree. I was a member of the first group of students accepted to this programme in 1990.

26. Maybe I should put this another way. My own race (white. of British and Welsh descent) and class (working-to-middle) influenced how I thousht and acted. as did a number of other factors. but I was not self-reflexive. Indeed. the notion that white was even a colour was something that it took me until graduate school to discover! See Leslie G. Roman. "White is a Color! White Defensiveness. Postmodernism. and Anti-racist Pedagogy. " in Cameron McCarthy and Warren Crichlow. eds.. Race, Idenri~,and Representation in Education (New York: Routledge. 1993), 71-88.

27. "Corning out" often looks different for bisexuals than it does for lesbians and gay men. In my case, for example. there was (and is) a gradual politicaI/emotional/sesualshifting as opposed to a moment of realization.

28. Which is not to say that my work is above critique in these areas: I still have a lot to learn.

29. Walter Kaufmam, ed.. The Pomble Nierzsche (New York: Viking, 1968). 95-96. I acknowledge that Nietzsche's writing has been charged with racism. and used for racist purposes. However. it has also been suggested that part of the reason Nietzsche broke off relations with Richard Wasner was because of the composer's blatant anti-Semitism. See Michael L. Morgan. ed. Clnssics oj*Moral and Pofiricul Thuughr (Indiana and Carnbridse: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992). Much of his work is also extremely sexist. like many of the so-called "seminal" thinkers.

30. See Jean Paul Sartre. Being and Norhingness. trans. and introd. by Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Washington Square Books. 1956).

31. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex [1949], trans. by H.M. Parshley. introd. by D. Blair (New York: Vintage Books. 1989). 267.

32. Ferninisms and postmodernisms/posrstructuralismsare vast and rapidly growing areas. I am most interested in the work of phenomenological thinkers. thus I will not be discussing in any detail the writings of the so-called "French feminists" (to give one example). Christine Delphy remarked at a lecture at the University of Toronto (1994) that this group had curiously become "feminists" when they crossed the ocean.. ..For more information regarding the influential "Psych et Po" movement in France (which. incidentally, both Simone de Beauvoir and positioned themselves outside of/in opposition to) see Elaine Marks and Isabelle Courtivron, eds.. New French Ferninisms (: Schocken, 1981).

33. We also have to be cautious about the ways in which postmodemism might. and often does. become another master narrative. Thanks to Kari Dehli for reminding me of this. 34. Nancy Fraser and Linda J. Nicholson, "Social Criticism without Philosophy: .A Critical Encounter between Feminism and Postmodernism." in Linda J. Nicholson. rd.. Fe~ninisrn/Postrnodernim(New York: Routledge. 1990). 34.

35. Jane Flax, "Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory." Signs 12. no. 4 (Summer 1987), 642. And perhaps we need to be suspicious of our own motives as well'? (Thanks again to Kari Dehli for this important insisht!)

36. Michel Foucault. The Histor?: of Sesualic, Volrtme I: Atz ?nrrocirtcrion. trans. by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books. 1980). 93.

37. Foucault. 96.

38. See for instance the essays in Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby. eds.. Frrrzinisnz and Forrcaltlt: Reflections on Resisrance (Boston: Northeastern University Press. 1988). It is interesting to note that Foucault once stated that although. in his opinion. there was no longer a need for the women's liberation movement. he thought that the homosexual Iiberation movement was still usefuI. James O'Higgins. "Sexual Choice. Sexual Act: An interview with Michel Foucault." Sulrzlayrtndi 58-59 (Fall 1982-Winter 1983). 10-23.

39. 1 realize that any attempt to detine is riddled with difticulty. But I also feel that the alternative (i.e.. being elitist and incomprehensible) is worse. This is particularly crucial when schoIarship is linked with political struggle. as is the case with this thesis. Ultimately it is important to me that my work is accessible.

30. Fraser and Nicholson, 26.

31. Especially if one strives not to reduce complexities and mulriplicities while writins comprehensively!

42. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott, "Introduction." in Butler and Scott. eds.. Fetrzirzisrs Theorize rile Political (New York and London: Routledge, 1992). xiv.

43. Originally I had written that "I myself avoid post-talk whenever possible.. .." Thanks to Ruth Roach Pierson for pointing out that it is very difficult to avoid "post-talk." especially when one is writing about postmodernism and using tools provided by critical theory. This work is certainly no exception.

13. hooks uses the term "feminist movement" as a type of active noun. As well, she specifically avoids the phrase "women's movement" because it excludes men from anti-sexist work. See bell hooks. Fenlinisr Theon: Frotlz Margin to Centre (Boston: South End Press. 1984). especially Chapters Three and Five. For a more recent discussion of feminist movement see bell hooks. , Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf, "Let's Get Real About Feminism: The Backlash, the Myths, the Movement, " MS. (September/October 1993). 37.

45. This is by no means an exhaustive list. nor is it a comprehensive examination of the history of sexuality. Rather, it is an attempt to posit working definitions of terms which occur frequently in my work by situating them in a social/political/historical context. 46. Jonathan Ned Katz. "The Invention of Heterosexuality," Socialisr Review 21, no. 1 (1990). 7.

47. Katz. 8.

48. This is. of course. not to deny that same-sex relationships and sexual acts occurred prior to this time. but only that the categories "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" were not yet in existence. For further reading in this area see Foucault and Thomas Lacqueur. Making Sa: Body and Genderfrom the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. 1990).

49. Katz, 11 . Katz references Whitman's pub1 ication Learles of Grass, Facsimile Edition of the 1860 Tat (Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 196 1).

50. Katz. 1 1. The Non-True Man has a male body and loves the True Man like a female. He was the opposite of the True Man. but not considered a pervert. "Urning" is derived from

" Uranos" in Plato's Synzposirtnr . Katz, 1 1- 12.

51. Katz. 12.

52. Katz. 12.

53. Katz, 12. See R. von Kraft-Ebing, Psychaparhia Saualis. wirh Especial Reference to Conrrar~Se_rrtul Instinct: A Medico-Legal Strrc&, trans. Charles Gilbert Chaddock (Philadelphia: F. A. Davis. 1892). from the 7th and revised Gennan ed. This text was translated into English three years after the fourth edition was published in Germany in 1889. Katz. 15.

53. Katz. 16. For example. in 1892 Dr. James Kiernan used the term "heterosesual" in an American medical journal. However. he detined "heterosexuality" as an attraction to both stxes while "homosexuality'' was marked by gender deviance. See Dr. James G. Kiernan. "Responsibility in Sexual Perversion. " Chicago Medical Reconfer. 3 (May 1892. 185-2 10). Katz. 14.

55. Katz. 12. For further information regarding sexolo_gists such as Havelock Ellis. Magnus Hirschfeld, Sigmund Freud. and Alfred Kinsey see Jeffrey Weeks. Sex. Politics and Society: The Regdarion of Surtaiin since I800 (London and New York: Longman). 198 1. especially 141- 159.

56. Andre Lardinois. "Lesbian Sappho and Sappho of Lesbos," in Jan Bremmer. ed.. From Supplto to de Sude: Moments in the Histon of Sexntali~ (London and New Y ork: Routledge. 1989), 15. In Europe "lesbian" can be traced back to the middle of the nineteenth century. The author cites A Stcpplenrent to the &ford English Dictionay. Vol. I1 (Oxford. 1976). 645.

57. "Sapphic" is another label derived from the same source. See Lardinois, 15-35. In this essay Lardinois explores the "Great Sappho Question, " namely. was Sappho a "lesbian?" No agreement has ever been reached on this issue, and there is little evidence to work from.

58. Lillian Fademan. Srlrpassing the Low of Men: Rotnuntic Frietdship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance ro the Present (New York: William morrow and Company. Inc.. 1981). 17-18.

59. See Faderman. 20. For an analysis of 1970s lesbian-feminism in the Canadian context see Becki L. Ross, The Home That Jill Brtilt: A in Formation (Toronto. Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press, 1995).

60. Barry D. Adam, The Rise of a Gay and Lesbian Movement (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987). 73-74.

61. Adam. 74. "Gay." in this time period. seems to apply primarily to men. However. some women also identify as "gay" or as "gay women." I tend to use "gay men" for the sake of clarity.

62. Weeks. Sex, Polirics and Socie~,286.

63. Weeks, Sex, Polirics and Sociev. 286. On this topic see also Jeffrey Weeks. "Movements of Affirmation: Sexual Meanings and Homosexual Identities." in Kathy Peiss and Christina Simmons. eds.. with Robert A. Padgug. Passion and Power: Sexrtalig in Hisrop (Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1989). 70-86.

64. See. for instance. the essays in Elizabeth Reba Weise. ed.. Closer to Home: Bisetsrraiin: and Fenzinisnz (Seattle: The Seat Press. 1992).

65. In his earlier writings Freud viewed same-sex attraction as a common "phase" that many people went through. He Iater revised his opinion, positing heterosexual relations between women and men as "natural. " In this schema homosexual activity only occurs when development is arrested. In On Sesrtaliry Freud describes "bisexuality " as a type of inversion marked by the presence of "masculine" and "feminine" qualities in the same person. (Interestingly, he writes that this "double orientation" is stronger in women.) Sigmund Freud. On Se.rrcalin: Three Essq~s on rlze Theon of knaiin: and Otlzer Works. Volume 7 (London: Penguin Books. 1977). 52-60. I am gratefui to both ~urhPierson and Christabelle Sethna for helping me to think through this aspect of Freudian theory. In contrast to this position on bisexuality. Kinsey believed that human sexuality existed on a continuum. His studies on male and female sexual behaviour indicated that a large percentage of people have had same-sex experiences. Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, Kinsq, Ser and Fmcd: The indoctrination of a People (Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990).

66. Marjorie Garber. Vice Versa: Bisextcality and the Eroticism of Everydm Life (New York: Simon & Schuster. 1995). 39.

67. Garber. 66.

68. Garber. 65.

69. See Carl F. Stychin. Lads Desire: Sexuality and the Limits of Justice (London and New York: Routledge, 1995). 141. Stychin offers an interesting analysis of queer positionings in the legal context. which I will revisit. However, he appears suspicious of bisexuality at points. See Stychin, 153- 1%.

70. Joseph Bristow and Angelia R. Wilson. "Introduction." in Joseph Bristow and Angelia R. Wilson. eds. Activatirlg Theoq-:Lesbian. Guy,Bisexrral Polirics (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1993). 9. Compare this assessment of the appropriation of the term "queer" with Jeffrey Weeks' opinion cited above.

71. The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Studies Association (CLGSA) of the former Learneds Societies is a good example of this tension. At the 1991 inaugural meeting the association chose to exclude bisexuals, transgendered people and other queers from its name. The next year the Canadian Transgendered Association was formed in response to the restrictive ideology of the CLGSA. By 1997 the question of what to call the CLGSA had reached such a pitch that a vote was taken regarding the addition of "Bisexual and Transsendered." The result was a slim majority in favour of the name change. but not enough to meet constitutional requirements. This continues to be a divisive and contentious issue.

72. Mary McIntosh, "Queer Theory and the War of the Sexes. " in Actiwting Tlteon. 3 1.

73. Thanks to Gary Kinsman for pointing out. and clarifying. these critiques in "The Role of Education in Theories of Women's Emancipation" class at OISE in 1994. See also his book The Regirlation of Desire: Homo and Hetero Sexrralities. Second Edition (Montreal. New York. and London: Black Rose Books). 1996.

74. Teresa dr Lauretis. "Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities. An Introduction." dflet-etzces 3. no. 2 (Summer 199 1 ). v.

75. de Lauretis. v-vi.

76. Elsewhere I have written about transgenderism as both performance and threat. Michclle K. Owen, "Beyond the Second Sex: Theorizing the Body. " transforms 3/4 ( 1997/ 1998). 73-83. In regard to "" (fear of and/or hatred of transgendered people) I refer to the Sarurday Night Live character "Pat" in A. Bernstein (director), Ir'r Por: The Movie. (California: Touchstone Pictures). 75 minutes.

77. Kate Bornstein. Gender- Orrtlaw: On Men. CVoruen. ard file Rest of Us (New York and London: Routledge, 1994).

78. See Ross.

79. 1 have been a pan of these discussions as a member of the LGBC executive con~mittee.By contrast the CLGSA, an organization to which 1 have also belonged, is a puzzling exception. (See above fcr an account of this group's name.)

80. Kinsman explains that "rnoffie" is a South African term, and "man royal" is a word used to describe lesbians in Jamaica. Kinsman, 12. He cites Makeda Silvera. "Man Royals and Sodomites. Some Thoughts on the Invisibility of Afro-Caribbean Lesbians." in Sharon Dale Stone. ed.. Lesbians in Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines. 1990). 48-60. 8 1. Other terms. such as " two-spirited" and "same-sexed. " surfaced during my interviews with queer community activists from non-dominant groups. These will be discussed in the context of the oral histories.

82. Helen (Charles), " 'Queer Nigger' : Theorizing 'White' Activism. " in Activaring Theory. 105.

83. I strive to attend to power issues related to skin colour. ability, ethnicity, economics, education. etc. I also investigate the ways in which queers and queer communities (especially activist groups) are figured as white and middle-class.

54. I will return to this point in Chapter Three.

85. This terminology, of course. excludes those who are not coupled (i-e. single people. people living in triads. etc.).

86. I am using the label "participant observation" to signal my politicat involvement rather than a belief in any type of "objectivity. " See Sandra Kirby and Kate McKz~a,Erperience, Reseurch. Social Change: Methods From the Margins (Toronto: Garamond Press. 1989). 76-8 1.

57. While -Miesls project centres upon women and feminism. 1 feel that her insights are applicable to other equality-seeking groups such as queers.

58. It is worth noting, as Margrit Eich!er pointed out in her "Advanced Research Seminar on Feminist Theory. Methodology. and Education" class at OISE in 1997. that Mies is a marginal figure in Germany (she is much more well-known in Canada). This context is important as it helps us understand why she constantly positions herself as oppositional to the mainstream. Mies thus focuses on transformation and correctives, but in doing so overlooks some valuable tools.

89. The term "postulate." with its authoritarian. biblical air. is certainly intimidating and as such problematic.

90. Maria M ies. "Feminist Research: Science. Violence and Responsibility. " in Maria Mes and Vandana Shiva, Ecoferrrinisnz (Halifax: Fernwood and London: Zed Books. 1993). 38. One critique of this position is that it is not necessary, nor a1 ways desirable. to become too identitied with the "researched" (i.e.. work on convicted rapists).

9 1. Mies. " Feminist Research, " 38. Mies unfortunately rejects quantitative research as patriarchal. without considering the many ways in which such research benefits feminist projects.

92. Mies. "Feminist Research. " 39-40.

93. -Vies. "Feminist Research. " 40.

94. Mies. "Feminist Research. " 4 1. This point brings up some problems regarding anonymity as well as ethical concerns.

95. Mies. "Feminist Research," 42. Unfortunately, Mies does not problematize the notion of "women's experience. " 96. Mies, "Feminist Research. " 42-43.

97. According to Shulamit Reinharz. " [rlelatively powerless groups are.. .especially good candidates for oral history research" because they are less likely to write about their own experience, or have their experiences written about by others. See Schuiamit Reinharz. Ftminisr Medlods in Social Research (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1992). I3 1.

98. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai define "oral history" broadly as the entire process of conducting interviews. transcribing the tapes. editing the transcripts. and utilizing the results. The term "oral narrative," by contrast. refers more narrowly to the material gathered including biographical information, interviews on a particular topic. and accounts of an event. I am using such terminology in a similar fashion. Sherna Berger Gluck and Daphne Patai, "Introduction." in Gluck and Patai. ed.. Women's Words: The Feminisr Practice of Oral History (New York and London: Routledge. 1991). 4. note 1.

99. Furthermore. as Susan Geiger writes in a slightly different context. "[llit'ehistory studies that include the narratives of more than one woman or several women and men from a particular society or ethnic group afford opportunity for internal comparisons." Susan Geiger. "Women's Life Histories: Method and Content." Signs 11. no. 2 (1986). 343.

100. 1 acknowledge that, as Patai points out, "[nleither purity nor safety resides in calling one's research 'feminist. "' Or, I hasten to add. "postmodern." Patai. "U.S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible'?. " in Women's Words. 150.

101. Alessandro Portelli. "The Peculiarities of Oral History." Hisron Workshop Jorrrml 12 (1981), 99.

102. I am continually struggling with how to refer to the people I interviewed for this project. Throughout this work I use "interviewees," "volunteers." and "participants." none of which seems entirely satisfactory. In her chapter "Feminist Oral History." Reinharz reviews other terms such as "interpreter." "informant. " "interlocutor, " "respondent." and "subject. " Reinharz. 129- 130. See also Susan Geiger who uses "oral historians" in order to empower the people who narrate the stories. Susan Geiger. "What's So Feminist About Women's Oral History'!" Journal of Women's Hisroty 2. no. 1 (Spring 1990), 180, note 6.

103. Geiger. "What's So Feminist About Women's Oral History?." 175.

104. For an excellent discussion of the concept of experience see Ruth Roach Pierson. "Experience. Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History. " in Karen Offen, Ruth Roach Pierson, and Jane Randall, eds.. Wriring Women's History: hrernarional Perspecrives (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1991). 79- 106. I shall pursue this line of thought in the next chapter.

105. For hrther details of this case refer back to the beginning of this chapter.

106. Which does not mean that inequities did not exist between us. Although I was not interviewing people who belonged to a less powerful group than myself. there were differences in terms of race. class. sexuality, etc. See Patai, "U.S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible'?. " in Women 's Words. 137-153.

107. AM Oakley. "Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms." in H. Roberts. ed.. Doing Fminisr Research (London: Routledge and Kegan. 1981). 30-61. See also Judith Stacey's incisive critique of Oakley in her essay entitled "Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography'?." in Wornen's Words. 1 11- 119. "[Tlhe irony I now perceive." Stacey writes. "is that ethnographic method exposes subjects to far greater danger and exploitation than do more positivist. abstract, and 'masculinist' research methods. " Stacey. 114.

108. These encounters occurred during my interviews with Alison Kernper and Chris Phibbs respectively.

109. I hope to write more extensively on this topic in the future.

110. Kathryn Anderson and Dana C. Jack. "Learning to Listen: Interview Techniques and Analyses." in Women's Words, 17. In this passage Anderson and Jack are referring specitically to the process of interviewing women. I have taken the liberty of applying this analysis to other marginalized peoples. namely lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people.

11 1. Anderson and Jack. 11.

1 12. See for example Bornstein and also Leslie Feinberg. T~-cu~sgen&rWan-lor: :I/[Llki~zg H~S~OQ- froin Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman (Boston: Beacon Press. 1996).

1 13. Geiger, "Women's Life Histories: Method and Content. " 350.

114. My focus in this section has been the on the process of collecting oral narratives. not on the specifics of individual interviews. After I situate the activists by providing biographical data, I will use names and quotations in the body of the text.

115. In fact. one conference participant revealed that she has purposely framed interviews as anonymous only to later ask volunteers if their names could be used. in this way she is able to -gather more explicit information. 1 found this strategy somewhat disturbing. 1 26. The mid- 1970s was a difficult time for _gay men across the country as the authorities stepped up their efforts to rid cities of so-called "sexual violence." In Toronto. as Kinsman writes, this took the form of the "clean up campaign." By using bawdy-house legislation, police were able to deem homosexual acts "indecent" and thus target gay establishments. The Barracks bath was raided in 1978. and such attacks continued until the early 1980s. Don himself was victimized by this "policy of harassment and entrapment. " The RTPC was formed in response to the bath raids. See Kinsman. 338-34 1.

117. The MCC is an ecumenical Christian church with a special ministry to the lesbian and gay community. The Reverend , an out gay minister, is the Senior Pastor of the IMCC. In the 1995 election he ran as an ONDP candidate in the St. George-St. David riding. 1 18. CHAT grew out of the University of Toronto Hornophile Association which was founded on October 21. 1969 in the wake of the law reform and the Stonewall riot. Accordins to Kinsman CHAT. which was formed in February 1971. was for a number of years "the larsest and most influential homophile group in the country." Toronto Gay Action (TGA) was an early soay liberation group which came out of the political action committee of CHAT. A number of people connected with this group began to publish The Body Politic. a Canadian gay liberation magazine, in the fall of 197 1. See Kinsman. 29 1.

1 19. The CCF was formed in 1933 with the signing of the Regina Manifesto by a group of women and men including Tommy Douglas. The CCF later became the NDP.

120. Or. as she put it: "gender. debatable; sex, female. "

121. I asked Sky if he identifies as transgendered. because I had heard that term applied to him. He told me that he's never sure if that label pertains to drag queens. but thought that it probably did. But he also made it clear that he is not. and has no aspirations to be. transsexual.

122. Sky founded Buddies, as it is known. a queer theatre in Toronto's say ghetto.

123. Accordins to Sky. the Reverend Brent Hawkes did not offer support in the face of these right wing attacks. Moreover Xrra!, which he refers to as the "less radical replacement for The Body Poliric. " would not defend Buddies. See Sky Gilbert. " Diary of a Reluctant Radical. " This Magazine 30. no. 6 (May/June 1997). 37.

124. According to the literature distributed by "Two-Spirited People of the First Nations" in Toronto, two-spirited Native people are sacred and once played an important role in the spiritual and political life of their communities. Being two-spirited extends beyond sexual attraction/activity: two-spirited people were warriors. healers. and visionaries. Many two-spirited people were targeted by the white European colonists.

125. In the context of her corning out story. Phibbs stated that: "there was probably only a moment of considering bisexuality, which I consider just an easy place to be and not make a decision. "

126. The 5 19 Community Centre is located on Church Street in Toronto's gay ghetto and serves primarily queer comn~unitymembers. The 5 19. as it is commonly referred to. was founded in 1975.

127. "M" is a pseudonym for an interviewee who decided thar he did not want his name used until he had had a chance to thoroughly examine the transcripts of our conversation. At the time of writing. I had not heard back from him on this matter.

128. M toid me that his age is "irrelevant. " CHAPTER TWO

The DisKomforts of Home:

"Experience" as a Site of Contestation in Ferninisms

Introduction

I began this thesis by discussing my own experience in regard to the struggle for same-sex spousal rights. My personal experience of as a bisexual woman involved in a relationship with a woman was the inspiration for a political analysis of same-sex spousal recognition legislation. I also located myself by outlining some of my own life experiences.

Moreover. as discussed above. I conducted interviews with queer community activists in order to gather and analyze their experiences in regard to Bill 167 and "family. " Each of them is also positioned according to what they told me about their life experiences. Finally. as I shall examine in subsequent chapters. the activist struggle to have Bill I67 passed into law was gounded in personal testimonials by lesbians. gay men. and bisexuals pertainins to their family experiences.

Experience is thus central to my work.' This is true of much t'eminisr writing which seeks to highlight the lives of women and other marginalized groups who rarely receive attention in mainstream texts. But as important as this attention to "other" experiences is. it is by no means unproblematic. Rather. the uncritical use of experience can raise as many questions as it answers.

For example. what is "experience"'? What purpose does the signifier "experience" serve'? What is done in the name of "experience"'? What does "experience" authorize? What are the ethical. epistemological. and political implications of deploying "experience"? In this chapter I wiil proceed to investigate the concept of "experience" within a framework of feminist scholarship.

Particular attention will be paid to the tensions which arise between postmodern analysis and identity politics. 44 "Experience"

The common understanding of "experience." according to my dictionary. is of a practical nature. One sees or is affected by facts or events. Sometimes one learns something from this process and develops a skill, other times one simply feels the impact of what has occurred.' This explanation appears fairly straightforward: one has experiences. one experiences things. one learns from rsperience. one becomes experienced. However. as the title of [his chaprrr suggests. the concept "experience" is not so simple. Like " feminisms" or " posrmodernisms. " "dxperience " is slippery and resists stabilization. No longer a comfortable home for all feminists. "experience" has become contested terrair

While I will not, and n fact cannot, offer a precise definition of "experience," I can trace some of the ways in which tl is term is employed and deployed. In this venture 1 am inspired by the work of Doma Haraway Drawing on Teresa de Lauret is. Haraway describes experience as a "semiosis. an embodying of meanings. "'In Haraway's opinion feminist pedagogical practices may help to construct how the concept of "experience" is articulated both personally and collectively:

Experience is a crucial product and means of women's movement: we must strug@e over the terms of its articulation. Women do not find "experience" ready to hand any more than theyhe find "nature" or the "body" performed. always innocent and waiting outside the violations of language and culture. Just as nature is one of culture's most startling and non-innocent products. so is experience one of the least innocent. least self-evident aspects of historical. embodied movement .'

Feminist History

"More than in many other areas of historical inquiry." Joan W. Scott writes. "women's history is characterized by extraordinary tensions. "5 She identifies strained relationships between academic feminism and political action, historical specificity and feminist-poststrucnrralist theory, 15 and disciplinary boundaries and interdisciplinary work." Clarifying this point a few years later.

Scott elaborates: "I think the more important impact has been epistemoIogica1 and that what separates feminist scholars these days is less differences of disciptinary formation.. .than differences of approach to analysis and interpretation. "'These tensions are significant. and wil1 be examined in some detail further on in this chapter.

Feminist history has moved since the early 1970s. according to Kathleen Canning, from recovering women's experiences to a political analysis of gender."'In the field of history." she wires. "the term lingrtisric rrtrn denotes the historical analysis of representation as opposed to the pursuit of a discernibIe. retrievable historical 'reality'. "'She goes on to explain that this term. like "postmodernism." has become a "catch-all phrase for divergent critiques."'"

According to Canning. historians tend to view the "linyistic turn" as emanaring from such disciplines as literary studies and philosophy. But she attributes the shift not to male theorists such as Michel Foucault. Jacques Derrida. or Jacques Lacan. but rather to women'slfeminist history.!! This project was (and is) comprised of two components: the rewriting of white middle-class history by women of colour and the deconstruction of the discursive catezory

"women." Canning states [hat these ruptures have been met with resistance. optimism. and cautious interest by feminist scholars-activists.

Standpoint Epistemology

The focus of much early second-wave feminist scholarship (including. as Canning points out. women's history) was on recovering women's experiences. This venture was. and is. considered bold and necessary. The lives of women have effectively been marginalized and distorted in books written by men, or left out altogether. Thus some feminists sought to rectify this situation by researching women's experience and positing a special female perspective. In 46 the late 1990s many of the ideas put fonh by these feminists. as important as they have been. are open to critique. The writinss of Nancy Hansock are a case in point." In order to lbrmulare a theory of power for women. she asserts. it is imperative that "we" "begin from the experience and the point of view of the d~rninated."'~Postmodernism. from her perspective. is at best a hindrance to ernancipatory projects. "

In a Marxist vein, Hartsock asserts that "women" have a ditTerent view of &heworld because "we" are not a part of the ruling structure. Hence she posits "feminist standpoint epistemology." that is. knowledge created from a privileged space on the margins from which

"women" have a distinct vantage point. " Problematically, this notion essentializes female experience, denies power differences between women. presumes a stable and rational individual,

I imits mobilities between positionings. and precludes critical inquiry by situatins experience outside of discourse.'" Ultimately "women's experience" is grounded in the experience of a select group of women.

Although Hartsock claims that it is not her intention to universalize "women," her analysis rests upon the assumption of shared gender experience.'' Moreover. I would argue that the "women" she is writing about (and to) represent a fairly homogeneous goup: while. middle- class. and heterosexual.'Wartsock overlooks complex positionings, claiming that women as a group are the "colonized." as opposed to Michel Foucault who is the "colonizer."" This binarisrn is too simplistic. Ultimately her brand of "standpoint epistemology" relegates all

"women" to the margins so that "wel'/"they " might transform the centre. Conversely bell hooks makes the argument that not all women occupy the same place on the margins. I shall return to this point. Indeed, Hansock writes that "if we are to construct a new society. we need to be assured that some systematic knowledge about our world and ourselves is possible. "'" 17 Dorothy Smith's The Everyday World as Problemoric offers a more sophisticated analysis. as she proposes a sociology developed from the standpoint of women." However. like Hartsock.

Smith's understanding of power is y-ounded in Marxism. and she is critical of postmodern modes of analysis. especially Foucauldian theory. Smith's "feminist sociology" challenges both the functionalist underpinnings of traditional sociological and. in more general terms. androcentric ideology. She emphasizes that knowledge is socially constructed:

The making and dissemination of the forms of thought we make use of to think abour ourselves and our society are part of the relations of ruling and hence originate in positions of power. These positions of power are occupied by men almost exclusively. which means that our forms of thousht put tosether a vieiir of the world from a place women do not occupy. The means women have had available to them to think, image. and make actionable their experience have been made for us and not by us. It means that our experience has not been represented in the making of culture.---7

Smith describes knowledge production as a circle of men " who attend to and treat as si_enificant only what men say."" This charmed circle has historically excluded the voices of women. effectively silencins us. She locarcs the educational system as a major satekeeper in this process. and points to the statistically low participation of women at the higher levels of these institutions. Significantly a large part of the problem. according to Smith's analysis. is that women as "Other" lack authority as speaking subjects. Thus "[ilt is hard for us to listen to each other. The voice of our own experience is equally defective."" Ultimately she feels that this siruation can only be rectified if the standpoint of women is put forward in society at large by feminist activists. and within the academy in the form of women's studies.

Smith thus sets out to explore the "everyday world" of women. which she Jetlnes as constituted by our bodily and material existence? And it is in this space that Smith identifies the "problematic. "" In her words:

Such a sociology would aim to make available to anyone a knowledge of the social organization and a determination of his or her directly experienced. everyday world. Its analyses would become pan of our ordinary interpretations of experience and hence part of experience.. .The sociological knower. then. is not the sociologist as such."

What Smith is pointins to is the inadequacy of direct experience as a ground for knowledge. For

example. we now know that the sun does not really sink below the horizon. although from our

perspective it appears that it does.

The knowledge that the world turns away from the sun. like an understanding of social

organization, changes our experience of what we perceive.'TThis means that although anyone

can describe her or his own life experiences. not everyone has the sociological training to analyze

these experiences." As Smith says. "[ilmponant as it has been and is to hear the authentic

speaking of women. it is not sufficient to ground and guide sociological inquiry.""' What she

is proposing is that personal experience be used as a "point d'appui."': a starting point. and then

anchored in sociological analysis.''

In a number of important respects. Smith's concept of feminist sociology is pathbreaking.

and as all pioneering works. it raises a number of questions. Firstly. although she does ground

experience in society. within a framework resembling "consciousness-raising." there is some

slippage in her analysis. Specifically. I tind it disturbing that at some points she. like Hartsock.

seems to posit "women's experience" in a space outside of the social world. Smith. for instance.

refers to "women's standpoint as one situated outside textually mediated discourses in the actualities of our everyday live^."^' Secondly, drawing on Marxist theory, Smith asserts that women have a different relation to the world because we are not part of the ruling structure. She

identifies a ''line of fault." that is. a disjuncture between a patriarchai ruling apparatus and the experience of wornen?

However, I would argue that this division is not complex enough. Some women wield more power than other women, and indeed wield power over other women. Race, class. 49 sexuality. ability. and a variety of other differences divide women. Thirdly, in reconstructing knowledge by starting with women's everyday experience. Smith emphasizes that her project involves more than just listening to oppressed voices and grounding these narratives in sociological theorizing:

We have gone after something more radical--a sociology. a social science. an inquiry into a totality of social relations beginning from a site outside and prior to textual discourses. Women' s standpoint has been explored here as specifically subversive of the standpoint of a knowledge of ourselves and our society vested in the relations of

Thus for Smith. as for Hartsock. female experience must be regarded as occupying a space on the margins from which women have an empowering or epistemologically privileged vantage point. '"

Like many feminist standpoint theorists. Smith leaves an opening for those who would make an appeal to essential female experience. She. however. does not acknowledge this possibility. To the contrary. she is adamant that by using the "standpoint of women" she "does not universalize a particular experience. "3' And to her credit she does make an effort to acknowIedge that . women of colour. and working class women face differin, sets of oppressions.jy Nevertheless. her analysis rests upon something that women are said to share. namely the experience of living as a woman in this society. Elizabeth Spelman identifies this theoretical move as a common error in western feminism. The attempt to separate out the various "parts" of women's identity in order to locate oppression has resulted in an almost exdusive focus on privileged women." Hence when we speak of "difference" we really mean different frotn an unacknowledged standard.

Black feminist bell hooks brings a much needed critical anti-racist perspective to standpoint theory. In Fetninist Theory: From Margin ro Centre she asserts that black Americans have. of necessity, developed an "oppositional world view.""' As hooks writes: Living as we did--on the edse--we developed a particular way of seeing reality. We looked both from the outside in and from the inside out. We focused our attention on the centre as well as on the margin."

hooks points out that feminist theory was. and is. dominated by the perspective of privileged

women (white, Western. middle-class and educated)." Thus. as someone with knowledge of the

marsins as well as the centre. hooks set out to re-shape this body of knowledge.

To begin with, hooks believes that it is inaccurate to state that "all women are oppressed."

1Middle-class white women. for example. are not absoluteIy oppressed because although we may suffer from sexism. we are privileged in other areas. Indeed. in some cases white women are the oppressors of. or benefit from the oppression of. "other Others." Thus hooks prefers to use terms such as "expioitation" and "discrimination" which indicate choice (and hence responsibility) in certain areas. Black wolmen have been. and are. exploited in racist societies. I1Iainstream white feminist movement and theory is. unfortunately. no exception.

Indeed, as hooks indicates. racism often prevents women from forming political alliances." One example she gives is the second-wave focus on men as the enemy. From her location as a black woman, "this made it appear that feminism was more a declaration of war between the sexes than a political struggle to end sexist oppression. a struggle that would imply change on the pan of women and men."" This almost exclusive focus on sexism obscured not only race and class oppression. but also the importance of the family in the black community and the strons bonds forged between black women and men in their common struggle.''

Black women. hooks suggests, see the world from a special vantage point because of their

~narginality.'"Not only are black women- like black men. discriminated against on the basis of race, but, uniike black men. they also feel the effects of sexism." For instance. hooks points out that black women are "collectively at the bottom of the occupational ladder." and that this is (or should be) a feminist issue. Moreover, black women are exploited by white feminists who silence their voices. exclude their experiences, and/or objectify them." Thus not all women are psitioned equally on the margins. as white standpoint theorists seem to su,ogest. Black women's experience is different.

Black women with no institutionalized "other" that we may discriminate against. exploit. or oppress often have a lived experience that directly challenges the prevailing classist. sexist. racist social structure and its concomitant ideology .:'

hooks calls for black women to use this unique perspective to both critique the dominant social order and to create alternatives. Specifically, she feels that black women must challenge the don~inantfeminist paradigm: "The formation of a liberatory feminist theory and praxis is a collective responsibility, one that must be shared. "'"oaks warns however that white Western feminists often marginalize work by women of colour. seeing it as merely "experiential. "" As she points out, black women troubled the category "woman" early on when they insisted that race had to be taken into ac~ount.~'I would argue that hooks has mounted a similar challenge to "women's experience." By distinguishing black women's perspective from that of white women. she disrupts white feminist standpoint theory.

Yet even as she challenges (white) theorists who essentialize "female experience. " hooks herself posits the standpoint of black women. This has the effect of reducing differences between black women and they emerge as a homogeneous group. although she does proffer that such positionings are not inherently stable." hooks thus makes knowledge cIaims for black women that at points resemble Hartsock's version of standpoint theory. But. like Smith. she also su,,0 Oes ts that experiential knowledge should not be exempt from critique. I will come back to this idea.

Finally, there is some slippage in hooks' analysis as she argues against a hierarchy of oppressions but then asserts that sexist oppression is primary. Sexism is pivotal not in the sense that it is the foundation for all other types of oppression. but because it is so widespread. As hooks writes: 52 "...it is the practice of domination most people experience. whether their role be that cf discriminator or discriminated against. exploiter or exploited. "''

Rewriting Women's History

I will now turn to take a closer look at the first aspect of the shift Canning outlines and hooks alludes to. namely the rewriting of white middle-class women's history. For many women of colour and Native women in Canada. as well as women from orher marginalized groups such as lesbians and bisexual women, recovering historical experience is still a vital endeavour. As

I have discussed above. the challenge which feminist scholarship posed to mainstream history was based on a facade of homogeneity. Thus "women's history" is predominantly the history of relatively privileged women: white. middle-class. able-bodied, heterosesual. and educated.

According to feminist historian Ruth Roach Pierson:

. ..Canadian women's history can be seen as occupying a colonized position within the dominant academic institutions of Canada and in relation to the institutionalization of women's history in her much more powerful and populous neighbour state to the south at the same time that various mainstream Canadian women's history practices are colonizing the histories of women belonging to other than dominant social groups within Canada and elsewhere in the

In "Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse" Chandra Talpade

Mohanty problematizes the construction of a one-dimensional "third world woman" in Western feminist texts.'" While Mohanty acknowledges that feminist writing in the West is by no means horno_geneou. she asserts that it is based on a binary division which positions non-Western women as "Other."s' From her perspective Western feminism is marked by privilege, ethnocentric universality. and power issues linked to c~ionization.~"The fact that Western feminist scholarship is itself marginalized does not exempt Western feminists from taking responsibility for the political implications of representations of "third world women" and 53

paternalistic attitudes toward women in the third world." "Sisterhood. " Mohanty writes. "cannot

be assumed on the basis of gender: it must be forged in concrete historical and political practice

and analysis. ""'

A good example of an attempt to write non-dominant women back into Canadian history

is the aptly-named 1994 collection "We'reRooted Here and Tlrq Can't Pull Us Up ":Essays in

African Canadian Women's ffistoty." The six papers which comprise this book trace three

hundred years of African Canadian women's history, beginning in the seventeenth century. Peggy

Bristow. who coordinated the project. and the five other contributors. Dionne Brand. Linda

Carty. Afua P. Cooper. Sylvia Hamilton. and Adrienne Shadd. point to the dearth of material which focuses on Black Canadian women's history. At the time of its writing, no such collection existed." And so the six authors took the initiative: "...just as women could not wait for male historians to rewrite mainstream history to include women. we could not expect white women to include us in women's history. "'' Thus they set out to redress this imbalance by putting together a book about African Canadian women's history written from a feminist perspective. which takes both race and sender into account.

Problematizing "Women"

Certainly adding information about women from non-dominant groups back into Canadian history. as the above collection illustrates. is important both for mainstream history and for women's history. However. for some feminists this project does not go far enouzh. We will now turn to examine the deconstruction of the category "women." the second component of the linguistic turn as described above by Canning. In her essay "Contingent Foundations" Judith

Butler troubles notions of "postmodernism" and "poststructuralism."" Instead of embracing 54 either of these shifting and unwieldy categories. she opts for a deconstructive critique of "matter" and "bodies."

Butler's focus in this essay is on the way in which foundations take on an untouchable quality in theory. and the impact of this on feminism. She asks:

.. .are these "foundations. " that is, those premises that function as authorizing grounds. are they themselves not constituted through exclusions which. taken into C account. expose the foundational premise as a contingent and contestable presumption?'"

Tlms Butler problematizes the category of "women." and by implication "experience. " Although she recogr~izesthat at times it is politically expedient for women to speak as and for women.

Butler maintains that there are other concerns besides representational politics. At the same time. however. she does not want to deny that. under our present social system. identity politics are sometimes a necessity. "[Illow is it." she inquires. "that the very catesory. the subject. the 'we.' that is supposed to be presumed for the purpose of solidarity. produces the very factionalization it is supposed to queii'?""

In Butler's opinion attempts to ground "women. " whether in biological capabilities or social conduct. are not good starting points for feminist politics. As she puts it: "[iJdentity categories are never merely descriptive. but always normative. and as such. exclusionary. " b7

Only by retainins "women" as a "field of differences. " Butler argues. will agency be possible."

Two of the major works implicated in the "controversy about discourse theory." Denise Riley's

"An1 I fhat Name?": Feminism and the Category of 'Women' in History and Gender and the

Politics of Hisrory by Joan Wallach Scott. theorize "women" and "experience" in such an intricate fashion."" Denise Riley states that it is not her intention to expand the definition of

"women." aIthough this is an important task, but rather to interro~atethe category itself. She argues that the linguistic move from the blatantly homogeneous "woman" to the seemingly more 55 inclusive term "women" is deceptive: "Below the newly pluralized surfaces. the old problems

still linger. 'Irn

"Women" is still a type of discursive categorization. and as such is by no means transparent. Indeed. Riley characterizes "women" as an "unstable category" and feminism as "the site of the systematic fighting out of that instability."" In this framework the sexed/gendered body becomes an eflecr rather than an originary point. Thus sex-gender emerges as an anri- foundational concept. and women's bodies cannot form the basis of a collectivity. However. accordins to Riley "we" cannot (and indeed should not) do away with "women" altogether?

Instead she suggests that feminists strategically affirm atd deny the category "women" according to the (historical. political. cultural) situation. Although we must proceed cautiously while employing such an "active scepticism." Riley maintains that this project is vital.' "That

' women' is indeterminate and impossible. " she writes, "is no cause for Iament. It is what makes feminism.. . . ""

Riley emphasizes the importance of avoiding universalizing gestures. or what she calls the "Woman Through the Ages approach. "" She proceeds to trace the sesualization of the category "women" in the European world from the seventeenth century that occurs alongside major shifts in the realms of philosophy and theology. Accordin_g to this analysis. "women"

"suffer from an extraordinary weight of characterization." with "femininity" reaching new heights in the eighteenth century when the soul as well as the body comes to be viewed as sexed.'Vhether associated with the "natural" or the "social. " "women" become separated from

Humanity and the public sphere. By the nineteenth century the species "woman" is thoroughly naturalized, and regarded as "'sexual difference' incarnate. "" Ultimately Riley concludes that:

Equality; difference; "different but equalu--the history of feminism since the 1790s has zigzagged and curved through these incomplete oppositions upon which it is itself precariously erected. This swaying motion need not be a wonder. nor a cause for despair. If feminism is the voicing of "women" from the side of "women." then it cannot but act out the full ambiguities of that categ~ry.~

Riley's deconstruction of the category "women" has had unsettling effects on historians.

feminists. and feminist scholars. However. ''Am I That Name?" has not generated as intense a debate as have the writings of Joan Wallach Scott. Moreover. some of the criticisms are less than

substantial. Bryan D. Palmer. for instance. writes that "It [Riley's historical analysis ] is heady stuff, but it is itself constructed out of the rather chin air of highly selective sources." Palmer goes on to judge Riley unfavourably for using what he regards as too many "ibids" in the

footnote^.'^

I find this somewhat puzzling as Riley and Scott offer similar discursive critiques of

Why &eender. then all the fuss about Scott'? Mariana Valverde offers this insight: "Denise Riley's book takes up many of the same theoretical banners unfurled by Scott. but its unconventional format might cause it to be nqlected by those who believe that the journal article is the divinely- ordained form for propagating historicaI truth. "" In other words. Riley's work is not considered

"schoIarly" eno~gh.~Scott, on the other hand, is an established American academic who has taught at a number of prestigious institutions in the male-dominated field of social history.

Troubling "Esperience"

In the Introduction to Gender and the Politics of Hisron, Scott writes that "Gender. in these essays. means knowledge about sexual difference. Like Riley. Scott strives to historicize and thus "denaturalize" the concept of gender. Moreover, she advocates the use of gender as both an "important analytic tool"" and a "useful category of historical analysis."" Simply addins women to history is not enough. the categories themselves must be interrogated. Accordins to

Scott. "[tlhe story is no longer about the things that have happened to women and men and how 57 they have reacted to them; instead it is about how the subjective and collective meanings of

women and men as categories of identity have been con~tructed."~(Whether or not this is the

case is a point I shall revisit.) It is time. Scott writes. for a new type of feminist scholarship:

We need a refusal of the fixed and permanent quality of the binary opposition. a genuine historicization and deconstruction of the terms of sexual difference. We must become more self-conscious about distinguishing between our analytic vocabulary and the material we want to anaIyze. We must find ways (however imperfect) continually to subject our categories to criticism. our analyses ro self- criticism."

A related category which Scott seeks to unsettle is that of "experience." In her essay

entitled "Experience" she charges that in much the same way that the historical project constructs

2mender as "objective." it also constructs experience. Experience. Scott writes. has come to be

regarded as a foundational concept. a way to access the "truth. In this way the existence of

the "individual " who "has experiences" is taken for grantedeWMoreover historians. who are

"active producers of knowledge. " remain exempt from critical scrutiny-" What is needed is a

new starring point of analysis:

When experience is taken as the origin of knowledse, the vision of the individual subject (the person who had the experience or the hiscorian who recounts it) becomes the bedrock of evidence upon which explanation is built. Questions about the constructed nature of experience. about how subjects are constituted as different in the tirst place. about how one's vision is structured--about language (or discourse) and history--are left aside."]

According to Scott "experience" is not an explanation but rather that which requires explanation. In opposition to the feminist standpoint theorists. she argues that "women's experience" is a discursively constructed concept and as such cannot be. indeed should not be. viewed as a source of knowledge. Scott states: "[ilt is not individuals who have experience. but subjects who are constituted through experience. "" This revisioning of women's experience as anti- foundational has been charged with denying the subject agency and precluding poIitical 58 action. On the contrary. Scott argues that only by historicizing such concepts will questions

pertaining to difference and subjectivity be opened up for critical scrutiny. As she writes:

Subjects are constituted discursively. experience is a 1 inguistic event (it doesn' t happen outside established meanings), but neither is it confined to a fixed order of meaning. Since discourse is by definition shared, experience is collective as well as individual. Experience is a subject's history. Languaee is the site of history's enactment. Historical explanation cannot. therefore. separate the two.'-'

As probiematic as the term "experience" is. Scott concludes that we cannot du withour

it. Instead. she suggests that we use "experience" in a critical manner for "[it] is at once nIwa~vs already an interpretation and in need of interpretation. "q3 This re-visioning of "experience" has been met with a great deal of criticism. It appears that not everyone appreciates Scott's

"difference of approach. "" For instance. Bryan Palmer characterizes Scott's work as ultimately

"spiralling downward in the descent into discourse. "* Claudia Koontz sees Scott as providing

"relativism" as the only a1 ternative."" And Linda Gordon refers to "Scott's deterministic perspective. "" and then goes on to charge her with holding a "deconstructionist epistemological position that language is the only thing we can study."'WOf course. Palmer. Koontz. and

Gordon all have some positive things to say about Scott. as well as some signiticant critiques.

However. in the end each of these analyses strikes me as fairly reductionist.

Rethinking History and Politics

I would like to cum now to the debate which transpired between Laura Lee Downs and

Joan Wallach Scott in the pages of Comparative Studies in Sociey and Hisro~."I have chosen to focus on this particular exchange despite the fact that Downs' analyses is relatively unconvincing. Pan of the problem is her use of sweepins generalizations. For example. Downs accuses Scott of attacking all previous feminist scholarship,"" of having no concern tbr the 59 lived experiences of women.''' and of partaking of "binary extremism. "'" Moreover. I have some reservations about Downs' reading of Foucault which is. like Hansock's. overly-simplistic.

Nonetheless. her argument is useful for my purposes because it raises some interesting questions pertaining to "experience," as well as potitics. identity., community. and home. To begin with. Down's critique of Gender and rite Poliiics of Hisrory is entitled "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night? Identity Politics Meets the

Postmodern Subje~t."'~~This provocative title sets the tone for the rest of the article. On the one hand. Downs is obviously concerned about the imptications of feminist deconstruction. On the other, she has misread Scott and done injustice to her work.

Downs "skilfully confuses" two separate. but interrelated. realms. namely the material and the discursive. As Scott puts it, "the title of the article suggests that there is a direct relationship between theory-the analysis of concepts like 'woment--and the lived experiences of women. But there is not such a direct relationship. "'" She continues on to explain that theory analyzes knowledge production. it does not produce "real life or practical politics. " "" w more over. Scott asserts that the deconstruction of the category "women" does not dismiss the existence of material women. "Rather." Scott writes. "the point is to contest the essentialist notion underlying some identity politics that takes 'women' to be all of us with female bodies all over the world and at any time in history and that assumes. therefore, that there arc attitudes, feelings and interests that we all necessarily have in common. "!'"

Moreover, Scott never stated that "'woman' is just an empty category." Whar she did assert, in "Gender: A Useful Category of Analysis." is this:

We can write the history of that process [of political actors and political actions] if we recognize that "man" and "woman" are at once empry and overnowing caregories. Empty because they have no ultimate, transcendent meaning. Overflowing because even when they appear to be fixed. they still contain within them alternative. denied, or suppressed definitions [my emphasis]. "'- 60

" ' Man' and ' woman' are at once empty and overflowing categories. " Why did Downs leave this vital piece of information out of her essay title'? Not only is it not as "catchy." but the additional information clarifies the meaning of Scott's argument. For one. it is not just the category of

"woman" that Scott is refemng to. but also the category of "man." (If "man" was an empty category would Downs co be afraid to walk alone at night'!) Secondly. the word "empty" has nqative connotations in Downs' usage of it caithough not in Scott's>.~vhereas "overt'lo~ving" sounds much more positive. (If "woman" was an o~~c.rj7o~r~ingcategory would Do~x-nsbe afraid to walk alone at night?)

Downs does concede at one point that there is "a liberating aspect to the argument that categories like woman are empty vessels." However. she then adds that these categories are

"filled at will by those who control the discursive tloodgates.""'Vn order to show the weaknesses in Scott's analysis. Downs points to the work of Jessica Benjamin and Carolyn

Steedman. "" She states that these authors. presumably in contrast to Scott. "avoid the sterile engagement with philosophy and take an entirely different road into the issues of experience. social difference. and formation of identity.""' Downs continues on to say that:

By recasting our notion of the subject. Steedman and Benjamin mark some possible routes out of the political and episcemoIogical bind in which we are placed by post-modem theory which conceives knowIedgs as an archipelago-- isolated islands of experience which may be connected at some deeply submerged level. but as it stands. only the tip of each volcano peers out above."'

This passage clearly illustrates both Downs' hostility to, and misunderstanding of. feminist postmodern analysis."' For instance. she states that this approach has put "us" in a

"political and epistemological bind." However. Downs does not demonstrate how this is the case.

As to the archipelago metaphor, I am puzzled. Is she suggesting that "knowledge" has become fragmented? Why is this necessarily a bad thing'? Or is Downs likening the "isolated islands of 61 rxperience" to material women who have nothing essential to link them together? But did we ever'? And if so. what wadis it?

Scott's reply to Downs is ironically entitled "The Tip of the V~lcano.""~As Scott explains. she has only been able to deal with the "tip of the volcano" because Downs' article contains so many "confusions.""' In this piece Scott proceeds to list and explain a total of twelve problems contained in Downs' argument. She writes that "this response has been an exercise in frustration, not a meaningful exchange. ""'Although I empathize with Scott's frustration- I a!so think that she missed an opportunity to critically re-examine some of her own assumptions."" For example. Downs raises an interestins point when she asserts that

"[rlesistance via deconstruction can therefore eive us only half a strategy. one which de-centres woman as a textuaI and social construct. but leaves aside the dilemmas of women. who must live as subjects in rime. ''117

Unfortunately. Downs saves this important insight until the very end of her argument.

Moreover. she detracts from this point. just a few lines down. by writing that "This paradoxical condition [that individuals inhabit gendered positions even as they strive to unmake them] will never be resolved so long as we invoke the constructedness of woman in order to avoid the tangled knot of subjectivity. "'I8 For one, I am not sure why Downs feels it is necessary or even possible to "resolve" this paradox. Secondly, she has again confused the categories of "woman" and "women." And thirdly. Downs' insinuation that Scott is trying to "avoid" the complexities of subjectivity is unfounded.

Certainly the deconstruction of discursive concepts such as "women" and "experience" is vital. But I agree with Downs that it is only a partial strategy. This is not to suggest that Scott is unaware of. or uninterested in, more material issues. In fact, she regards feminist action and feminist academic studies as pan of the same political project aimed at challenging systems of power. Scott writes that:

My motive was and is one I share with orher feminists and is avowedly political: to point out and chanze inequalities between women and men. It is a motive. moreover. that feminists share with those concerned to change the representation of other groups left out of history because of race. ethnicity. and class as well as gender. Thoush simple to state, those operations are difficult to implement. especially if one lacks analysis of how sender hierarchies are constructed. legitimated. challenged. and maintained. "'

Thus Scott maintains that this type of theorizing is not "a new form of linguistic determinism" nor "does it deprive subjects of agency."'" Only by rethinking history and politics will change be possible."'

Why is there so much resistance to poststructuralist theory. Scott asks. just when f'cminism(s) need new political strategies the most?'" This is a good question. but Downs has a query of her own: "How does one get from theory to politic^?""^ Obviously part of the problem here is the meaning of the term "politics. " What counts as "political" and who gets to decide'? Is the personal political or are politics reserved for ~overningbodies'?"' For Scott. this division between theory and politics is misleading. As she puts it:

Not only is the category of women at issue. but so are all such universalizing moves: race, sexuality. ethnicity, the human. etc. When one asks how is this difference being produced'? rather than describing what happens to groups of people already taken to be different, one undertakes a kind of analysis with far- reaching political effects.'"

In contrast, Downs defines politics more narrowly as collective action."' 'Does the feeling that one is a coherent and centred self." she asks, "become an expendable commodity only when one is (or becomes) privileged enough to toss it away'?"'" This query deserves serious consideration. especially by feminists who occupy privileged locations.'~' In the final analysis, both Scott and Downs raised a number of interesting and challenging points in the course of this debate. Unfortunately, neither of the women reconsidered her position in light of 63 the other's arguments. Downs. at home with the valorization of women's experiences. fails to see the potential of postmodern critique. Likewise Scott. at home with the deconstruction of

"experience. " minimizes the ongoing importance of identity politics.

Different Stories

Despite the fact that I hold Scott's scholarship in high regard- and have myself been influenced by her work, I feel that there is a disconcerting flaw in her argument. Over and over again Scott proceeds to set up a rigid binarism between depicting the experiences of women and other marginalized sroups and deconstructing the concept of "experience." Consider. for instance. her assertion that "[tjhe story is no lot~gerabout the rhinss that have happened to women and men and how they have reacted to them: irlsfead it is about how the subjective and collective meanings of women and men as categories of identity have been constructed" [my emphasis] ."" Or this statement: "[wlhen one asks how is this difference being produced'? rather rizalt describing what happens to groups of people already taken to be different. one undertakes a kind of analysis with far-reaching political effects" [again. my en~phasisJ.,''

Clearly. Scott sets up critical postmodern analysis and more traditional historicai work as an either/or construction. But would it not be possible, and useful, to both ask how difference is produced nrld describe what happens to groups of people marked as different'?"' Each of these "stories" needs to be told. and used to inform one another. Kathleen Canning regards

Scott's deconstructive project as implicitly oppositiond to other feminist projects:" While I would nor go this far. Canning's observation raises some important issues. She writes. for instance, that one possible outcome of Scott's work might be that "homosexuality" is investigated 64 instead of "homosexuals." "It is the 'instead of."' Canning writes. "that both intrigues and concerns me. " L33

I point to a similar problematic in Chapter One in regard to my analysis of families and

" family. " I ask if it is possible, or indeed desirable. to fight for same-sex spousal recognition while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and of the conception of "family" operating in this struggle? Both pans of this question are. as I hope to demonstrate. crucial. IMy thesis represents a refusal to choose between the projects of adding the experiences of marginalized people to history and deconstructing the category of "experience." While the narratives of queer activists enrich my interrogation of "family, " the deconstruction of "family" sharpens my analysis of queer politics. In the followin_g section I will examine work which attempts to hold together the description of different experiences and the deconstruction of the production of difference.

This, as I have discovered. is not an easy task.

Coming Home, Leaving Home(s)

In "Identity: Skin Blood Heart" Minnie Bruce Pratt employs a critical form of autobiographical narrative to explore racism. anti-Semitism. classism. sexism. and heterose~ism.'~She practises a type of "embodied writing" in which materiality and theor?/ are intertwined in her narrative.'35 In this piece Pratt succeeds in avoiding the pitfalls of essentializing her own experience on the one hand and of indulging in abstract theorizing which dismisses concrete histories on the other.'3" For instance, she manages to take up the challenge of deconstructing "community" without denying the importance of cornmunitylcommunities.'37

As Biddy Martin and Chandra Talpade Mohanty write in "Feminist Politics: What's Home Got to Do with It?" "the essential relation between blood, skin. hean, home. and identity is challenged without dismissing the power and appeal of those connections. """ 65 Pratt writes from the perspective of a white. Southern-born. Christian-raised. middIe-class lesbian feminist mother who is a professor and political activist. She begins her essay by describing a walk she rakes near her home in Washington. D.C. As much as she desires to feel

"at home." she is unable to."' Instead. as Pratt examines the landscape around her. she feels compelled to historicize relations of dominance and take responsibility for her actions. As she writes:

...when I walk out in my neighbourhood. each speaking to another person has become frausht. for me, with the history of race and sex and class; as I walk I have a constant interior discussion with myself. questioning how I acknowledge the presence of another. what I know or don't know about them. and what it means how they acknowledge me. it is an exhausting process. this moving from the experience of the "unknowing majority". . .into consciousness. It would be a lie to say that this process is comforting.'"

Pratt soes on to thoughtfully document her own "moving into consciousness" around issues of racism and anti-Semitism. An interesting feature of Pratt's prose is the manner in which she employs spacial and architectural imagery. She "tours" her neighbourhood in geographical and historical detail. describing the streets. thz homes. and the people she encounters. At one point she takes us back to her childhood and describes the view from he top of the courthouse tower in her hometown in Alabama. As a rvhire child she was given this opportunity like her father and grandfather before her, as a white girl she never actually made it all the way up.

Nonetheless, Pratt is able to piece together the picture. For example, she would have seen places of privilege, such as the Board of Education. while she would not have seen places of poverty. like the sawmill. ''I

In 1974 Pratt moves with her husband and children to a military town in North Carolina.

She describes driving around a brick market house many times a day. One evening, at an exclusive club, Pratt learns froin a black man waitins on tables that the building once housed slaves. "' In this manner she deconstructs the concept of "home." Pratt asks what this yearning 66 for home is all about and at what price do we get protection, or what she refers to as

"threatening oppres~ion'?""~She herself leaves first her childhood home. then her married

home. and finally her feminist home. At the point of writing this essay. Pratt was just discovering and thus relatively uncritical of her "lesbian home. "'" "I was homesick." Pratt

writes, "with nowhere to

In her most recent publication. entitled S/HE, Pratt scrutinizes the notion of lesbian community."" "I became a lover of women." she writes. "and without a home. I launched myself. errant. on a long journey to a place that does not yet exist.""' In this book Pratt launches a scathing attack on the Michigan Women's Music Festival. which she dubs "women's land, " a yearIy event which attracts many lesbians. She describes being stopped at the gate with her transgendered lover author Leslie Feinberg. "' They were denied entry because the "border patrol" deemed that Feinberg did not meet the requirements of " born womyn. ""'Pratt writes that she finds no safety in this type of "biological ~isterhood."'~Still. she feels a sense of Ioss: "I flinch at the women who stare. and dread the disapproval of those who will say I have forfeited my place as a 'real women. ' a 'real lesbian. ' "I5'

Pratt recounts how. when she first became a feminist, she denied her lesbian identity, her

"difference." in pursuit of a mythic "unity. "15' This type of assimilation also extended to

"other" women. to whom Pratt and her colleagues "reached out" by "throwing safety lines back. " '53 Without problematizing their motives. they "invited" women into rheir movement. their "white feminist home." Just as Pratt could no longer deny her lesbian identity in pursuit of feminist community. she also came to forfeit lesbian community in the face of transphobia?

Pratt concludes that "It is lonely to be separated from others because of injustice, but it is also lonely to break with our own in opposition to that inju~tice."'~' 67 This leads Pratt to further ponder who is "kin." who in fact is "our own kind:'" On the

one hand there are familial relations and on the other there are friendships or "chosen

families.""" But why. Pratt asks, is the Black woman who raised her automatically placed

outside of these "charmed circles'?" Asking these sorts of questions is difficult. and Pratt initially experiences a fear of speaking/speaking out."' She writes: "And I did not understand that to come to a place of greater liberation, I had to risk old safeties. """ut ultimately Pratt begins to perceive the world around her differently. and finds it impossible to turn back. This leads her to ask where the need for change comes from: how do we get started'? What keeps us from changing'? For Pratt. the situation became painfully clear:

. ..it seems that if we are women who want a place for ourselves and other women in a just. peaceful. free world. we should be saying, as white and Christian-raised women. Nor itz nly natne.'5v

The ursency to engage in anti-racist work came when Pratt lost n position of safety. namely her heterosexual privilege.'" As she says. "it is how I love that has brought me to change. " '"I Pratt recounts beins condemned as "dirty. polluted, unholy" and having her children taken away from her. Alone and financially destitute she realizes for the tirst time the extent to which her ~vhitestatus had led her to take certain rights and privileges for granted. "I became obsessed with justice" Pratt writes:

...the shell of my privilege was broken, the shell that gave me protection in the world. held me apart from the world, protected me from the world. I was astonished by the pain; the extent of my surprise revealed to me the degree of my protection. lb3

Hence she experiences a sense of loss which she likens to the necessary movement of a snake shedding its skin. I":

Pratt then goes to work on the re-creation of a new self. She describes this process as

"stripping away layer after layer of my false identity. notions of skin. blood. heart based in 68 racism and anti-Semitism.. .. "'" She begins by admitting that there are things she does not know

about the world because of her dominant locations. For instance. Pratt starts to really look at

issues of ownership and cultural appropriati~n.:~There are. she writes. three gains ro rupturing

this "narrow circle of self": a new and more complex view of the world:'" an end to the cycle

of fear and attack? and a lessening of feelings of separation and loneliness.'" The "false -gains" that keep us from standing with "other women" are material security equal to the men of our cultureimand a false sense of protection."' In conclusion. Pratt leaves us with a sense of hope for change. although she warns that it will not come ~asily.'~

Pratt. in my estimation. does a fine job of weaving together deconstructive analysis and historical description. Critical autobiographical narrative. or oral narrative. is a tricky enterprise.

AII too often the "voice of experience" remains unchallenged. as I shall discuss in the following section. I acknowledge that my reading of Pratt is influenced by my privileged race and class positionings. as well as by my sexual identification. I am thus indebted to colleagues who have challenged my readins of Pratt. Critiques which have been levelled at her work (or perhaps her social location) include a lack of acknowledgement regarding the fact that women of colour are not afforded the luxury of ignoring racism, and that most poor and working-class women have fewer opportunities than Pratt. despite her marginalization. IT)

The "Authority of Experience"

Feminist philosopher Lorraine Code states that in our society: "knowledge is valued more highly than experience and confers authority where experience cannot."'-' She traces this hierarchical distinction to Aristotle, who also maintained that women lack the capacity for rational thought.'" Hence reason. an abstract, irltellectual activity. is gendered male. Excluded from this realm. women are relegated to the more material and bodily aspects of life such as 69 reproduction. We do not think about the world. we experience it. Rather than challenging this schema some feminists. as we saw in the case of the standpoint theorists. have chosen to embrace experience as a superior source of knowledge. Code points out that this brand of empiricism

"risks making of experience a tyranny equivalent to the tyranny of the universal. theoretical. and impersonal expertise it seeks to displace. """

Thus the "authority of experience." or an uncritical reliance on experience as a source of truth, "makes experiences critically unassailabte."!' Despite the perils. some feminist theorists. maintain that it is possible to both invoke the "authority of experience" and remain critical of

"experience. " In Yearning. bell hooks attempts to critique essentialism while recognizing the

"aurhority of experience.""" few years later she abandons this phrase which she tinds increas insly problematic. and writes instead about the passiott of experience. '"'

I know that experience can be a way to know and can inform how we knew what we know. Though opposed to any essentialist practice that constructs identity in a monolithic. exclusionary way. I do not want to relinquish the power of experience as a standpoint on which to base analysis or formulate theory.'"

In my own work I continually struggle with this tension. On the one hand. it is important to me that marsinahzed voices are heard. On the other hznd, I am fascinated by the potentials of the deconstruction of concepts such as "women" and "experience. " This dilemma is sometimes framed as politics versus theory. as we saw in the debate between Laura Lee Downs and Joan

W. Scott, although this binarism is in my opinion overly-simplistic. Politics need to be theorized just as theory needs to be politicized. Thus when I interviewed queer community activists in

Ontario for this project. I had to make it clear that 1 was not just collecting their narratives in order to document their experiences. Although listening to and writing down the activist perspective (or rather perspectives) was imponant. I felt compelled to interrogate the stories 70 which I was told. In this way I hoped to avoid both the danger of essentialism. and a misguided

replacement of "objectivity" with the "authority of experience."

Brinsing a critical analysis to this part of my work was not always an easy task. For one.

I respect the opinions of each person I spoke with. In many cases. 1 specitically sought out an

activist because I admired her or his community work and/or political action. Secondly. as a

queer activist myself, I know how gruelling and thankless rhis work can be. I admire anyone who

work be keives her or his so-called "spare time" to for a cause. Thirdly, I want this work to read

by the people I interviewed. as we11 as other interested community members. It is important for

me that academic writing about political activism be of some use to the communities which it

investizates. And finally. I have come to feel close to many of these people through this process.

The interviews were. as I have already alluded to. more intimate than I had envisioned.

.Moreover, I have spent many long hours listening to each voice on tape and pouring over every

transcript.

I had to resist the urge to posit the oral histories 1 collected as morally superior and above critique simply because they were based on the experiences of an oppressed group. namely

lesbians. says. bisexuals, and transgendered people. Ruth Roach Pierson problematizes the

"epistemic privilege" granted to women's words by feminist historians in her essay "Experience.

Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History. "I8'

Autobiography and oral history have become such important methodolo~iesin women's histoq because they appear to tell the truth about women's experiences. "We have valorised oral history, " Pierson writes. "because it validates women's lives. " '" In a sexist and misogynist society such as ours it is vital that women's voices be heard. Likewise, a space must be opened up for queer voices to challenge heterosexism and homophobia. 71 However. a focus on marginalized experience dces not. and indeed should not. mean that

every word is embraced without question. According to Pierson:

As collectors and recorders of the stories of others. therefore. we cannot accept a woman's recollection uncritically, that is, unrnediated by cultural/historical context. Instead, we need to contextualize women's narratives. for to be understood they have 'to be thoughrfully situated in time and place.""j

By way of example Pierson cites a woman who may remember World War Two as promoting

female labour force participation. without taking into account either [he gendered nature of wartime employment or the strategically short duration of the majority of the jobs. Not only is it crucial that scholars working with oral narratives be able to contextualize what is being said. but we must strive to recognize how we are ourselves are embedded in dominant disco~rses.'~

As a member of the social group I researched. I avoided some of the problematics of being too far removed from the people I intervie~ed.'~As Pierson notes. it is not uncommon for research which challenges the homogeneous namre of mainstream historical analysis to be conducted by a member of the group being studied.

. ..a connection between identity and the experience of difference would appear to underlay and indeed forge a connection between an experienced difference in identity and the decision to write the history of the group identified as

different. a""

However, sexuality is not the only difference at play here, although it is the one which is highlighted in my work. As I have pointed out. identity politics are complicated by the fact that a variety of differences exist within categories. It matters. in other words, whether someone identities as lesbian. gay, bisexual. transgendered, and/or queer. Moreover. as I analyzed the narratives of queer community activists I had to constantly attend to issues of race. class. and gender. Conclusion

In this chapter I have taken a critical look at "experience" within the context of feminist scholarship. As 1t.e have seen. "experience" is a more comfortable home for some feminists than others. In order to investigate the epistemological, ethical. and political imp1 ications of deploy ins

"experience, " 1 have traced this concept in standpoint theory. feminist history. autobiography. and oral narrative. I also discussed the tension between the deconstruction of "experience" and valorizing the experiences of marginalized people. In the following chapter I will examine families in Canada. feminist critiques of "family." and queer families. ENDNOTES

1. In a paper I wrote entitled "There's No (Place Like) Home." I used my experience(s) to interrupt my academic writing. Through this process I pondered which (if any) of my voices was authentic: the academic voice, the marginalized voice, the voice in parentheses. the voice in the footnotes, or perhaps the one that did not get written down? Thanks to Kari Dehli for her help with this piece. Presented at "The Praxis-Nexus Conference: Feminist Methodology. Theory, Community. " University of Victoria. January 1996.

3. The Concise O.rford Dictionan. Eighth Edition, ed. by R. E. Allen (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1990). 41 1.

3. Donna Haraway, "Reading Buchi Emecheta: Contests for 'Women's Experience' in Women's Studies." in Simians. Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature (New York: Routledge. 199 1). 109. In this quotation Haraway references Teresa de Lauretis, Alice Doesn 'I: Fetrzinimz. Serniorics. Cinema (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 158- 186.

4. Haraway . "Reading Buchi Emecheta, " 109.

5. Joan W. Scott. "Women's History" in Gender and rhe Polirics of Hisrun. (New York: Press. 1988). 17.

6. Scott. Gender und the Polirics of Histoy. 33. In the previous chapter I discussed the tension which arose during the course of my oral history project between scholarship and activism.

7. Barbara Christian. Ann duCille. Sharon Marlas. Elaine Marks. Nancy K. Miller. Sylvia Schafer. and Joan W. Scott, "Conference Call" differences 2, no. 3 (1990), 84.

8. For a thorough analysis of this development see Scott. Gender and the Poiitics of History, especially t 7-24.

9. Kathleen Canning. "Feminist History After the Linguistic Turn: Historicizins Discourse and Experience." Signs 19. no. 2 (Winter 1994). 369.

10. Canning, 369.

11. I am puzzied by Canning's use of "women's history" and "feminist history" as interchangeable. Furthermore, I find the division she posits between feminist scholarship and poststructuralist theory somewhat arbitrary (especially in the case of the so-called "French feminists").

12. See also Carol Giliipn's hz a Diffcrenr Voice: P~c/zologicnl Theon and Wurtzen's Deveiopmenr (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. 1982). In this pioneering feminist work. Gilligan draws attention to a distinctly female voice in theories of moral development. 74 13. Nancy Hartsock, "Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women'?." in Linda J. Nicholson. ed.. Ferninisnl/Posrtnodernism (New York and London: Routledge. 1990), 158. This "we," which serves to include some and exclude "others." is problematic. as Hartsock herself eventually points out. However. the solution she proposes, that of "[sJoning out who we really are." is inadequate. See Hansock. 17 1.

14. Hansock. 159-160.

15. Hansock. 171- 172. It is worth notins that Hartsock's standpoint theory has come under a

Lgreat deal of attack in recent years. Thus she states here that she has "modified" her argument. although I see little evidence of chanse. For example, just a few lines down from this claim. Hartsock envisions a reversal of the "real order of things" [my emphasis]. Hartsock. 172.

16. For critiques of feminist standpoint epistemology see lane Flax. "Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory. " Signs !2. no. 4 (1987). 62 1-643. and Donna Haraway. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." in Simians, Cjrborgs, and Women. 183-20 1.

17. See Hansock. 161 and 171.

18. For instance, it is most telling that Hartsock refers to "the problem of differences among women." Hartsock, 158. She goes on to discuss "our efforts to find ways to include the voices of marginalized groups." According to this analysis, difference is a problem that can be solved by privileged women.

19. Hartsock. 165- 166.

30. Hartsock. 17 1. She denies that she is "calling for the construction of mother totalizing and falsely universal discourse." Hartsock. 171. I do not see how she can make this claim.

2 1. Dorothy Smith, The Eveyiq World as Problernaric (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 8.

22. D. Smith. 19.

23. D. Smith. 18.

24. D. Smith, 35.

25. D. Smith. 97. When I took one of Dorothy Smith's graduate courses at the Ontario Institute of Education (OISE), I noticed that she would often say "everyday/every night."

26. D. Smith, 91.

27. D. Smith. 88-89.

25. D. Smith. 89. 19. At least this is the case at this historical moment. Ir seems that Smith wishes to ultimarttly divest the academic of some of herlhis authority by making sociological analysis more accessible. "The work of the sociologist." she writes. "is to develop a sociology capable of explicating for members of the society the social organization of their experienced world.. .. " D. Smith. 89.

30. D. Smith. 111.

31. D. Smith. 159.

32. D, Smith. 215.

33. See D. Smith. 107. 216. and 212.

34. D. Smith, 154.

35. D. Smith, 212.

36. In a note Smith reveals her familiarity with critiques of feminist standpoint epistemology, and atrempts (unsuccessfully. in my view) to completely distance her work from these other formulations. D. Smith. 13.

38. Although, in this work. Smith says very little about lesbians and nothing about bisexual women.

39. Elizabeth Spelman, Inessential Woman: Problems of Erciusion in Feminisr Thought (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), 65.

10. bell hooks. Feminisr Theory: From Margin to Centre (Boston: South End Press. 1984). Preface.

4 1 . hooks, Feminisr Theon, Preface.

42. Unfortunately hooks does not attend to sexual difference in her early writings.

43. hooks, Fetninisr Theory, 49.

43. hooks, Feminisr Theory, 33.

45. See hooks. Fenzinisr Theory. 37 and 69.

46. hooks, Fetninist Theory, 15.

37. hooks, Feminist Theory. 14- 15.

48. hooks, Feminist Theory, 12.

49. hooks, Feminist Theory, 15. 50. hooks, Feminist Theor),. 15.

5 1 . hooks states this point very clearly in her critique of Diana Fuss's book Essentially Speaking: Fetninisnz. Narure and D~fference(New York: Routled_ee. 1989). In this work only marginalized people emerge as essentialist. according to hooks. while white people seem exempt from this critique. hooks asks the reader to consider the white male student who. because of his experience of entitlement. conducts himself quite differently in the classroom. See bell hooks. Teaching to Transgress: Edricalion as the Practice of Freedom (New York: Routledge. 1994). 8 1-82.

52. hooks. "The Politics of Radical Black Subjectivity" in Yearning (Toronto: Between the Lines. 1990). 2 1. She goes on to lament the fact that all books written by women of colour inevitably cet taken up as about "race." even when this is not the focus. b

53. See for instance Mary Childers and bell hooks. "A Conversation About Race and Class." in LMariame Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Keller. eds.. CorzJZicrs in Fminisnz (New York: Routledge. 1990). 75.

54. hooks. Fetninisr Theon. 35.

55. Ruth Roach Pierson, "International Trends in Women's History and Feminism: Colonization and Canadian Women's History, " Jorrrnal of Women's Histon 4. no. 2 (Fall 1992), 135.

56. Chandra Talpade Mohanty. "Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse" in Chandra Talpade Mohanty. AM Russo. and Lourdes Torres. eds.. Third World \Vonzer~crnd The Politics of Fminism (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1991). 51.

57. Mohanty. 52.

58. Mohanty. 53.

59. See Mohanty, 55 and 72.

60. Mohanty. 58.

61. Peggy Bristoul (Coordinator). Dionne Brand. Linda Carty. Afua P. Cooper. Sylvia Hamilton. and Adrienne Shadd. "We 're Rooted Here and TIZC~*Car1 'r Pcrll Us Up ":Essrgvs in AJriccrrz Carradian Wornerz 's Histop (Toronto. Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 1994). The authors explain that the title was taken from a speech by Harriet Tubman, unearthed by Adrienne Shadd, in reference to the effort by white colonizers to move blacks back to Africa in the nineteenth cenrury. Tubman compared in Canada to "a field of onions and garlics that cannot easily be uprooted." Bristow et al., 9.

63. Bris~ownotes that while this book was underway, Dio~eBrand published No Burden to Cup?:Narratives of Black Working Women in Onrario. 1920s-1950s (Toronto: Women' s Educational Press, 199 I). Also, in the Introduction to "We'reRoored Here and They C~rn'r Prdl Us Up," the authors outline a number of important historical writings by Black women. See Bristow et al., 4-5. 63. Bristow et at.. 4.

64. See Judith Butler. "Contingent Foundations." in Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. eds.. Ferninisrs Theorize rfte Polirical (London and New York: Routledge. 1992). 3-6. Butler herself claims at various points that she does not know what postmodemism is. although she feels slightly more comfortable discussing poststructuralism.

65. Butler. "Contingent Foundations. " 7.

66. Butler. "Contingent Foundations. " 14.

67. Butler. "Contingent Foundations. " 15- 16.

68. Butler. "Contingent Foundations. " 16.

69. For a provocative comparison of these books see Mariana Valverde's essay entitled "Poststructuralist Gender Historians: Are We Those Names'?." LabourXe Travail 25 (Spring 1990). 227-236.

70. Denise Riley. "Am I Thnr Name? " (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 1988). 99. In 1949 Sirnone de Beauvoir exposed "Woman" as an oppressive social construct when she wrote that "[olne is not born. but rather becomes. a woman." De Beauvoir. The Secoml Sa-. trans. H.1M. Parshley. introd. D. Bair (New York: Vintage Books. 1989). 267. In this pathbreaking treatise de Beauvoir urged women to achieve transcendence. to move from the position of "Other" to become subjects. See M.K. Owen. "Simone de Beauvoir and the Radicalization of "Woman": Identity Politics and Political Action, " Unpublished M.A. Thesis (The Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism, The University of Western Ontario. 1993).

71. Riley. 5.

72. This "we" is, as we saw earlier with Hansock. problematic. It is also unavoidable at times. Who does it indude? Exclude'? On what basis'?

73. Riley. 113.

74. Riley, 113-114.

75. Riley. 20. I feel that there is some slippage here. By choosing to focus on broad categories. Riley's analysis loses a certain amount of specificity. For instance. although she does mention the issue of race. I wonder how accurate it is to refer to the discursive construction of "women" without differentiation. See for example Riley. 17 and 94. (Wadis the category "white Western woman" the same as the category "Black third-world woman of colour"'?)

76. Riley, 16.

77. Riley, 94.

78. Riley, 112. 79. See Bryan Palmer. Descent into Discourse: The Reification of Language and the Writing of Social Hisrory (Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1990). 167.

SO. Valverde. 233. Moreover. Valverde suggests that because Riley seems to be having fun as she writes. traditional historians trivialize her work.

8 1 . For instance. Riley also writes poetry.

82. Scott. Gender and the Politics of Hisroy. 2. Scott puts forth a complex definition of gender in Chapter Two. "Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis." See Scott. Gender and rile Polifics of Histor?;, 28-50. Valverde offers a good summary of this definition. as well as an insightful critique. Valverde. 230-23 1.

83. Scott. Gender mci rfze Pofirics of Histon.. 28.

81. Scott. Gelrrier and the Politics of Hisron. 1 1.

85. Scott, Gender and the Polirics of Hisroe. 6.

86. Scott, Getzder and the Pdiiics of Histon., 40-11.

87. Scott. Gender and the Politics of History, 24.

88. Scott. Gender and the Politics of HiSron. 27.

89. Joan W. Scott. "Experience" in Fenlinisrs Theorize the Polirical. 32.

90. Scott. "Experience. " 25.

9 1 . Scott, "Experience. " 25-26.

92. Scott, "Experience, " 34.

93. Scott. "Experience. " 37.

94. See Palmer. "The Scott Files" in Descer~rinro Discourse. 172-183.

95. Palmer. "The Scott Files. " 183.

96. Claudia Koontz. Review of Gender and the Politics of Hisron by Joan Wallach Scott. Women 's Review of Books 6. no. 4 (1989). 20.

97. Linda Gordon, "Response to Scott, " Signs 15, no. 4 (1990), 852.

98. Linda Gordon. Review of Gender and the Politics of History by Joan Wallach Scott, Signs 15. no. 4 (1990). 855.

99. Compararive Srudies in Socie? and Hisroty 35. no. 2 (April 1993). 4 14-45 1 . 100. Laura Lee Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject." Comparative Studies in Socieq and Hisrun 35. no. 2 (April 1993). 414.

101. Downs, "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Catesory. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject. " 124.

102. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject." 335.

103. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject," 414437.

104. Joan W. Scott. " 'The Tip of the Volcano. ' " Cornpararive Studies in Socien and Hisron. 35. no. 2 (April 1993). 438.

105. Scott. "'The Tip of the Volcano'," 138.

106. Scott. "'The Tip of the Volcano'." 339.

107. Scott. Gender and rhe Politics of Histon. 19.

108. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category, Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject. " 435.

109. Scott writes that Downs' interpretation of Benjamin and Steedman is misleading. Scott. " 'The Tip of the Volcano', " 442.

1 10. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject. " 420.

11 1. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Potitics Meets the Postmodern Subject." 420.

1 12. In fact. Downs comes across as opposed to theory in general.

113. Scott, " 'The Tip of the Volcano', " 438-443.

1 14. Scott. " 'The Tip of the Volcano'." 443.

1 15. Scott. "'The Tip of the Volcano'." 443.

116. Earlier in this chapter I quoted Scott who wrote that "[wle must tind ways (however imperfect) continually to subject our categories to criticism. our analyses to self-criticism. " See Scott, Gender and rlre Polirics of Hisrory , 40-4 1 .

117. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category, Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject," 420. To back up this point Downs quotes, or rather misquotes, Denise Riley. She writes that "[tlhis is no small oversight. for as Denise Riley points out, the category woman always conflates the attributed with the imposed and lived." Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject." 436. In fact. Riley is refemng in this passage not to the category "woman." but to "women's experience." See Riley. 100. Riley's project is not, as I have discussed above. a deconstruction of the category "woman" but is rather an analysis of the category "women." That Downs missed this vital point. and proceeded to change the meaning of Riley's words. is disconcerting.

118. Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject," 436.

1 19. Scott. Gender and rlze Politics of Hisrory . 3.

120. Scott. " Esperience. " 34.

1 2 1 . Scott . Gmdet- and rlte Polirics of ffixton. 1 1 .

122. Scott, "Response to Gordon." 859. Many feminists are suspicious of the move toward the decentring of the subject. occurring as it does when so many marginalized groups are just staning to claim an identity. Biddy Martin, for example. asks if sexual identity is erased "[sjhould women, by implication, no longer (i-e.. never) speak as women'?" etc. Biddy Martin. "Feminism. Criticism, and Foucault." in Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby. eds.. Ferzrinism and Fortcaulr (Boston: Northeastern University Press. 1988). 17.

123. Downs. "Reply to Joan Scott. " Conzparati\*e Srrtciies in Socie~.am.. Hisron 35. no. 2 (April 1993). 450.

124. See, for example. Scott's critiques of so-called "hizh politics" as a gendered concept. Scott. Gender and tlze Polirics of Histoty, 4839. Scott also writes about what she perceives as the problematic equation of the personal with the political for feminism(s). Scott. "Experience." 3 I.

125. Christian. duCille. Markus, Marks, Miller, Schafer. and Scott, "Conference Call. " 86. Although in the diJfierences article Scott does make reference to the building of political coalitions. she gives little concrete direction in this respect.

126. See Downs. "If 'Woman' is Just an Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Ni~ht?Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject. " 4 15.

127. Downs, "Reply to Joan Scott, " 450. On this note Downs recounts how reading "third- world" feminist works challenged her Western-centric perception of the world.

128. !myself have often thought about the implications of this charge. What if the only reason I am so inspired by the deconstruction of discursive catezories like "women" and "experience" is because I can afford to be'?

129. Scott. Gender and rlze Politics of Hisron. 6.

130. Christian. duCille, Markus, Marks, Miller, Schafer, and Scott, "Conference Call," 86. 131. Thanks to Ruth Pierson for helping me articulate this question more clearly.

132. Canning. 375.

134. Minnie Bruce Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood, Heart. " in Elly Bulkin. Minnie Bruce Prart. and . Yows in Smcggle: Three Feminist Perspectives on Anti-Semitism and Racism (New York: Long Haul Press. 1984). 11-63. Kathleen Rockhill examines "disability" in a similar manner in "And Still I Fight." in Shelley Trernain, ed.. Prtshing rlze Limirs: disabled dykes prodrtce crrlrrrre (Toronto: Women's Press. 1996). 172- 187.

135. See Biddy Martin and Chandra Talpade Mohanty. "Feminist Politics: What's Home Got to Do with It?. " in Teresa de Lauret is. ed ., Feminist Strtdies/Criticnl Studies ( Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 191-212.

136. Martin and Mohanty, "Feminist Politics: What's Home Got to Do With It?. " 2 10.

2 37. Martin and Mohanty. "Feminist Politics: What's Home Got to Do with It?." 192.

138. Martin and Mohanty. "Feminist Politics: What's Home Got to Do with It'!. " 200

139. Pratt, "Identity: Skin. Blood, Heart." 11.

140. Pratt. "Identity: Skin, Blood. Heart. " 12. Pratt attributes the phrase "unknowing majority" to LMaya Angelou. but does not give a reference.

131. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood, Heart." 16.

142. Pratt. "Idenrity: Skin. BIood. Heart." 20-21.

133. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart." 38.

144. See Rebellions: Essqvs1980-1991 (New York: Firebrand Books. 199 1 ) for the deveIopment of Pratt's thought in this area.

145. Pratt, "Identity: Skin. Blood, Heart," 24.

146. Minnie Bruce Pratt. SHE (New York: Firebrand Books, 1995).

147. Pratt. S/HE. 188.

148. Feinberg also writes about the lMichigan Womyn's Music Festival. See Leslie Feinberg. Trcrnsgendered Warriors: Making Histoty from Joan of Arc ro Dennis Roclrjtnn (Boston: Beacon Press. 1996).

139. I myself have never attended this event specifically because of this outrageous requirement. The policy was originally implemented in response to a transsexual male-to-female person who attempted to gain access to the "womyn-only" festival. In a most anti-de Beauvoirian fashion, the only people who are admitted to this "gathering of mothers and daughters" are "womyn born wornyn ("Michigan Womyn's Music Festival Brochure." 1997). Every year a number of transgendered people set up camp outside the gates as a form of protest. In a letter I received in response to my inquiries regardin? this policy. 1 was told that the organizers of the festival do not conduct "panty checks." In fact, they claim that they have never turned anyone away. but simply trust that people will respectfully self-select. These are only "parameters." the letters states, not an " ideology. " Personal Correspondence, Sandy Ramsey on behalf of the Orsanizers of Michigan Womyn's Music Festival (October 7. 1997).

150. Pratt, S/HE, 182.

15 1. Pratt. S/HE. 184.

152. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart." 33.

153. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart," 30.

154. This term sigr!als fear and/or hatred of transgendered people, as outlined in Chapter One.

155. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart," 50.

156. I will examine the topic of chosen family and community in the next chapter. as well as Chapter Five.

157. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart," 13-11. bell hook writes about this process from the perspective of a black woman:

Moving from silence into speech is for the oppressed, the colonized. the exploited, and those who stand and struggle side by side a gesture of defiance that heals. that makes new life and new growth possible. It is that act of speech. of "talking back. " that is no mere gesture of empty words, that is the expression of our movement from object to subject--the liberated voice." hooks. Taking Back: Thinking Ferninis, Thinking Black (Boston: South End Press. 1989). 9.

158. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart." 27.

159. Pratt, "Identity: Skin, Blood, Heart," 56.

160. Pratt. "Identity: Skin, Blood. Heart," 20.

161. Pratt, "Identity: Skin, Blood, Heart," 20.

162. Pratt, "Identity: Skin, Blood, Heart," 27.

163. Pratt, "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart." 27.

164. Pratt. "Identity: Skin, Blood. Heart," 39. 165. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Hean," 13.

166. See for instance Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart. " 13 and 49.

167. Pratt, "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart," 17.

168. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart," 18.

169. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart." 19

170. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Heart." 54.

171. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood, Heart." 38.

172. Pratt. "Identity: Skin. Blood. Hean." 57.

173. Special thanks to Catherine Phillips and the other students in Kari Dehli's "Feminism and Poststructuralism" class at OISE for their incisive comments and insights.

174. Lorrn inr Code. MmCatz She Ktzow ?: Fminisr Theon mdtltr Co~zsmccrionof Knodrrlge (New York: Cornell University Press. 1991). 222. In this book Code arsurs that the sex of the knower is epistemologically significant.

175. Code. 223.

176. Code. 156. She cites. by way of example. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Drwloptnmt of Self. Voice. and Mind. This collection of autobio_graphical writings by women. published in the mid-eighties. purports to tell the truth about women's lives in their own words. Map Field Belenky. Blythe McVicker Clinchy. Nancy Rule Goldberzer. and Jill Mattuck Tarule. Women's Ik~~sof Kt~o~\.ing: Tlze Deldoptnenr of Se[f. Voice. ond Mitzd (New York: Basic. 1986).

177. Code. 257. See also Judith Grant. "I Feel Therefore I Am: A Critique of Female Esperience as the Basis for a Feminist Epistemology. " Wonretz iznd Poliiics 7. no. 3 ( 1987). 99- 127.

178. See hooks. " Postmodern Blackness. " in Yearning.

179. hooks. Teaching to Transgress, 90.

I SO. hooks. Teaching ro Transgress, 90.

18 1. Ruth Roach Pirrson, "Experience, Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History." in Karen Offen, Ruth Roach Pierson. and Jane Randall. eds.. U'riritzg Wonmz 's Histoy: lnternarional Perspectives (Bloom ington and indianapol is : Indiana University Press, 199I), 85.

182. Pierson. "Experience. Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History, " 9 1. 183. Pierson. "Experience. Difference, Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History. " 91. In this excerpt Pierson is quoting from Personal Narratives Group, "Origins. " in Personat Narratives Group. ed.. Inreprering Women 's Lives: Fetninisr Tileon: and Personal Narrarives (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1989). 12.

184. Pierson. "Experience. Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History, " 92.

18.5. See Pierson. "Experience, Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History, " 92.

186. Pierson. "Experience, Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History. " 89. CHAPTER THREE:

Family Matters: "Normal to be Queer?"'

Introduction

"It's normal to be queer." This heading appears above one of the feature articles in The

Economisr from January 1996 about "the global emergence of ordinary gayness. "'In this piece

h~rnose~walityis characterized as an orientation. and a fairly neutral. even banal, one at that (the

sexual equivalent of being left-handed).' Furthermore. same-sex unions are portrayed in a

positive light. The cover of this issue, which bears the ritle "Let Them Wed." portrays two white

male figurines in tuxedos holding hands on top of a wedding cake. In many respects. it is

astonishing that a prominent right wing British journal chose to devote so much space to the topic

of lesbian and gay relationships. In fact, the editors go so far as to call for an end to the

exclusively heterosexual nature of marriage. Although this gesture may be regarded as

progressive. it is more complicated than it appears.

Firstly. "queer" is used as an attention grabber in this issue of The Econonzisr.' For

anyone conversant with queer theory in the 1990s. the word seems out of place and jarring in

this ~ontext.~For instance. the editors constantly make reference to homosexuals and

homosexuality. with only the occasional mention of gays or lesbians. Bisexuals and transsendered

people are not acknowledged at all. The word "queer" is reserved for headlines and sub-titles

where it has shock value. Furthermore, the theme of the issue is the assimilation of same-sex

couples into the mainstream via the bonds of rnatrimony.This venture is. in my opinion. decidedly "un-queer" or even "anti-queer." I shall revisit this point.

Secondly. the leader is patronizing. In response to the conservative charge that "marital

anarchy" may ensue if same-sex marriage is legalized. the editor assures us that "countless

85 86 homosexual couples. especially lesbian ones. have shown that they are as capable of fidelity. responsibility and devotion as heterosexual couples.. .. "' Furthermore. "permitting gay marriage could reaffirm society's hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions. "The article concludes that same-sex partnerships are neither frivolous nor dangerous. Rather. they must be encouraged by the state because they benefit society.' For example. stable unions provide people

(especially women) with a more secure economic base. keep people happier and healthier. and are a "great sociat stabiliser of rnen."'"One of the great effects of marriage is thae it keeps people from depending on social assistance.

Thirdly, following this anicle is a flattering review of 's controversial

1995 publication Vinliall' Nonnal: An Argument Aborcr Homosewaliy . In this book Sullivan arsues that homosexuals should be admitted to the armed forces and aIlowed to marry in civil ceremonies." He adds that homosexuals have even more time than heterosexuals to devote !O improving society because they are not generally involved in raising children." To the reviewer's great relief. Sullivan is "sane" and "gentle." unlike the "shrillness" displayed by many

"homosexuals. "'j "IMr. Sullivan reasons that when homosexuals are revealed as deeply traditional. patriotic and indeed conservative. there is no reason why society should not embrace them as different but valued parts of rhe whole. ""

Clearly the thrust of Sullivan's work. as well as the "Let Them Wed" issue of The

Econornisr in which his book is reviewed, is that queers are normal." Moreover, queers could be even more normal ("averase, " "common. " "typical." "regular, " "standard, " "ordinary, "

"sane") if they/we gained entrance to such traditional institutions as marriage.'" In this chapter

I interrosate the notion that it is, or should be. "normal to be queer." and that the key to achieving such normalcy is the legitirnization of same-sex spousal relationships." I will begin by critically examining "the Canadian family" and Canadian families, to assess the model which 87 is held up for queers to emulate. Next I will look at western feminist critiques of the heterosexual nuclear family. From here I will go on to discuss same-sex families in Canada. I will then proceed to review the assirnilationist debate. and contrast works which strive to disrupt heteronomative family discourse. Finally I will point to alternative visions of "family" and new strategies for families.

The Canadian Family in Crisis?

There is. of course. no such thing as "the Canadian family." We have instead a broad range of family forms: nuclear families. Native families. blended famil ies. estended families. people of colour families, step-parent families. second-parent families. single-parent families. traditional families, female-headed families, male-headed families, grandparent-headed families. modern families. postmodern families, co-parent families. lesbian and gay families. bisexual families. transsendered families. and so on. Some of these types of families receive official recognition while others do not. As Canadian sociologist Margrit Eichler states in Fcmii~.Shifrs:

Families, Policies, and Gender: "The very ground on which families are built has shifted. "I"

The question is. does such movement indicate the decline of "the family" or the proliferation of families'? I would argue that each of these assertions is true to some extent. Families continue to flourish even as conventional notions of "family" are challenged. However. neither heterosexual nuclear families nor the ideal of the heterosexual nuclear farnily have faded into oblivion.

Word from the political right is that the "traditional" family is in trouble. According to

David Popenoe, civil society, and hence "the family. " is breaking down because people are "too individualistic. " '"The trend toward radical individualism, " he writes, "can be perceived as movement beyond the nuclear family and toward a 'postnuclear' family system. "" Popenoe cites 88 the United States and Sweden as prime examples of this deterioration which is precipitated by

great wealth and "extreme cultural heterogeneity," by which he means ethnic and racial

diversity." To counteract these trends the (white heterosexual) nuclear family. the family form

which works the best. must be strengthened? Popenoe argues that long-term monogamous

marriage is beneficial for adults. regulates the social behaviour of men. and produces children who uphold the ideals of liberal democracy?

William Gairdner, author of The Wur Against the Family. agrees that the family is in crisis (and that this is a problem)." However. although he regards individuaIism as an obstacle.

Gairdner is equally concerned about the influence of the welfare State." He begins his treatise by declaring that there are two indisputable facts: one is that "we are all born of a mother. and begotten by a father." the other is that "a sort of ongoing war has been waged from the start by small but powerful sroups against our most cherished institution. "'" From Gairdner's perspective. Canada is filled with government-funded radicals who seek to abolish the traditional family. '' He cites . rationalism, egalitarianism, and feminism as enemies of the family.

Like Popenoe. Gairdner also targets women. queers. and people of colour: "[u]nnatural sexual practices are relabelled 'orientations,' to avoid 'stisma.' Sexual and racial quotas are used throughout society in a form of genteel apartheid. "'"

In order to highlight what is wrong with our country Gairdner points to the "fact" that anyone can collect welfare. that unmarried heterosexual couples (who have not committed themselves to each other or their children) and homosexual couples (who are not committed to

"society's procreational project") are given legal recognition. and that married couples with children pay more taxes than common-law couples with children.:" Interestingly. for my purposes. Gairdner was writing this book when the New Democratic Party was in power in

Ontario. He notes that at this time then Premier wished to "redefine marriage" to 89 include same-sex couples,"' and that University of Toronto President "Rob" [Robert] Prichard supported Gay Pride Day:

What we have here are two people from the same mouId using their pubiic positions to engineer a change in public values. They are the vanguard of the rurf war. .And they're winnins."

Canadian Families

Whether or not equity-seeking activists and politicians. especially those involved in the pursuit of same-sex spousal recognition. are "winning" is a thought I will continue to explore throughout this thesis. Bear in mind that this is a comples issue. Many lesbians. gay men. bisexual women and men. and transgendered people have formed, or hope to fornl. their own families. Some of them wouId like to have legal rights and responsibilities. while others are wary of such recognition. Moreover, feminists continue to critique both "family" and families. It is, however. significant that conservatives like Gairdner and Popenoe think that queers and feminists pose a threat." Is it the case. as they suggest. that the traditional family is under attack and tloundering? And if so, what are the impkations for Canadians and Canadian society? At this point I will turn to feminist examinations of the condition of families in this country.

According to Eichler. we have moved since the beginnins of the century from a

"patriarchal model of the family" to an "individual responsibility model of the family. "" Under the patriarchal model men and women were married. children were born into lepl unions. households were controlled by men. and women worked only in the home and were economically-dependent on their husbands. Homosexuals were regarded as outside of and oppositional to family life. and homosexuality was deemed a medical and legal pr~blem.~With the move towards the individual responsibility model. women and men are viewed as equal and interdependent partners. they may be married or living common-law. and children are not 90 necessarily born into legal unions or residing with both biological parents. There is growing

acceptance of different (i-e.. non-heterosexual) sexual "orientations" or "preferences. "j5 and same-sex relationships are beginning to receive legal recognition.

Although at first glance these family forms may seem worlds apart. Eichler warns that the shift is actually more ideological than material.'' For example, although discrimination based upon "sex" is now prohibited by the Canadinn Chaner of Righrs und Freedoms (CCRF). this does not mean that relations between women and men are entirely equitable. However. the enshrinement of gender equality in the constitution has had an impact on :

The privileged status of the legally married couple has been Iargely eroded through the inroads made by spouses in common-law relationships and. lately, same-sex couples. The concept of illegitimacy has been abolished for all intents and purposes .'"

Although the individual responsibility model has some advantages over the earlier patriarchal model. Eichler states that it is not entirely satisfactory. This is particularly true in terms of policy-making.''

For instance. household membership and family membership are often collapsed in

Canadian policies pertaining to families." As Eichler demonstrates. this is problematic. Family members do not always share the same residence. and people living in the same house are not always family." Many chiIdren, for example. do not reside with both parents due to .

As well, more and more women are having children outside of marriage.'' Despite these changes. the household (however defined) is still posited. with a few exceptions. as the primary unity of administration." Under this schema the public has little responsibility for the economic well-beins of the family if at least one parent is present. However. the state may offer temporary forms of assistance if children are in need." 91 It is increasingly difficult, as Eichler points out. to define "family" which she characterizes as a "moving target. "" Eichler cites, for instance. the complexities of the tax

-wide regarding spousal status? She also lists nine types of fathers and an astonishins twenty- five types of mothers in the era of new reproductive technologies." In Family Shps Eichler opts for a description of the evolution of families and family policies over time and between jurisdictions. She is more interested in asking "how" a family is made. which she perceives as the long-term question. than in examining "who" constitutes a family or "what" makes a family.'~ccording to conservatives. only a select group of people qualify as the nucleus around which family forms. The patriarchal nuclear family is limited to adults who are heterosexual. married. and their children. By contrast. more liberal-minded people emphasize loving relationships. Family members are people who take care of each other. legal and biological relationships are not important."

Although I concur with Eichler that it is vital to analyze the manner in which families are formed. I also see value in what she describes as the egalitarian definition of family.'" That is. an emphasis on relationships of care rather than more formal ties. In this regard I will quote the

Vanier Institute of the Family's definition of "family" in its entiret~.~'

Family is defined as any combination of two or more people who are bound tosether over time by ties of mutual consent, birth and/or adoption/pIacement and who. together. assume responsibility for variant combinations of some of the followin$: physical maintenance and care of group members: addition of new members through procreation or adoption: socialization of children: social control of members: production. consumprion and distribution of goods and services: and affective nurturance--10ve.~'

As a working definition. this description is useful for my purposes because it is broad enough to include a wide variety of family including lone-parent families, same-sex families. extended hmilies. and even "families of choice. "53 92 It is also important to recognize that a range of differences such as race. ethnicity. class. abil icy. and sexuality exist between families ." The heterosexuai. able-bodied. nuclear family

is a distinctly modem. white. middle-class model. Tania Das Gupta. for instance. investigates how racist policies have sought to destroy Native. immigrant. and people of colour families in

Canada." While white heterosexual feminists take famiiies for granted. she writes. non- dominant peoples have had to struggle for the right to form and maintain hmilies."' Moreover. although women are often oppressed within the family on the basis of gender. women of colour and Native women also seek refuge from race and class discrimination within the family.'- In a similar vein Patricia Monture charges that Canada is a nation built upon the genocide and regulation of aboriginal peoples." She examines how racist child welfare policies. which remove

Sarive children from their homes and place them with white families. are implemented to obliterate Native families."

Trends

Feminists have identified a number of developments in Canadian society over the last three decades which affect families."' Although we are a wealthy indusrrialized nation. poverty is on the rise and the social safety ner is being eroded. As a consequence many families lack adequate food and shelter. The _gap between the rich and the poor is widenine in Canada and the middle class is shrinking. Today there are both more millionaires than ever before and more people living below the poverty line."' In fact. the income of the richest I0 per cent of families is 314 times ,oreater than the income of the poorest 10 per cent."' Women and children. especially those from non-dominant groups. are particularly vulnerable to tinding themseives without adequate resources for reasons I will examine.* In 1993. for example. 17.4 per cent 93 of the population fell below the poverty line. with women and children overrepresented in this category. That year 1.5 million children. or 20.8 per cent. were living in poveny?

Currently few women work only inside the home. and over the last thirty years there has been a significant increase in the labour force participation of all women. especially married women and mothers." It should be noted. however. that for some women being a housewife has never been an option. Many women of colour and white working-class women have always worked outside of the home to help support their families. Moreover. in Canada today immigrant women are employed as domestic labourers. some living in exploitative conditions." In the

1960s almost 30 per cent of women worked outside of the home. in the 1990s the figure is closer to 60 per cent or two-thirds of Canadian women."' Over 70 per cent of women do not have full- time employment. but work on a part-time basis.M Despite increased participation in the work force. the "wage gap" still exist^.^ Women continue to earn less money overall than men. approximately thirty cents on the dollar or 67.7 per cent." Finally. women in heterosexual relationships still work lonser hours inside the home than do men. and perform approximately two-thirds of all unpaid domestic labour.-'

Divorce rates have been on the rise for the last three decades. It is estimated that in the

1990s. 30 to 38 per cent of first will end in divorce.'? Although there are a number of factors which are predictive of divorce. young age is the most influential determinant?

However. this pattern is offset to some extent by steady marriage rates. and an increase in remarriages." Currently about 7 per cent of all families with children in Canada. or 343.000 families, are "blended."7s Furthermore. more and more heterosexual couples are opting for common-law arrangements. In 1991 approximately 12 per cent of heterosexual couples were cohabitating. while almost 30 per cent of people reported living common-law at one time.76In

Canada today common-law heterosexual arrangements. with regional variations. are increasingly 94 - treated as the equivalent of legal marriage." Finally. there are about a half a million lesbian and

5Oay parents with a million or more children in this country.-These famiIies. as we shall see.

are deemed legitimate for some purposes in some jurisdictions."

In 1991 13 per cent of families with children had only one parent." There is an ever-

increasing number of lone-parent households in Canada. due primarily to dissolution of marriage

and birrhs to unmarried women."' At the same time a small but growins group of middle-class

women have intentionally chosen to raise children on their own." Although not all lone parents

are poor. a geat many are. particularIy in the case of female-headed families which constitute

just over 80 per cent of sole support households." In fact the highest rate of poverty. about 60

per cent in 1993. occurs in female-headed lone-parent families." That year the average income

for a lone-parent female-headed family was 58.566 below the poverty line? Women tend to

be younger and less educated than mals lone-parents. and thus often find themselves caught in

a cycle of p~verty.~

While the birth rate is fairly low in Canada, there has been a marked increase in the

number of babies born to unmarried women. In 1974 births to unmarried women constituted 6

per cent of all births in Canada. while in 1991 the number rose to 27 per cent or just over one-

quarter."' Never-married. as opposed to divorced. women now constitute the majority of these

mothers. However, it is worth noting that many lesbians and bisexual women. as well as common-law heterosexual women, are considered "never married" for statistical purposes."

Statistics Canada reports that in 1990 there were 400,000 live births: 76 per cent to married

women. 23 per cent to never married women. 1.5 per cent to divorced women. Moreover. 82

per cent of the births before the age of 20 were to never married women. this figure rises to 99 per cent when the mother is under the age of 1Y9 As these trends indicate. not ail Canadians Iive in "traditional" nuclear families. Over the

last three decades families in this country have become more diverse. In 1991 married

heterose.uuals with children constituted 48 per cent of all Canadian families. ChikiIess married

heterosexuals made up 29 per cent. 13 per cent were lone-parent families. 6 per cent were

childless common-law heterosexuals. and 4 per cent were common-law heterosexuals with

children."' Pierson links this uansforrnation to feminist activism and women's increased

independence :

Over the twenty-odd years of the recent feminist movement. with the steady increase of women in the paid labour force and the greater ease of divorce. the shape of households in Canada has changed. The male-headed. heterosexual. nuclear family of husband and wife. married for life. with two. three or four children. is no longer the statistical norm."

Despite the decline in the number of heterosexual nuclear families. however. the idealized notion of "family" premised on this family form remains strong. As Shelley A.M. Gavigan puts

it: "[tlhe ideology of the patriarchal nuclear family provides a prism through which relationships are examined. the ideal to which many aspire and the measure against which we all are judged.. . . "" While there has undoubtedly been a conceptual shift away from the patriarchal model of the family. as Eichler points out. two (preferably opposite-sex) adults with children is still the ideological norm in western society. This is the image that pervades our lives through the educational system. the mass media. the government. the judiciary. etc. The domination of this standard of "family" has. as we shall see. implications for both feminist and lesbian/gay/bisexuaI/trans_gendered/queeractivism and theory.

Feminist Critiques of "Family" and Families

Feminists are often figured as opponents of "the far nil^."^ And it is true, as demonstrated above, that both the concept of "family" and the organization of families have been 96 subject to feminist critique. Conservative. heterosexual parents are typically the most outspoken

in blaming feminism for the decline of the heterosexual. nuclear family." However. some

heterosexual and queer feminist mothers are also critical of what they perceive as feminism's

inattention to family issues in general? But. as Pierson points out:

Such a charge is based on a very limited view of the more than twenty-year history of second-wave feminism. For. in fact. the issue of the oppression of women in the domestic sphere can be seen as the driving force of a number of major strains of the feminism resurgent in the 1960s and early 1970s.'"

"Feminism" is. of course. nor a monolith but is rather comprised of complex and sometimes contradictory ideologies. As Pierson notes. many of the early second-wave feminisms were concerned with women's oppression in the home." But despite the different routes they take. many ferninisms reach a similar (and complicated) concIusion: women must leave the

"private sphere" and enter the "public sphere. "" Liberal feminism. for example. is characterized by its focus on gender equality. According to this framework women are oppressed by domestic labour and shouId be free to gain an education and compete with men in the public sphere.

Marxist feminism is marked by the belief that women will be liberated by the overthrow of capitalism and the abolition of the family. Under communism women will be able to work outside of the home like men. and housework would be done communally. Radical feminism. or at least some factions. locates women's oppression in reproduction. Women cannot be liberated until biolo@cal motherhood is eliminated and they are able to enter the workplace.'"

There are many examples of western feminist texts which critique women's position in the patriarchal. nuclear family. I will cite here two of the most influential publications. In 1949

Simone de Beauvoir wrote The Second SET wherein she put forth the thesis that Woman is a social construct, a less valuable category than Man.'" "He is the Subject. he is the Absolute-- she is the Other. "'"' Woman is equated with nature. and is consequently relegated to the private 97 sphere of the home and family. This task is accomplished by trapping women within the realm of the physical. Women must rise out of this state of immanence ("being-in-itself") and achieve rranscrndence ( " being-for-itself"). ."-' Two main obstacles block the path to women's liberation: uneven distribution of economic goods and a metaphysical system model led upon b inaqr opposition. In this regard de Beauvoir outlines three political strategies: paid employment. intellectual activity. and socialist struggle.'"'

De Beauvoir's analysis of women has often been interpreted as implying a type of hostility toward the female body and its reproductive capabilities.:'" But I would argue that she is not sugzesting that having children is a negative experience in and of itself. but rather that the role of "mother" within westem-sty le patriarchy is problematic. Over a decade later Betty

Friedan published The Feminine Mysriqrte. a very different book with a similar message.""

According to the "feminine mystique," women should find total fulfilment in the roles of wife and mother. Friedan exposed this belief as destructive and oppressive. Women. she wrote. must overcome "the problem that has no name" (that is. the dissatishcrion brought on by being a suburban housewife) by becoming educated and finding a career. Like men. women too need an identity outside of the home. '*

Each of these texts made a tremendous impact when they first appeared. Many women's lives changed after they read The Second Se-r and/or Tile Feminine Mysriqw. Simone de Beauvoir is heraided as the "grandmother of feminism" and Betty Friedan is credited with starting the second-wave women's movement in the U.S. With the benetit of hindsight, one sees that both of these pachbreaking books are aimed at an elite group of women: white. middle-class. educated. heterose~ual.'~~These women would have (and in fact still do have) the means to pursue a university degree or a career. while less privilezed women struggle to make ends meet.'" Nonetheless. second-wave feminists launched a much-needed critique of the oppression 98 of women in "the family" which has had widespread effects. As a result the "personal." that is

the private organization of family life. became a publicly contested "political" issue. i'"

There has. of course. been resistance to this politicization of "the family. " "In a classic example of blaming the messenger," Meg Luxton writes. "feminist critiques of families as a source of women's oppression have been twisted into the claim that feminists are destroyins the

family-M 1 In addition to conservative backlash. the new right (like the old right) is skilled at

-generating a sense of moral panic. especially if it feels that "the family" is being threatened:" According to Luxton. feminists along with lesbians and gay men have mounted serious challenges to the patriarchal, nuclear family. However, as important as critiques of family ideolosy and family arrangements are. Luxton identifies a problematic void."' As she puts it:

...where neo-conservative politics in the current period are based on a relatively coherent social and economic program with a specitic family policy at its heart. feminist politics are less integrated and rarely take up explicit debates about families. The absence of a specific "family politics" has ceded an important political space to anti-feminist movements and weakened the capacity of the feminist movement to intervene effectively in the debates and struggles of the current period. It has also left feminism very vulnerable to the organized and coherent attacks of the anti-feminist neo-conservatives and the new right. "'

Thus the heterosexual nuclear family remains ideologically privileged. despite the many different types of families which exist within Canadian society today::' Luston points out that ferninisms and "family politics" have not always been so estranged. She cites the "militant. visionary period of the 1970s" by way of example."Vt this time groups as different as Wages for Housework, with its liberal agenda. and marxist-socialist feminists. put family issues high on their agendas."' While the former sought to procure payment for women's domestic labour, the latter launched the "the domestic labour debate." arguing that women's work in the home supported the capitalist economic system."Veither of these initiatives was ultimately 99 successful, although they helped to bring domestic issues such as housework and childcare into the public sphere.""

By the 1980s feminists had shifted their focus from broad campaigns to more specific reforrn~.'~Violence against women and children is a prime example of an issue which spurred feminist action.'" As valuable as this type of feminist political action has been. Luxton argues that these initiatives were missing a necessary component: "While all of them involved interventions that had impacts on families. they were rarely fought in the name of 'the family' or with any reference to families.":" I would argue that this legacy of issue-based arsanizing remains with us today. While many feminist organizations highlight women's oppression. and struggle for reform, we are no closer to a feminist politics of the family. I will revisit this matter in my examination of the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition legislation in Ontario.

Significantly. in the mid- 1990s queer activists did something that modem-day feminists have been reluctant to do. Namely. they attempted to reclaim the discourse of "family" from the right.

The Tyranny of Heterosesuality

Lesbians. gay men. bisexuals, and transgendered people must deal with and discrimination on a daily basis. I" Adrienne Rich, a radical Jewish American lesbian-feminist. and Charlotte Bunch. an American radical (and former separatist) lesbian-feminist. were early critics of heterosexuality."' In 1980 Rich wrote the now classic essay "Compulsory

Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" wherein she declared that "[a] feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orientation for women is long overdue. "I3 As Rich explains:

I wanted this essay to suggest new kinds of criticism. to incite new questions in classrooms and academic journals, and to sketch. at least, some bridge over the gap between lesbian and fenzinisr. I wanted. at the very least. for feminists to find it less possible to read. write, or teach from a perspective of unexamined heterocentricity ."" I00

Rich felt compelled to write "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence " for a

number of reasons. First, she wished to challenge the ways in which lesbian experience is

perceived through the "bias of compulsory heterosexuality."'" Secondly Rich wanted to know

how and why women who identify with women have been "crushed. invalidated. forced into

hiding and disguise. ""Vinally, she sousht to correct what she perceived as "the virtual or total

neglect of lesbian existence in a wide range of writings. including feminist scholarship. " :" Rich

regards these points as interconnected and asserts that the marginalization of lesbianism within

feminism is una~ceptable.'~'The belief that straight feminists (and to a lesser extent lesbians)

must recognize and change heterosexual patriarchal oppression guides Rich's writing in this

piece.

By way of esemplifying how feminist literature erases and/or distorts the existence ot-

lesbians. Rich reviews four feminist books from the mid-seventies. One of the works she chooses

is written from a Marxist-feminist perspective. the others are ?rounded in feminist

psych~analysis."~All of them. she asserts, are weakened by the fact that heterosexuality is not

really questioned. Rich then proceeds to give examples of radical feminists who. in her opinion,

more adequately theorize male heterosexual power.'3' She acknowledges that seeing

heterosexuality as a political institution is not an easy task. But Rich emphasizes that this project of denaturalization is absolutely vital for the liberation of all women. Moreover. she states that:

To take the step of questioning heterosexuality as a "preference" or "choice" for women--and to do the intellectual and emotional work that follows--will call for a special quality of courage in heterosexually identified feminists. but I think the rewards will be great: a freeing-up of thinking. the exploring of new paths. the shattering of another great silence. new clarity in personal relationship^.:^^

Central to Rich's analysis is a redefinition of "lesbian." In its place Rich proposes the

more inclusive terms "lesbian existence" and "lesbian continuum. " "Lesbian existence" is meant

to suggest "both the fact of the historical presence of lesbians and our continuing creation of that 101 existence."'" Here Rich is referring to women (past and present) who identify as lesbians and/or live as lesbians. She characterizes "lesbian existence" as a breaking of taboos, a rejection of compuIsory heterosexuaIity. and a challenge to male dominance. This existence, she warns.

is not an easy one. "Lesbian continuum" is defined as including "a range--through each woman's

!ife and throughout history--of woman-identified experience. not simply the fact that a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with a woman. Rich thus posits all women as "moving in and out of this continuum." regardless of self-identification or sexual practices.

One of the great benefits of this schema. according to Rich. is that a wide range of women's experiences may be linked t~gether.'~'In a society structured by a lack of choices and the "lie of compulsory female heterose~uality,"'~~womenhave often been forced to lead

"double lives."'" As she writes:

when we turn the lens of vision and consider the degree to which and the methods whereby heterosexual "preference" has actually been imposed on women. not only can we understand differently the meaning of individual lives and work. but we can besin to recognize a central fact of women's history: that women have always resisted male tyranny. '"'

This is indeed a thouzht-provoking and powerful essay. with implications for every aspect of female existence including the domestic sphere. However. Rich herself acknowiedges that it is not flawless. nor is it (or should it be) the final word on the matter."'

To begin with. Rich's conception of a "lesbian continuum" is open to critique.'--9.7

Although I appreciate Rich's impulse to be more inclusive of women's experiences. 1 am troubled by some facets of her theory. For instance, a continuum suggests a somewhat linear model of Iesbianism."' Does this then mean that "lesbian existence" is positioned at one extreme. with other types of female existence situated along the continuum according to varying degrees of "purity"?'" Furthermore. if all women Iocated along the continuum can be called 102

"lesbian. " does "lesbian existence" ultimately have any meaning?"' Although Rich does acknowledge the dangers inherent in identifying and/or livinz as a lesbian. she ultimately connates this with all other modes of "woman-identified" existence. Problematically. Rich dismisses the concept of "homophobia " and downplays the issue of heterosexual privilege. I"

Rich's analysis shares a number of characteristics with the work of the standpoint theorists discussed in Chapter Two. For example. she maintains a stable and essentialist notion of

"woman" (and "man"). Thus women. whether straight or lesbian. are "good" (especially if they are political). Men. on the other hand. are "bad" whether gay or straight (it does not matter if they are political)."' From this perspective any form of sexuality involving men is highly suspicious. Thus bisexual women and heterosexual women are viewed as suffering from a type of "false consciousness."~4Thehierarchy that Rich constructs looks something like this: all women are inherently superior to all men. feminists are more highly placed than non-feminists and lesbian-feminists occupy the very pinnacle of the strucrure.!" This type of theorizing

"naturalizes" the sexed body, attaches gender firmly to biological sex. prescribes seemingly unchangeable gender characteristics to "women" and "men.'' posits "heterosexuality" and

"lesbianism" as homogeneous. hierarchizes sexualities. and places "women's experience" beyond critique.

FinalIy. Rich's analysis is somewhat reductive and her ideas have a "universal" tlavour to them. Despite minor variations, "women" and "men" are portrayed as having similar experiences reprdless of ase, class. ability. region. or historical time period. The primary difference for Rich is gender. although she does acknowiedge the experience of women of col~ur.'~Although she expresses reservations about theorizinz a matriarchal history. Rich asserts that is the primary oppression and the model for all other types of oppression.'" This presumes, among other things, that modern conceptions of gender comprise 103 a fixed category. As well, this search for "origins" inevitably leads Rich into a ranking of oppressions. Black lesbian-feminist problematizes this hierarchy by emphasizing the inextricability of various forms of oppressions."' Furthermore. Lorde points to the irnporrance of the Black community in a racist society. From a racially non-dominant perspective. sexism does not necessarily emerge as the most immediate form of dis~rimination.'~'

In 1975 Charlotte Bunch also emphasized that patriarchal heterosexuality must be regarded as political. Addressing heterosexual feminists she slated that:

The heart of lesbian-feminist politics.. . is a recognition that heterosexuality as an institution and an ideology is the cornerstone of male supremacy. Therefore. women interested in destroying male supremacy. patriarchy. and capitalism must. equally with lesbians. tight heterosexual domination--or we will never end female oppression. This is what I call "the heterosexual questionw--it is not the lesbian question. "'

Bunch outlines the various ways in which what she calls "institutionalized heterosexuality" structures every part of women's lives. such as the home and the family. This analysis shares niany similarities with Rich's. and thus also functions as both a catalyst and a boundary.

Althou~hshe has been less intluenced by essentialism than Rich. Bunch also maintains a stabilized conception of "women" and "men." presents the sexed body as "natural." hierarchizes sexuaIities. posits "heterosexuality" and "lesbianism" as homogeneous, universalizes women's experience. searches for "origins." presents sexism as the primary oppression. and ranks oppressions.

Nonetheless Bunch. in my opinion. goes further than Rich in her critique of heterosexuality. For one. in Bunch's analysis heterosexuality emerges as not just "compulsory." but also "institutionalized. " Thus patriarchal heterosexuality is not merely imposed upon women from without. it is supported and reinforced in ways which are difficult to perceive. She clearly recoznizes both the dangers involved in living as an "out" lesbian in a homophobic society and 104 the power of heterosexual privilege. Bunch wants heterosexual feminists to realize the central importance of challenging systemic heterosexuality. However. as much as she states that lesbian- feminism is not a mode of analysis "for lesbians only." Bunch remains suspicious of heterosexual feminists.'" From her perspective: "[l]esbianism is the key to liberation and only women who cut their ties to male privilege can be trusted to remain serious in the struggle against male dominance. Those who remain tied to men. individually or in political theory. cannot always put women first. " ""

Secondly. Bunch offers a class analysis of various material realities. although attention to race is noticeably absent?' Thirdly Bunch questions political theories aimed at reform and integration. In her opinion lesbians exist outside of patriarchy. and hence should not strive for acceptance by mainstream society. "It is not okay." she writes. "to be queer under patriarchy-- and the last thing we should be aiming to do is to make it okay. """ This brings me to my fourth and final point. namely Bunch's depIoyment of the term "queer."i59She deems "queer" any woman who questions the heterosexual dogma that men are superior and have the right to controI women. "If you don't accept that definition." Bunch writes. "you're a queer--no matter who you deep with. "'w' She issues a challenge to those women who doubt her to "[tlr?, being queer for a week. "'" Bunch explains:

Do not walk out on the street with men; walk only with women. especially at night. For a whole week, experience life as if you were a lesbian. and I think you will know what heterosexual privilege is very quickly. And, hopefully, you will also learn that heterosexual privilege is the method by which women are given a stake in male supremacy--and that it is therefore the method by which women are -civen a stake in their own oppression.'" LO5 Heterosexism and Homophobia

Lesbianfgaylbisexualltransgendered people exist within a society structured not only by

"con~pulsory"and "institutionalized" heterosexuality. but also by heterosexism and homophobia.

Heterosexuality is a powerful ideology. as both Rich and Bunch point out. precisely because it remains largely invisible and hence difficult to challenge. According to French materialist lesbian-feminist Monique Wittig. the "category of sex" was created in the interests of a heterosexual economy which benefits men and oppresses women.'"-' But it is onerous to

I-ecognize this oppression for what it is because the "straight mind" creares its own reality and orders the world with its "artificial laws."'" One of the primary ways in which this regime is maintained is through a monopoly on discourse. Thus our words and even our thoughts are dominated by the heterosexual model.

Contrary to what Rich wrote. heterosexism and homophobia are systemic threats which queer people run up against every day.'* Their effects range from subtle forms of exclusion to hateful messages to outripht violence. Lest privileged queers allow themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security. we must remember that people still get killed for loving someone of the same sex, or displaying gender attributes outside of what is deemed "acceptable." The recent murder of Matthew Shepard. a young white gay male student from Wyoming. is one such tragic reminder.'" In "Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on the Barriers to Women and Loving."

Lorde examines racism. sexism. heterosexisrn. and homophobia which she deems "forms of human blindness."'" What they share. she suggests, is a view of difference as threatening rather than enriching.

Lorde defines "heterosexism " as "[(]he belief in the inherent superiority of one pattern of loving and thereby its right to dominance."lMLikewise. "racism" and "sexism" are marked by "[(]he belief in the inherent superiority of [one race or one sex] and thereby its right to lo6 dominance.":" 'Homophobia." according to Lorde. is "(tjhe fear of feelings of love for members of one's own sex and therefore the hatred of those feelings in others."'"' This essay. originally written in 1978. is directed to members of the Black community. especially heterosexual men and women. Lorde argues that there have always been strong Black wm~n. and that they are crucial for Black liberation. Moreover. "women-identified women" are not a recent development.": She concludes that the "antilesbian hysteria";' in the Black community is self-destructive and must come to an end:

As Black women we have the right and responsibility to define ourselves and to seek our allies in common cause: with Black men against racism. and with each other and white women against sexism. But most of all. as Black women we have the right and responsibility to recognize each other without fear and to love where

we choose. IT

Lesbian/Gay/BisexuaI/Transgendered Families

Queer family life is. in many respects. a very public sratement.'" Lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and rransgendered people who decide to form families must generally be more open about their sexuality than single. childless queers. Tasks which heterosexual couples take for

Lcranted, such as tilling out forms. become complicated when partners are of the same gender.

Documents. especially those of an official nature. rarely have a category for "same-sen partner." nor do they usually allow for more than one parent of the same sender. Real estate asencs and

"landlords" often ask personal questions and neighbours are not always tolerant, much less welcoming. When children are involved. same-sex partners must interact with day care workers and teachers who may or may not recognize them as legitimate parents. Through a11 of this. queer families have limited legal rights and re~ponsibilities.''~

That such families exist at all is a tribute to the courage of numerous lesbians. say men. bisexuals, and transgendered people. According to Carol-AM O'Brien and Lorna Weir, English LO7 and French Canadians. unlike some aboriginal peoples. have traditionally posited "family" and

"homosexuality" as binary opposites.'" Unfortunately. the field of sociology has served to support and reinforce this harmful dichotomy. and thus perpetuate heterosexism." Lesbians and gay men are either left out of sociological analyses of the family altogether. or they are labelled "deviant. "'" By contrast. O'Brien and Weir argue that most Canadians. whatever our sexual identity. do not exist entirely independently of families. "The ideology that constructs

lesbians and gay men as outside of and dangerous to families denies as well that gay men and lesbians are born to mothers and fathers: gay men and lesbians are insick families. "P+

In addition to havins families of origin. some lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people also form families of their own.'" There are. of course. many different types of queer families.'" Despite the limitations of the literature, O'Brien and Weir flesh out a number of patterns which characterize same-sex relationships. In this analysis. lesbian and say couples and heterosexual coupIes appear to share a number of similarities. Many lesbians and gay men have long-term committed relationships. some lasting over twenty years.'" Serial monogamy is the most common relationship style (especially for women) with 10 to 60 per cent of gay men. and 45 to 80 per cent of lesbians. cohabitating with their partners.'" The breakup rate for same-gender couples is comparable to that of married and common-law heterosexual

~ouples.'~Most lesbians and gay men are satisfied with their relationships. despite heterosexual bias to the contrary.:"

Studies have shown that lesbian and gay relationships are more egalitarian than heterosexual relations hips. '" In most cases. decision-making is negotiated. housework is divided according to skill. preference. and ability, and both partners work outside of the home for money.'" Many lesbians and gay men have strong social networks. and receive similar levels of suppon to opposite-sex couples.'" For white same-gender couples, this support is more 108 likely to come from friends than from families of origin. Aboriginal people and people of colour. on the other hand. are more apt to regard their family of origin and community as sources of support.:"' Finally. O'Brien and Weir point out that lesbian and gay couples receive little legal or political recognition. and are often denied benefits to which opposite-sex couples are automatically entitled.'" This topic will be explored in some detail in the next two chapters.

More and more frequently lesbians and gay men are having and raising children, despite the fact that queers are commonly perceived as non-reproductive.," This trend enrases conservative heterosexuals who regard queer procreation as "unnaturai. " Even more moderate heterosexuals are often puzzled by lesbians' and gay men's desire to parent. O'Brien and Weir outline tive negative. and unsubstantiated. stereotypes which exist in relation to queer parenting.

To begin with. gay nien are often characterized as child molesters. although, heterosexual men

constitute the vast majority of people who abuse children. especially sexuaIly. "I Secondly. it is believed that lesbians and gay men will raise children to be queer. But. as many lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people point out, most of us had heterosexual parents.

.Moreover. there is no statistical evidence that queer parents produce a greater rate of children tvho are not hrterosesual."" I would add that even if more lesbian. gay. bisexual. and transgendered children did come from families with queer parents. this should not be resarded as a negative situation.

Similarly, and this is the third point. there is a fear that the children of lesbian. gay. bisexual, and transgendered parents will not develop appropriate or gender hel~aviour.In my opinion. this would be a positive and desirable outcome. And again. studies indicate that there is no sisnificant difference between children of heterosexual parents and children of lesbian and gay parents in this resard.'" Fourthly. critics charge that children with queer parents will suffer emotional damage. O'Brien and Weir cite that this claim too is 109 unsupponed by research. Both children of lesbian and gay parents and children of heterosexual parents demonstrate similar levels of psychological well-being.'% Furthermore, it is unrealistic

(not to mention unacceptable) to argue that children should only be brouzhr into families where they will be shielded from all forms of oppression. The focus should be shifted from the children who are stigmatized to the society which suppons homophobia. racism. classism. etc.'"

Queers may become parents in a variety of ways."8 Children may, for instance. be the product of a previous heterosexual relationship.'" Lesbians and bisexual women. and to a lesser extent gay men. bisexual men. and transgendered people. might obtain full or partial custody of children upon the dissolution of the relationship.'" Queers may enter into a same-sex relationship with someone who is already a parent, thus formintg a blended family. This is more common for women. who are more likely to have custody of children or to have a child of their own. than for men. Lesbians and bisexual women have the option of becoming pregnant by sleeping with a man. self-inseminating with sperm from a donor (known or unknown). being inseminated with sperm from a bank by a doctor. or utilizing some other form of reproductive technology such as in vitro fertilization. Lesbians. gay men. bisexuals, and transgendered people may adopt a child or othenvise become guardians or co-parents of a child. Gay and bisexual men may tind a woman to donate an egg which they inseminate, and a woman (sometimes. but not always. the same woman) who is willing to act as a surrogate mother and carry the child.'"'

It is estimated that currently between 20 and 30 per cent of lesbians are mothers.'"' Not surprisingly. then. the majority of research on families with same-sex parents is centred on lesbians. As well. there are numerous books written by. about, and for lesbian parents.'"' In contrast to the relatively small but growing body of literature regarding lesbian parents. it is difficult to find materials pertaining to bisexual parents. gay male parents. or transgendered parents.'" Again, I would attribute this mainly to the disparity in . Thus in the 110 following sections I will focus on lesbian families. As I have alluded to above. same-sex couples raising children. the majority of whom are women. are forced to be more public about their family arrangements. Furthermore. the issue of same-sex families with children became the most controversial aspect of the Bill 167 debates. Women and children were central in the campaign to attain same-sex spousal recognition. especially adoption rights."

Lesbian Parents

The identities "lesbian" and "mother" were once widely-held to be contradictory and mutually-exclusive. -Y* While " lesbian" signifies wanton sexuality. "mother" connotes . seltlessness, and n~rturance.~~What we have here is the old "whore-madonna" split with a twist. Good women are not sexual. and good mothers put their children before their desires

(especially if what they desire is another wornan).?"This misogynistic and homophobic ideology is used against lesbians who wish to parent. Some lesbians have even internalized these hatefbl notions and believe themselves unfit to have and raise children. Although there is no doubt that such attitudes still exist both without and within lesbian communities. I would argue that lesbian motherhood is becoming increasingly commonplace it' not rotalIy acceptable."" On a discursive level. the danger inherent in the term "lesbian" is tempered by the safety of

"mother." While lesbians are not immediately equated with the virtues of motherhood, being mothers makes lesbians somewhat more "respectable. "

Lesbian motherhood in the western world has undersone some significant changes in the last few decades."" Prior to the 1980s lesbians. or women who would later come out as lesbian. usually had children within heterosexual relationships. Upon the dissolution of these unions.

Ies bian mothers faced difficult decisions. " ' Some were forced to lead a closeted 1i festy le. rather than risk losing their children. Others did not attempt to win custody because the threat of never 11 1 seeing their children again was too terrifying. Instead some lesbians (and occasionally

heterosexual women accused of being lesbians) settled for unofficial visitation rights. This was

the case for Minnie Bruce Pratt. who writes about how she was criticized for this "choice":

They were forbidden to be in my home because I was what a woman shouldn't be. I was too much woman. I was not woman enough. I was too interested in women. in sex. in my own sex. No home for me. though my job paid the rent. No home except loneliness. living in the in-between places."'

Custody of children became a political rallying point for lesbians in the 1970s. The

Lesbian Mothers' Defence Fund (LMDF) was formed in Canada in 1978 to raise awareness of the struggles of lesbian mothers. and to provide lesbian mothers with financial assistance. information. and support.'" This type of mobilization was invaluable to many women who faced losins their children because of their sexual identity. Although lesbians still have to engage in custody battles with former male partners today, other legal matters have come to the fore.

In the mid- 1980s a " tesbian baby boom" began in western industrialized nations."' Since that time lesbians have increasingly conceived and raised children in relationships with other women. and less frequently alone. As a result issues such as spousal benefits. the rights of sperm donors. the legal role o t' the non-biological lesbian mother. and between former lesbian partners have become critical .'lS

This shift from mothers who came out as lesbians to lesbians who become mothers can be traced in writings by. and studies about. lesbian parents."" In this literature women's experience. or more accurately. the experience of lesbian mothers. enleqes as a privileged epistemological and political site. In Chapter Two I argued that it is vital that the voices of non- dominant peoples be added to history. bell hooks, for instance, asserts that identity politics are useful to marginalized peoples.'" This is the first part of the project which Kathleen Canning outlines. namely the rewriting of white middle-class women's history by women of colour."" 112 Likewise the experiences of lesbians and bisexual women serve to disrupt and enrich accounts which posit all women, especially all mothers. as heterosexual. I also emphasized in the previous chapter that the category of "experience" needs to be deconstructed. The experiential must be combined with the critical and analytical in order to get a richer "story." At this time critical analyses of "family" and families (especially with the addition of "lesbian") are scarce.

Narratives grounded in "experience" are often left to stand as umlediated accounts taken to be

"the truth."

Early studies of lesbian mothering, such as EIIen Lewin's Lesbian Mothers: Accortnrs of

Gemkr in A~nericanCulrure. highlight lesbians' stru_ggles to retain custody of their children from heterosexual relationships."' Although this book was published in 1993, Lewin's research was conducted between 1977 and 1981 ."" During this time period she interviewed 135 "single mothers," both lesbian and heterosexual."' Lewin notes that when she was conduct in^ her study. no works pertaining specifically to lesbian motherhood existed. However. some lesbian publications did reference motherhood." Lewin's stated objective was to sather knowled_ge about this marginalized group in order to demonstrate that lesbian mothers are "ordinary" and

"just as good as" heterosexual mothers."' To this end she encouraged each woman to share her experience. tell her own story."' Although in the early stages of the project Lewin admits to being relatively uncritical of these oral narratives. she later investigates how women "negotiate their identities" within specific social and cultural contexts."

In many respects Lesbian Mothers bridges both the changes which lesbian mothering has been through in the last twenty-five or so years. and the various ways which lesbian mothering can be figured. Initially inspired by lesbian mothers who had lost their children to men in custody battles. Lewin's work continues throush the "lesbian baby boom." Moreover. rather than simply "recovering" the experiences of lesbian mothers, Lewin also deconstructs the stories she 113 is told.'6 This is a complex study which covers a range of legal. political, ethical. and social issues. One of Lewin's primary findings is that lesbian and heterosexual "single mothers" have a lot in common. For example. they share a generally low economic and social status. are similarly overworked and burdened. value family ties. appreciate the company of other mothers. and have difficulties with the biological "fathers" of their children (inchdins former partners. lovers. and sperm donors).

However. Lewin also found significant differences between the two groups of mothers.

Most important1y . lesbian mothers do not have heterosexual privilege. For lesbians. motherhood necessitates a continual movement between strategies of accommodation and resistance."- On the one hand. lesbian mothers trouble traditional notions of "family" by their very existence. On the other hand. having and raising children allows lesbians to achieve a more "normal" status.

"[A] lesbian who becomes a mother." Lewin writes. "has effectively rejected the equation of homosesuality with unnaturrtIness and the exclusion of lesbians from the ranks of 'women.'"''"

It would seem then that lesbian motherhood is a double-edped sword:

Like gay and lesbian marriage. the new access to traditional womanhood can divide lesbians and gays on the basis of respectability. At the same time. motherhood continues to divide women into two groups with different economic opportunities. different social status, and possibly contlicting political interests. "'

Lewin concludes that despite the diversity of families. the ideal of the nuclear heterosexual family is still the standard by which all families are measured.'j"

To Be or Not To Be Family

In the next two chapters I will flesh out the legal-political arguments for and against the expansion of the definition of "family" to include queers. in the context of Bill 167. In this section I will outline the theoretical contestation of "family," or more specifically "lesbian 114 family." The debates over lesbian family are framed by a variety of questions. For one. "Are gay [same-sex] families inherently assirnilationist, or do they represent a radical departure from more conventional understandings of kin~hip?"'~'A related, and less popular, query is whether queers should be affiliated with "family" discourse at all. Are "we." or are "we" not. "family"?

How could "we" be "family"'! Should "we" (want to) be "family'?"

The bulk of lesbian mothering iiterature. grounded in the esperiential, takes the value of

"family" as a given. It is not difficult to imagine why this is the case. Lesbians. as I have pointed to above. are often in a defensive position as they struggle to form and maintain families in the face of great adversity. Hence lesbian mothers are more likely to argue that their families are "normal. " especially when they are threatened. rather than openly challenge the ideological underpinnings of "family. " In other words. "[a] custody dispute is not the forum in which to mount a feminist critique of the Increasingly lesbian families are also posited as inherently (and subversively) radical. Lesbians challenge the concept of "family" by having and raising children. particularly when no men are involved except as sperm donors. The very act of lesbian procreation poses a threat to "the (heterosexual. nuclear) family. "

Interestingly. then. "pro-famiIy" lesbian parenting literature holds in tension two seemingly contradictory convictions. namely that lesbian families are at once both mundane and menacing. While female-headed same-sex families go about their everyday lives. sometimes looking and acting a lot like heterosexual families, they disrupt heteronorrnative assumptions by their very existence. Although it is generally lesbians who write about lesbian families, more mainstream scholarship is beginning to pay attention to this family form. A new study out of

Cambridge University is one such example. When this research was recently reported in a British newspaper. the headline proclaimed that "Lesbians Make Better Parents. Dr. Gill Dunne. funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, studied forty-three couples with small 115 children.- What she found was that lesbians are more skilled at combining parenting and paid employment than hererosexual~.~~(Right-wing forces dismissed this study as "part of a radical

feminist agenda. ")""

Normalizing the Queer

The Cambridge study. which goes beyond acceptance of lesbian mothers to holdins them up as exemplary. is unusual. However. there are numerous books and essays written by lesbians which support and praise lesbian parentins. I will discuss a few notable works in order to illustrate the "pro-family" argument. [n I987 Polirics of the Hean: A Lesbiclt? Put-entity

A~ztholog?~was pubIished in the U.S.'37Work on this collection. which brirys together many pieces of personal writing by lesbian mothers, was begun in 1982. The book is divided into sections dealing with the choices (or lack of choices) available to lesbians who want to parent. the role of the Lesbian co-parent. contlict and contradiction in lesbian mothers' lives. raising children. heterosexism and homophobia. the importance of community. and the future of lesbian families.

The authors included in Polirics of rhe Hean, who are mostly white and middle-class (or formerly middle-class). portray their lives in a very intimate fashion. Reading the essays and poetry in this antholo~y.one learns about both the challenges and the joys of lesbian parenting.

Women write about losing children in custody suits. as lesbians. deciding to become mothers, co-parenting with another woman. and watching children grow. Many of the same themes can be found in Lesbian Parenling: Living wirh Pride and Prejudice, the first Canadian anthology of writings by lesbian mother^.^' Published almost a decade after the American collection. Labian Parenting is a reminder that change is slow. As the editor Katherine Arnup 116

writes in the Introduction: "Our struggles are far from over. But surrounded by the love of our

children, our families and friends. we are fighting, with pride and prejudice. This book begins

to record some of our lives and. I hope. to inspire us to keep on

Like Polirks of rhe Heart. Lesbian Parenring is written in an autobi0,oraphical. almost

confessional. mode. and features women with some degree of privilege. Topics discussed include a. i. (alternative or "alternate" insemination) as well as other reproductive rechnolosies. co- parenting. pregnancy. adoption, the non-biological mother. blended families. lesbian community. coming out to one's children (and one's children "coming-out" about their parents). grandparenting. disabilities. sexuality. children. benefit ptans. names. biological fathers. gender

identity. extended family. homophobia. politics. and the law. Although many of the same issues are covered in both anthologies. the focus is slightly different. In Lesbicuz Pat-errring there is less discussion of custody battles with former male partners. and more emphasis on women forming families. Despite this divergence. the essays contained within both Lesbrc-ln Pat-enling and Politics of the Hean share a similar message. namely that lesbian families are "family." and deserve to he recognized as such.

Likewise. Kath Weston asserts the importance of queer family in Families We Choose:

Lesbians, Gujts. Kimhi~.':~'Between 1985 and 1987 Weston conducted interviews with lesbians and gay men (mainly white. educated. lesbians in their late twenties and thirties) in the San

Francisco Bay Area.'" The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that lesbians and gay men have kinship ties which rest on choice as opposed to biologicaIly-based heterosexual family arrangements. "Families we choose" are comprised of people we care about such as lovers. children, and friends. and thus cannot be located on a "biogenetic grid. ""'Weston compares this type of family, which is marked by fluidity, to kinship systems amongst some African 117 Americans. American Indians. and white working class pe~ple.~''Interestingly, she found that lesbians and gay men with strong racial or ethnic identities were often more invested in blood ties and suspicious of the idea of "chosen family. "'"

"Families we choose." according to Weston. signal a break with traditional notions of family:

.. . the shift from the identification of gayness with the renunciation of kinship (no family) to a correspondence between gay identity and a particular cype of family (families we choose) presents a kind of collective coming-out story: a tale of lesbians and gay men moving out of isolation and into kinship.'"

She denies the charge that applying terminology such as "kin" to lesbian and gay families is a conservative eesture.'" Rather. Weston argues that "chosen families" challenge both the idea that lesbian and gay families have to emulate the heterosexual ideal and the concept of

"family. "'"While this is true to some extent. I would argue that the overall effect of Weston's work is to expand rather than reject the definition of "family. " "Families we choose" may not look like heterosexual nuclear families or even female-headed two-parent same-sex families wirh children. But they are still "families. "

Laura Benkov also valorizes same-sex famiiy even as she posits "the family" as a contested site in her book entitled Reinvenring rize Family: Lesbian and Gay Parenrs."VShe asserts that families are more diverse than what is encompassed by the ideology of "the family. "'" Lesbian families in particular pose a challenge to the heterosexual family norm.

Benkov began her research on lesbian parents in 1983 in New York City for her doctoral dissertation. Echoing Lewin. Benkov notes that the literature in this field was virtually non- existent prior to the late 1970s. and what was available had mainly to do with custody battles?

Benkov thus set out to interview lesbian mothers about their life experiences. What she surmised from her investigation is that lesbians and gay men (although her focus

is on relatively privileged lesbians) create families which both influence. and are intluenced by.

society Benkov notes that this complex interaction is most significant in terms of political

and judicial systems." Like Weston. Benkov complicates how we envision lesbian families.

In a similar fashion to Weston she also expands the definition of "family" to include an array of

lesbian farniIy configurations. -4s Benkov writes:

Lesbian and gay parenrs essentially reinvent the family as a pluralistic phenomenon. They self-consciously build from the ground up a variety of family types that don't conform to the traditional structure. In so doing. they encourage society to ask. "What is a family:'" The question has profound meaning in both the culture at larze and the very heart of each of our intimate li~es.~'

Queering the Normal

In contrast to Benkov. and the other writers cited in the section above. Iqal theorist

Ruthann Robson arsues against the trend to refigure families and " famity ."3" Robson is perhaps the most outspoken Iesbian feminist critic of "pro-family" lesbian theorizing." Rather than attempting to liberalize legal definitions of "family. " she asserts that lesbians (who in her writing remain undifferentiated in terms of ability. race. class. etc.) should resist such categorization.""

Instead. the entire notion of "family" must be deconstructed. As Robson puts it: "family must be problernatized as a nonessential. cognitive. and contested category rather than [as] an unproblematized ' reality' of ' 1ived experience' . "~7

Although she concedes that there are certain material advantages to being recognized as

"family," on a theoretical level Robson is wary of this legal ~oncept."~It is not enough. in her opinion, to assert that lesbianism poses a challenge to the heterosexual family. Rather. the redefinition of "family" can lead to a redefinition of "lesbian. W' She argues that in order to be treated the same as heterosexual families, lesbian families must emulate the dominant family 119 norm.'" This means supporting a heterosexual patriarchal system premised on the oppression of women as property.'" According to Robson. many lesbians have unfortunately become focused on pmsmatic concerns regarding their partners and children to the exclusion of wider political concerns. In their quest to legitimize their own families. lesbians are disregarding earlier feminist critiques of "the family. "'"?The result has been an overreliance on "experience" and a subsequent depoliticization of "the family. "'"'

Robson calls for lesbians to resist assimilation and abolish the privileged category of

"hrnily. "3; For exanlple. she asks why one must be a "spouse." or part of a couple. in order to receive benetir~'?'~In place of a framework of familial relations. lesbians could create new catecgories and new names. In addition. "Unnarning the family may be the most conceptua1Iy radical foml of resistance to the family's power to domesticate lesbianism. .. . "'"Without such strategies. Robson warns that lesbians will continue to "be positioned as either ou:!aws or in-

Iaws."'" Carol Allen is also sirspicious of the extension of "l'rimily" to lesbians (and gay men).'" Like Robson she maintains that lesbian families do not necessarily change the repressive (i-e.. patriarchal. heterosexual) nature of the institution.'" However Allen brings an awareness of difference to her analysis which is missing in Robson's work by arguing that the legal category "family" only offers protection to some by excludins others.

When "equality" is interpreted as "sameness." only a relatively elite group prospers. namely "professional. white. middle-class. able-bodied lesbians and gays. whose family form looks very much like the traditional heterosexual ideal. "'" Benefits which depend on spousal status leave out queers who live in non-nuclear arrangements. for instance in collective households or non-mono_gamous relationships.'" Moreover people who are multiply disadvantased. such as poor lesbians on social assistance. can be potentially harmed by a I20

redefinition of "spouse. "'?Allen insists that all of these factors be taken into account by

lesbians who want to be "family":

The task we have before us is monumental. We need to remember that as lesbians we challenge gender stereotypes inside the family and in society generally. We chalIenge the presumption of male access to our bodies and in defining our sexuality. We cannot risk inclusion into a system which has historically oppressed lesbians and gays and subjugated women. We must arGguefor fundamental changes in determining benetlt entitlement so it is not exclusively linked to marriage. monogamy or kinship. We risk too much it' we do any less.-,-- '

The Revolutionary Family

In Lesbian Morherhood: An Erplorarion of Canadian Lesbian Families. Fiona Nelson

presents her study of thirty iesbian women involved in parenting. According to Nelson. the

lesbian family "is a revolutionary force in our understanding of motherhood and the family - a

force that has implications for family-focused policies and programs.""' One of her most

striking observations is that the presence of a second/an otherla non-biological mother throws

into question the entire concept of "m~therhood."~~Unlike heterosexuals. lesbian women

cannot take for granted what a mother is and what a mother does."Tor instance. lesbians who

choose to conceive a baby tosether by donor insemination (d. i.) do not (indeed cannot) become

mothers withour a great deal of planning and forethought. Lesbian partners who form a blended

family with chiIdren from previous (predominantly heterosexual) relationships struggle with how to parent together.

Nelson outlines a hierarchy of motherhood which places married middle-class heterosexual

women at the top. single. poor, and/or young heterosexual women in the middle. with lesbian mothers coming in last. Nelson argues that placement in this hierarchy is determined by more than one's sexual orientation and family sratus. Rather, "a woman is evaluated as a mother less 121 on the basis of her own merits than on the basis of the social position of the father and the relationship she has with him. "'7 She continues on to say that:

In this sense lesbian motherhood can be seen as a truly subversive activity that poses more than a conceptual threat.. . .[I]t is a structural threat to patriarchal power in Canadian society. A subculture of women is not only living with little regard for males and male authority, but its members are also reproducing .- themselves! Moreover. they are doing so. as much as possible. without men.-,"

Unfomnatsly, Nelson does not bring a critical-race perspective to her work- although she does acknowledge that her research participants comprise a homogeneous group.'" All the

\\.omen she spoke with were white. and most were middle-class. ivell-educated. and identitied as feminist.'"' She outlines in this regard the difficulty she had tindins lesbian mothers to interview, and surmises that women with privilege are most likely to openly parent with another woman."l This is an interesting point which Nelson raises. but does not pursue. Hence her research suffers because of che absence of race analysis. For example. the hierarchy that she describes might make sense when all the women are white. but \{:hat about the impact of mcial difference on mothers' status? Certainly a middle-class. able-bodied. white lesbian mother is in many respects privileged in a racist society such as ours compared with a poor Black heterosexual mother. Likewise, for racially non-dominant women qualifications for motherhood have at Ieast as much. if not more. to do with race as the social position of the father.'"

Furthermore neither Netson. nor the women in her sample. challense rhe notion of

"family" beyond replacing a man and a woman and kids with two women and kids. This model. of course, is shaped by race and class. Nevertheless. I would not want to deny the very real difficulties that these lesbian women face in a heterosexist society. For instance, the lesbian mothers describe in vivid detail problems in deciding when to come out. who to come out to, how to explain the role of the non-bioiogical mother. how to prepare their children to face prejudice. when to attempt to educate others. etc. But the focus is always on reform. expanding the definition of "family." Nelson describes this situation as such: "What this means for lesbian families is that to live a 'normal' family life. they must constantly tell people that they are a normal family. "'" Bur I would argue that because the value of the so-called "normal family" is never challenged. heteror~orrnativityis reinscribed even though the subject matter is lesbian- headed farnil ies .

In The Mttereci Mother. the Sesrral Fami& and Other T\t.eruiedz Cmu? Tmgedirs

American law professor Martha Albertson Fineman argues for the primacy of the Mother-Child dyad in conceptions of the hmily for the purpose of formulating social policy.'" While her argument is not specifically about lesbian mothers. it has implications for lesbian mothers and for alternative definitions of " family " that would accommodate lesbian motherh~od.'~What

Fineman proposes is a new model of "family" premised on the care of dependents such as children rather than sexual relations between adults. be they opposite or same-sex couples.:""

I should clarify that she means Mother-Child to be taken up as a metaphor (akhough there is some slippage). In other words. it is not the exclusive domain of women and children. but could be occupied by men. elderly people. people with disabilities. etc. The problem. from Fineman's perspective. is not that the state has been slow to recosnize alternative family structures. but rather that the concept of "Mother" has been decontextualized within lesal and political systems.

Fineman is not suggesting that differences such as gender. race. and class are inconsequential. On the contrary. she emphasizes that U. S. culture is misogynist and racist.'"

Canadian society is no better. as the recent debate over so-called "welfare moms" in Ontario makes all too clear. According to the propaganda put out by the Harris government. there are increasing numbers of young. uneducated. women of colour who beconie preznant specifically to collect support from the government. Fineman's point is that Mother has been rendered gender

(also race and class) neutral in legal discourse and hence ineffectual.'" Mother has become a 123 symbol and is no longer a person. "Equality." Fineman writes, "makes Mother an empty legal category. robbing real-life mothers of the protection of their specificity. "'" Hence nurturing and caretaking."" roles traditionally associated with Mother. are considered suspect."'.

Accordins to Fineman. the metanarrative of the "natural family" premised upon the monogamous romantic sexual affiliation of one man and one woman is powerful and cuts through many discourses. including law. Idealized notions of "family" are cast as sacred and beyond critique:

The shared assumption is that the appropriate famiIy is founded on the heterosexual couple--a reproductive. biological pairing that is designated as divinely ordained in religion. crucial in social policy. and a normative imperative in ideology. "'

Moreover marriage. which enshrines the man as the head of the household. serves to reinforce patriarchy. Fineman goes on to explain that although this institution is generally experienced as

"horizontal" intimacy (one man and one woman), "vertical" intimacy (intergenerational relationships. i-s..children. elderly) can also be accommodated. But either way. " [t]he dominant paradism.. .privileges the couple as foundational and fundamental. """

So. although the law has had to change in the face of challen_ges from common-law heterosexual couples as well as Iesbian and gay couples, Fineman maintains that these so-called

"alternative" family arrangements are not as revolutionary as they may appear. As she puts it:

To n large extent. the new visions of the family merely reformulate basic assumptions about the nature of intimacy. They retlect the dyadic nature of the old (sexual) family story. updating and modifying it to acc~mmodatenew family "alternatives" while retaining the centrality of sexual affiliation to the organization and understanding of intimacy. This process of reiteration and reformulation reveals the power of the rnetanarrative about sexual affiliation and the family. The paradigm structures and directs the debate about alternatives?

In contrast to Nelson. Fineman regards single motherhood as the ultimate threat to patriarchy.

I appreciate Fineman's idea that female lone-parents are marginalized. and thus empowered. in 124 a particular sort of way because they are raising children without a partner. However. an analysis of race, class. and difference in ability is strikingly absent. How. for instance. does the social positioning of a poor woman of colour or a disabled woman with children compare with that of a white. middle-class, able-bodied mother?'%

Pannered lesbian women and gay men. in contrast to sole-support mothers. can be made to fit into the le_ral model of sexual-romantic coupledom. although not everyone will accept them. "Single" motherhood (and presumably fatherhood). on the other hand. "is deviant because ir represents the rejection of the sexual connection as the core organizing familial concept. "'*

Significantly. Fineman notes that this is the only form of motherhood which is qualified by reference to a woman's marital statu~.:~Single mothers. the group most removed from Mother. are regarded by politicians and social workers as both "dangerous" and 'vpathological."'" In order to contain this element. the law attempts to (re)attach men to nwthers and children.'"'

Some examples of this "egalitarian" thrust include increased cases of joint custody between

"parents" and the economic punishment of single mothers.'"

Ultimately . whereas Nelson maintains the primacy of sexual ties. Fineman advocates the abolition of legal marriage and emphasizes care of dependents. While I perceive Fineman's :is the more radical vision. in that she thinks the concept of "family" should be justified as opposed to simply claiming lesbian relationships as "family." her proposal contains some shortcomings.

For one, despite the fact that the Mother-Child dyad is meant metaphorically. Fineman does at points romanticize and essentialize the relationship between actual mothers and actual childrsil.

She does not address. for instance. problems such as abuse and ne~lect.Secondly. the "new family line" which she draws invokes another legal category of family. albeit without marriage."' Thirdly, this new unit (also a dyad) re-valorizes privacy and individualism. Lastly.

Fineman's model points to, but does not seriously reckon with, the fact that women (especially 125 less privileged women) will still be responsible for the majority of caretaking. Despite these

critiques Fineman's work. while not specifically about lesbians. offers an insightful feminist

(dr)(re)construction of "family." Nelson's study. on the other hand. focuses exclusively on

lesbians but does not trouble "family" beyond inclusion.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

There is a feminist adage which goes something like this: women who want to be as good

as men iack ambition. This slogan sums up much of what 1 feel in regard to the struggle for the

legal recognition of same-sex couples as "family. " On the one hand. it only seems fair that

lesbian and gay families receive the same benefits as heterosexual families.'" And yet this

vision of equality is inherently limited and limiting. I think here of Sandra Harding's work on

(predominantly privileged) women and/in science-j"' Gaining admission to a patriarchal

stronghold is difticuit. and the presence of women necessarily alters the face of the scientific

enterprise. Nonetheless. Harding warns that this is only a first step: the players may change. but

the structure itself remains relatively intact. The more thoroughgoins challenge occurs when the

"woman question in science" becomes the "science question in feminism."

And here is where I get stuck. Ironically. for all my "postmodern" thinking. I find myself

caught up in yet another binary opposition. namely the assimiIationist/pro-family stance ("we are

family") versus the anti-assimilationist/anti-family position ("we are not. nor do we want to be.

like the patriarchal heterosexual family"). The work of Brenda Cossman has been crucial in

helping me to navigate this rocky terrain. She argues that "family" is always more complicated

than these strategies would suggest or can allow for. Cossman identifies the "choice" which emerges between challenging exclusion from the family or challengins the discourse of family I26 itself as false.'" The debate needs to be opened up so that it becomes possible for lesbians and gay men to both "claim family status and de-centre the farnily.""'j

This analysis strikes at the very heart of my thesis. I was originally inspired to write about the introduction. and subsequent defeat. of Bill 167 by the contradictory feelings I had in regard to my own (successful) legal battle to be recognized as a same-sex spouse. The conundrum which frames my inquiry is precisely this: is it possible. or even desirable. to tight for same-sex spousal recognition while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and conception of "family" operating in this struggle? Cossman notes that she too felt torn by feminist critiques of "family" on the one hand. and the appeals of lesbians and gay men to be recognized as family. on the other. She asserts that the problem is not that "family" is a site of contestation. but rather that legal discourse demands that we choose a "side. 1, 4n

In order to effectively argue a case. as I discovered tirst-hand. queers are forced to present themselves as uncomplicated and coherent beings. During the course of the

Unemployment Insurance (U.I.) hearings, my former partner and I answered a multitude of questions regarding our re~ationship.~We strategically presented ourselves as "family" just like other (heterosexual) families to attain a goal. namely U.I. spousal benetits. But in Cossman's opinion, and I concur with her, participation in such legal arguments effectively cements the polarization of "family" and "not fa mil^."^ A more nuanced and multi-levelled approach is called for:

In a world in which the dominant cultura1 representation of lesbians and gay men is in opposition to family. hying claim to family is a politically signiticant and subversive strategy. In a world in which the dominant ideological form of family continues to contribute to the oppression of women. laying claim to family is a politically dangerous and potentially reactionary strategy. The problem we face is that the world we live in is both, To move beyond the opposition, the either/or. the inside/out. we have to recognize that we are family, and we are not; we are inside and we are out?' 127 Family fRe)Visions

Feminists. lesbians. bisexuals. gay men. and transgendered people vision and re-vision

"family" and families in creative and challenging ways. In the remainder of this thesis I will explore how the contestation of "family" played out in a particular historical moment in Ontario.

The narratives which I collected from queer community activists reveal a. myriad of ideas in regard to "family" in general and same-sex spousal recognition legislation in particular.

According to Cossman. it is essential that we recognize the influence which social location has on our views of "family." She further asserts that subjectivity is not static but rather "shifting and contradictory.""" We are not (and do not have to be) one thins or the other: instead we inhabit what Donna Haraway refers to as "mobile positionings" and "situated perspectives.""'

Our relationships to "family" are not simple, and thus our political strategies must also embrace complexity."' "Since we are both inside and out." Cossman states. "we need to be struggling to get in. and we need to be stru_rgling to decentre and deconstruct rhe inside. "";'

In my own life I am constantly negotiating these locations. both within myself and in the outside world. as are other queers. (This became most apparent during the course of my oral history project.) I have both fought to be and have a "spouse." and I have thought and written criricaIly about the implications of the stru,ogle for same-sex spousal rights. These stances are tricky. I do not want to lock myself into a position, nor do I wish to minimize experiences which are different from my own or detract from the aims of other people or groups.'!'

So where do we. or can we. go from here? One interesting re(vision) of "family" is

Eichler's social responsibility model. Eichler proposes a move from a society based on equality to one that is "minimally stratified. "'"In terms of public policy. with a few exceptions, the individual rather than the household would become the unit of administration.''" In other words. every citizen and permanent resident would be entitled to a basic level of service. care. benetits. I28 etc. regardless of her or his attachment to a particular familial arrangement. And. along with this basic entitlement would come certain obligations to one another. The state would share the responsibility of childcare with parents. while the care of dependent adults would be a public responsibility. Care providers. whether family members or not. would be compensated in the same manner. "'

Eichler's social responsibility model of the family holds great potential for disentangf ing the legal functions of the family from the social functions. Under this schema people could make commitments. raise children. live alone. form triads. have multiple relationships. etc.. and it would have no impact on how they are treated under the la~.~'~owever.Eichler also advocates the preservation of legal marriage. albeit expanded to include same-sex couples. with the caveat that these unions not be privileged over other types of relationships. In my opinion. this would only serve to reinforce the dominant ideal of the nuclear family. Hence the tyranny of "coupledom." or a detinition of family premised on intimacy and sexual relations contined to two adults. remains despite the proliferation of family forms. In opposition Fineman and

Robson arzue. and I agee with them. that the traditional legal categories of "marriage" and

"family " must be eradicated rather than expanded. "'

To return to my original line of inquiry. is it, or should it be. "normal to be queer?" And is the key to such normalcy the legitimization of same-sex spousal relationships'? There are no definitive answers to these questions. However, I would argue that some queers are considered

"more normal" than others. As we saw lesbian mothers. especially those who are white. middle- cIass. and live in nuclear families. have attained some level of respectability. In other words. queers who most closely resemble the heterosexual nuclear ideal are deemed the most "normal."

As to whether it is desirable for queers to be considered normal. opinion is divided. Some lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people would like to be accepted as no different 129 than heterosexuals except for their sexuality. whereas other queers resist this assimilationist impulse. Many of us take up various strategies at different times. But how "queer" are these approaches?

Deconstructing the totalization and stabilization of identity from a postmodern perspective.

Cul Stychin strives to complicate equality rights.''" Interestingly. Stychin asserts that Canada may be the tirst posunodern state:

. ..the Canadian national imaginary displays an instability which leaves it pr\rticularly open to contestation. The contingency of the national sip facilitates :' the articulation of competing identities deploying the language uf nation a I'~sm. -.

In this view there is the opportunity for diverse sexual identities to insert themselves into

Canadian socio-political-judicial discourses. The danger. of course. is that queers/queerness could become shored up and stabilized in much the same fashion as "lesbian" and "gay" have been.

With this in mind queers can engage the conundrum of "family" through the gaps. the absences, the voids, the spaces. However. as we shall see in the following chapters. political strug@es for same-sex spousal rights in this country tend to revolve around only the most "norn~al"queers. namely partnered (white. middle-class) lesbians and gay men with children.

Conclusion

In this chapter I critically examined the dominant model of "the family." explored the present state of Canadian families. reviewed western feminist critiques of the heterose.uua1 nuclear family, discussed same-sex families with a focus on lesbian mothers. looked at the assimilationist debates, and pointed to alternative visions of "family" and new strategies for families. In the next two chapters I will proceed to investigate the political drama of Bill 167 in

Ontario in the mid-1990s. In Chapter Four I will concentrate on the introduction and defeat of 130 the ONDP same-sex spousal recognition legislation. In Chapter Five the focus will be shifted to a framework of queer community activism in regard to the bill. ENDNOTES

1. Parts of this chapter were presented at the "Queer Nation'? Conference" (York University. March 1997). The session I was placed in included Katherine Arnup. an academic who writes about lesbian mothers. and Alex Munter. a politician and say rights activist.

2. "Moreover." The Econotnisr (January 6. 1996). 68. An earlier issue of The Econor?zisr (September 9. 1995) depicts a "Cleaver-type" famiIy photograph on the cover. with the headline "The Disappearing Family. " Interestingly the stories in this issue focus primarily on the rise of "single-parent" households. Lesbians and gay men are not mentioned at all.

3. "Moreover. " The Econornisr (January 6. 1996). 69.

4. Refer back to the terminology section in Chapter One where I examine "queer" and "queer theory. " as well as "lesbian. " "say. " "bisexual. " and " transgendered. "

5. I have a related critique of the t-shirts that were sold at the "Queer Nation? Conference" (York University, March 1997). I understand that they were produced by volunteers. and I would like to acknowledge their hard work. However. I was disheartened (and puzzled) by the final product. Printed on the white t-shirts was a picture of the Canadian flag and the name of the conference. However, the question mark was left out of the name, with the effect of entirely altering the meaning. No longer was "Queer Nation" a contested. slippery concept: it was rigid. solid. stable. Furthermore. the graphics portray two same-sex couples holding hands on either side of the maple leaf. While this is certainly a lesbian and say image. I do not perceive it as "queer. "

6. But not holy matrimony. Even in places like Denmark. where same-ses marriage is permitted. the sewice is civiI in nature. Meanwhile, same-sex couples continue to have commitment ceremonies in places such as the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto.

7. "Leader." The Econorrzisr (January 6, 1996). 14. Perhaps the qualifier "as capable as" is meant to be read as somewhat tongue-in-cheek'?

S. " Leader. " The Ecotzotnisr (January 6. 19%). 13.

8. Recently The Vcrrsi~:.a student newspaper at the University of Toronto. printed a letter to the editor with the caption "Queers Must Be Monogamous." Brian J. Walsh of the Campus Ministries writes that conservative Christians still "believe that gays and lesbians are called to a life of ceIibacy." However, those in the more progressive camp feel that lesbians and gay men should be permitted to enter committed same-sex relationships. "The difficult message is clear," says Walsh. "not any love is confirmed, but committed monogamous love. " The Varsity 1 19. no. 32 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999), 4.

10. "Leader. " The Econornisr (January 6, 1996). 13.

1 1 . See Andrew Sullivan. Virtually Nonnal: An Argrinlenr About Hornose-rrtaliry. 1 st Edition (New York: Alfred A. Knopf). 1995. 12. This is indeed a puzzling. and increasingly inaccurate. statement. This issue will be explored more fully in fo1:owing sections.

13. Review of Vinually Normal: An Argumenr Abour Hornosex~ali~,1st Edition. by Andrew Sullivan (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1995). in The Economisr (January 6, 1996). 7 1. Which is why. I would hazard a guess. his book was chosen for this issue.

14. Review of Vimtol[~.Nomml. by Sullivan. in The Econonrisr (January 6. 1996). 71. Strikingly absent is an analysis of the ways in which queers are marginalized in heterosexual society.

15. A1though Sullivan, a gay man in his mid-thirties. uses the term "homosexual. " He is a conservative who rejects identity politics in favour of a philosophy of individualism. See Review of Vinually Normal. by Sullivan. in The Economist (January 6. 1996). 7 1.

16. It is not insignificant that the word "normal" has a variety of meanings. To be normal is to be just like everybody else. and everybody eke is presumed to be rational and right.

17. Sometimes ! wonder if this statement can be reversed: is it atso "queer to be normal"?

I 8. LMargrit Eichler. Fnnlil). S/LJ?S:Families. Policies. and Gender Eqrtalin. (Toronto: Oxford University Press. 1997). 1.

19. David Popenoe. "The Family Condition of America: Cultural Change and Public Policy ." in Henry J. Aaron. Thomas E. Mam. and Timothy Taylor. eds.. Vnlrtes and Prrblic Polic? (Washington. D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1994), 81-1 12.

20. Popenoe. 86.

2 1. Popenoe. 92-93. Although he does pay lip service to the advancement of people of colour and women in society (90). Popenoe is obviously racist. (And. I would 11azard n guess. sexist and homophobic.) He writes. for instance. that in the face of diversity U.S. schooIs should "promote national identity and solidarity" and "stress our common Western values" (95). One way to achieve this is by getting back to the basics in education and implementing a "strong. uniform national curriculum" (95). (This sounds disturbingly like 's vision for Ontario. )

22. Popenoe, 96. He hastens to add that by "nuclear" he does not mean male-headed families with female homemakers, but simply a unit consisting of a man. a woman, and children. Popenoe is not a fan of either extended families or single-parent families. which he regards as tit-o extremes (96-97). Unfortunately La Leche League (LLL). one of the most successful grassroots won~en's cCoroups in the world. agrees with Popenoe's views regardins the heterosexual nuclear family. (LLL. which began with seven nursing mothers, currently has 3.000 groups in 66 countries.) In the latest edition of The Womanly An of Breasgeeding, the wrirers declare that: "we are convinced that breastfeeding and mothering progress more easily in such an environment. " La Leche League. The Womanly An of Breastjieeding, Sixth Revised Edition (Illinois: La Leche League International. 1997), 5. 23. Popenoe. 97-98. Two (problematic) ways Popenoe proposes to strengthen the nuclear family are by instituting longer waiting periods for divorcing couples and compelling men to marry women with whom they have conceived a child. Popenoe. 102-103.

21. William Gairdner. The War Against the Family: A Parenr Speaks Our on Poliricul. Economic. crnd Social Policies Titar Tizrearen Us All (Toronto: Stoddan. 1992).

25. Gairdner. 4. The capitalization of the word "state" is Gairdner's.

26. Gairdner. 3-4. While the latter statement may have some validity, new reproductive and genetic technologies pose a challenge to Gairdner's first assenion. See Gwynne Basen. Mar@ Eichler. and Abby Lippman. eds.. Miscotzceprions: The Social Consrrucrion of Choice and fhe h'err: Reproductire mcl Geizeric Tecllrtotugies. Volumes One and Two (Hull. Quebec: Voyageur Publishing. 1993 and 1993).

27. Gairdner. 4.

28. Gairdner, 20

29. Gairdner. 4 Obviously there are some problems with these "facts. " I will touch upon these generalizations further on in the chapter.

30. Although Rae's words appear in quotation marks. I highly doubt that he ever spoke of redefining marriage. (Gairdner does not reference a source. but only claims to have heard this statement on the radio.) As I have stated previously. marriage comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Moreover in Canada. as opposed to the United States. queer activists have not embraced the idea of same-sex marriage. I will come back to this point in later chapters.

3 1. Gairdner. 35-36. I wonder how Rae and Prichard would react to the claim that they are from "the same mould"?. ..

32. Not to mention somewhat heartening!

33. See Eichler. 9-16.

34. Eichler. 108. This is. of course. still the case to some de,aree.

35. There exists an on-going debate regarding the usage of the terms "orientation" and "preference." The former is widely employed by those who believe that people are born iesbian or gay, that is. biology is destiny. The thought seems to be that if sexuality is part of the genetic make-up, then queers cannot be held responsible for their actions. (Hence the search for the "gay gene" is welcomed by some mainly gay men, even though this quest is conducted by conservatives who wish to eradicate such a gene were it to be found.) The latter term is used by a smaller number of people. primarily bisexuals and queers. who prefer a word which indicates cl~oice.

36. Eichler. 5 1. The political and legal struggles for same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario will be examined in the next four chapters. 37. See Eichler. 88-109.

38. Eichler. 13.

39. Eichler. 15. For a detailed analysis of Canadian family policy over the last century see Jane Ursel. Privare Lives. Public Poliqy: I00 Years of Stare Infervention in the Fame (Toronto: Women's Press. 1992).

4 I. It would seem that here Eichler is using the term "family " in the sense of people who are related biologically or legally.

42. Eichler. 33. In Family Shrps she makes a distinction between the "social parent" (a person involved in raising a child) and the "biological parent" (a person involved in conceiving a child). Eichler. 68-83. Unlike Eichler. I would not necessarily consider a sperm donor a parent. even a biological one. Thus in the case of a woman who is artificiallylalternatively-inseminated,and planning to be a lone parent. I would see no incongruence between the "family" and the "household. "

43. See Eichler. 101-103. Eichler notes that this is sensible when it comes to such thin,'7s as public utilities. The matter is less straightforward in terms of programmes which depend upon income such as welfare and Employment (formerly Unemployment) Insurance.

41. Eichler. 106- 108.

45. EichIer. 4.

46. Eichler. 2. See also Eichler. 165-185 (Appendix 1. "Excerpts Concerning Family Relationships from the Canadian Federal Tax Guides. 1970- 1994").

47. Eichler. 72. 50-82.

48. Eichler. 25.

49. The Vanier Institute of the Family opens one of its publications with this quotation by L. Cottin Pogrebin: "And for me the essence of the family is: who it is, how it feels, and what it does." The Vanier Institute of the Family, Canadian Families (Ottawa: The Vanier Institute of the Family, undated). For an examination of the "who" and "what" see Eichler, 25-42.

50. Eichler. 25.

5 1. Cited by Eichler, 200.

52. The Vanier Institute of the Family. Profling Canada's Families (Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family, 1994). 10. 53. The phrases "families of choice" and "chosen family" are sometimes used to refer to people who care about each other. These friends are more "like kin." i-e.. the relationships are built on trust. love. and care. I will come back to this concept in Chapter Five. See also Kath Weston. Fanlilies We Choose: Lesbians, Guys. Kinship (New York: Columbia University Press. 199 1 ).

54. Although. in this country families are becornins more and more alike in terms of demographics. Margrit Eichler, lecture given at the Ontario Institute for the Studies in Education (January 28, 1997).

55. Tania Das Gupta, "Families of Native Peoples. Immigrants- and People of Colour," in Nancy Mandell and AM Duffy, eds.. Canadian Families: Diversity, Conflicr, Change (Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company. 1995). 14 1- 174.

56. Das Gupta. 144. She cites. by way of example. the Canadian government's devaluation of Native parenting. the "head tax" imposed on Chinese immigrants after the railway was completed in the late 1800s. and the exploitation of immigrant domestic workers. who often must leave their own families behind in order to take care of wealthy white families.

57. Das Gupta. 144.

58. Patricia Monture. "A Vicious Circle: Child Welfare and the First Nations." Canadian Jortrnnl of Wornen and rlze Law 3 (1989). 1- 17.

59. See Monture. 3.

60. In this section I am working mainly with government statistics which rarely differentiate between types of families in terms of race. ethnicity. ability. class. or sexuality. Some studies do separate legally married couples from common-law heterosexual couples.

61. The "poverty line." as I have discovered. is an elusive concept. Each jurisdiction and organization have their own way to calculate the dividing line between those who can just barely survive and those who cannot. A provincial government employee told me (somewhat reluctantly) that the low-income cut-off point in Ontario is calculated by how much one spends on food and shelter. This figure is currently set at 54.7 per cent of one's total income. In Toronto in 1993. when the annual earnings from a minimum wage job were about S 1 1.000. the poverty line was set at somewhere between S16.000 and $20.000. Statistics Canada put the figure closer to $29.000. See Lesley D. Harman, "Family Poverty and Econon~icStruggles." in Ci~tl~~dk~z Families, 236-240. She also puts forth an interesting anaIysis of "objective" versus "subjective" measures of poverty.

62. See Armine Y alnizyan, Tile Growing Gap: A Repon on Growing Inequalizy Benveen rhe Rich and ihe Poor in Canada (Toronto: Centre for Social Justice, October 1998).

63. See Harman, 235-269.

64. Eichler. 37. Statistics cited from the National Council of Welfare (1995a:7. Table 2) and (1995a:8, Table 3). 65. See Marjorie Griffin Cohen. "Paid Work" in Ruth Roach Pierson and Marjorie Griffin Co hen, Canadian Women 's Issues. Volrtrne 11: Bold Visions (Toronto: James Lorimer & Company. 19%). 83- 16 1.

66. Ruth Roach Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere." in Canudian Wonzen's issues. Volrtrne II: Bold Visions. 17-2 1. See also Makeda Silvera, Silenced: Talks rvirlz Working Class Cm-ibbean Women Abortr Their Lives and Sfniggles as Domestic Workers in Canada. Second Edition (Toronto: Sister Vision. 19%).

67. Cohen, 85. She cites Statistics Canada, Cetzsus 196 I-1991.

68. Cohen. 107. This information is derived form Statistics Canada. Unpublished Data. Reference # SOC62 & #SIC6 I.

69. See Cohen, 86-88- Lynn McDonald coined this term in the seventies. Since that time. the gap has improved only minimally. See Lynn McDonald. "Wages of Work: A Widening Gap Between Women and Men. " Canadian Fonrrn (May 1975). 4-7.

70. Cohen. 57. These figures are taken from Statistics Canada. Women irz rhe CVorkplncr. 2nd. ed., March 1993. Table 3.4. p. 41. Catalogue 13-217. In case we forget this fact. the designer Kenneth Cole has erected billboards to remind us!

7 1. See Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere." 11-15. Pierson cites General Social Survey. 1990. taken from Kathleen MarshaII. "Ernpioyed Parents and the Division of Housework. " Perspectives on Labour and Income (Statistics Canada), 5, no. 3 (Autumn 1993). 23-30. Catalogue 75-001E. To make matters worse, quality childcare is increasingly difficult to access and subsidies have been drastically cut. Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere. " 15-17.

72. EIIen 1M. Gee. "Contemporary Diversities." Cmadian Fczrrzilies. 89

73. Gee. 90.

74. Gee. 84.

75. That is an adult, who may have children from a previous union, forms a family with an adult, who may also have children from a previous family. Eichler. 32. This statistic is derived from Vanier Institute of the Family. Profhg Canada 's Families, 6 1. Eichler states that this figure is actually on the low side.

76. Gee. 87.

77. This is a recent shift: not too long ago heterosexual couples living common-law had few legal rights and were socially stigmatized. It is important to note that feminists fought for legal recognition of common-law couples in order to protect women who are senerally the weaker party in economic terms. However, for those couples who specifically choose to live outside of lezal marriage, the changes are problematic. The main difference between the legal rishts of married heterosesuals and common-law heterosexuals is that while the former are considered co- owners of matrimonial property. the latter are not. See Eichler. 47-5 1.

78. See Miriam Kaufman and Susan Dundas, "Directions for Research About Lesbian Families. " in Katherine Arnup. ed.. Lesbian Parenring: Living With Pride and Prejudice (Charlottetown: gynergy books. 1995 and 1997). 166-175. These figures are "guess-timates" based on American statistics. and calculated by assuming that approximately 10 per cent of the Canadian population is queer. In the United States there are somewhere between three and eight million lesbian and gay parents raising six to fourteen million children. Kaufman and Dundas derive these statistics C from A. Martin. The Lesbian and Gay Parenting Handbook (New York: Harper Collins. 1993). The tlrst ever government-funded National Survey of Lesbians. Gays. and Bisexuals took place recently. When the information is released we will have a much dearer picture of same-sex families in Canada. Questions were asked pertaining to relationship status and history. . children. etc. Unfortunately. at the present time Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE). a national advocacy organization. and the primary researchers. are embroiled in a legal battle. EGALE wants access to the incomplete data and the returned surveys. The researchers claim that this is a violation of the Letter of Agreement designed to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality. Moreover. the researchers insist that they must opsrate independently of EGALE to ensure the integrity of the project. The dispute is now before the courts. There is also speculation that Statistics Canada may soon begin to collect data on sarne- sex unions. Information which was volunteered on the 1991 Census has been zathered and stored. although access to this data is restricted. Gee. 58.

79. I noted that The Vanier Institute of the family does not mention same-sex families at a11 in its publication entitled Cnnoclian Fmrilies. Althoush this booklet is undated. it contains stnristics and references from as recently as 1990.

SO. Gee. 93. Information taken from C'nsrrs of Cunnda: 199 1 (Catalogue No. 93-3 12).

81. Although the rate of Ione-parenthood has not risen dramatically since the 1940s. Harman. 254. I prefer Eichler's term "lone" parent to "single" parent, as it does not reference the parent's relationship status. For example. one could be a lesbian or a heterosexual woman in a serious non-cohnbitating relationship and thus not a "single" parent.

82. See Naomi Miller. Single Par-ems by Choice: A Grortiny Trerrd in Farnib. LiJ2 (New York and London: Plenum Press. 1992).

83. Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere." 21. Although. as Eichler points out. there are numerically more poor nuclear heterosexual families than poor female-headed lone-parent farniIies. Eichler. 38.

84. Eichler. 37. Information taken from Statistics Canada (199594, Table 7.6).

85. Eichler. 38. Eichler cites the National Council of Welfare ( lWSa:W-5). 86. Harman. 255. In order to rectify this problem, the Harris government has recently made welfare payments to teenage lone mothers contingent upon high school attendance (including a mandatory parenting class). A 500 dollar bursary will be awarded to those who successfully complete their education. This programme is being offered to sole-support parents in lieu of participation in "workfare" schemes. Critics have pointed out that many young mothers were forced to drop out of high school when the Tory government slashed subsidized day care spaces.

87. Eichler. 32. Information regarding percentage of births to unmarried Canadian women computed from Statistics Canada. Binhs 1991. cat. 84-210 (Ottawa: AMinister of Industry. Science and Technology. 1993a): Table 21. 35.

88. Eichler. 32. Eichler does not mention lesbian or bisexual women. but only women in common-law relationships.

89. Statistics Canada Health Reports. Births, 1990. Supplement 14, Vol. 4(1), 1992. Table 7. Reprinted in Lyle E. Larson- J. Walter Goltz, and Charles Hobart. Fanzilies in Canada: Social Come-vr. Con~inltiries,and Changes (Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada. 1994). 334.

90. Eichler. 202. EichIer cites the Vanier Institute of the Family. Projilittg Cmada's Funtilies. 30. Again. there is no mention of same-sex families.

91. Pierson, "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere," 26.

92. Shelley A.1M. Gavigan. "Feminism. Familial Ideology and Family Law." in Meg Luxton. ed ., Fern inism and Fanzilies: Crirical Policies and Changing Pracrices (Hal i fax : Fernwood Publishing. 1997. 105.

93. I think here of the time that I was a speaker at an information session on the Canadian constitutional referendum. Part way through listing the reasons why this proposal was not good for women and other non-dominant groups. a Reform Party member stood up. He proceeded to try and shout me off stage by stating that "I wasn't even a woman. I was one of those feminists." His wife. who was obviously a "real woman" nodded her head in agreement. This incident captures for me the popular distinction between heterosexual wives and mothers. who presumably uphold "the family," and feminists. who are envisioned as seeking to destroy "the family."

94. As we saw with Popenoe and Gairdner. Right-wing women's groups such as REAL (Real istic, Equal. Active for Life) women are also infamous in this regard. This organization has been known to deliver pink frosted cupcakes to the House of Commons to emphasize the value of housewifery. (I have also heard REAL defined as "Racist Egoists Asainst Liberation. ")

95. This theme surfaces occasionally on a lesbian moms listserve to which I subscribe. SAHM ("stay at home moms") complain that feminism took a wrong turn when it focused on career women and averlooked the plight of women who mother full-time. This critique is rarely accompanied by any type of class analysis or acknowledgement of privilege.

96. Pierson, "The PoIitics of the Domestic Sphere," 1. 97. Of course. the subject of women's role in the home predates the 1960s. "Seminal" thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle have been debating this issue since about 400 B.C.E. See Susan llloller Okin. CVor?wt~in Wesrern Poliriccrl Tirortgh~(Princeton: Princeton Lniversity Press. 1979) and Jean Bethke Elshtain. ed.. Tlw Fami& in Poliricai Thorcghr (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. 1982). As well. over the last four centuries or so a number of women and some men. including Aphra Behn. Christine de Pizan. Mary Wollsronecraft. Sojourner Truth. Harriet Taylor, and John Stuart Mill. have written and spoken critically about women and the domestic sphere. (There are no doubt others whose words were not preserved.) See Dale Spender. Women of Ideas and Wzat Men Have Done to Them: From Aphra Behn ro Adrienne Rich (London. Boston. Melbourne and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1982).

98. In P~tblic!Wan, Pri~eateWonzarz. Jean Bethke Elshtain employs the concepts "private" and "public" in her examination of women in Western political history. See Elshtain. Pirblic Man. P~-i\~c~feWot?znn: Wutnen in Sociul and Poliriccri Tllortyizr (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1981).

99. In this section I have only offered the briefest sketch of the feminist ideologies predominant at the onset of second-wave feminist organizing. Other strains include maternal feminism. cultural feminism. socialist feminism, and postmodem feminism. For an in-depth analysis of these frameworks see Alison M. Jaggar. Feminist Politics and Human Narure (Brighton: Rowrnan 6( LittIefield Publishers. Inc.. 1988). Another pod resource is Rosemarie Tong. Feminist Tl1o~~glzr:A Cor~zprelzmsi~-efntrodrtcrion (Boulder: Westview Press. 1989).

100. Simone dt: Beauvoir. TkSecond Sex. trans. by H.IM. Parshley. introd. by Dierdre Bair (New York: Vintage Books. 1989). The tirst and only English translation of Tlre Secotrcl SCX (a very poor one) appeared in 1953. Today this book is available in many of the world's lanyages. De Beauvoir's analysis of women obviously predates the second-wave feminist movement. and thus adheres to none of the usual distinctions between types of feminisms. (She in fact did not call herself a feminist until sometime in the late 1970s.) Although sometimes accused of being a liberal thinker. de Beauvoir was actually an existentialist philosopher and a socialist political activist.

101. De Beauvoir. xxii.

102. For further explanation of these terms see Jean-Paul Sartre. Beitzg cuzd iVorhingtzess: A Plrenonrenoiogical Essq. on Onrology, trans. by Hazel E. Barnes (New York: Washington Square Press, 1966).

103. De Beauvoir, 679-715. As a socialist, de Beauvoir did not idealize the capitalist economic system. rather she sought its destruction. However, she did feel strongly that it was necessary to break the isolation of women confined to work in individual households.

104. See Iris Marion Young. Throwing Like a Girl and Orher Essays in Ferninisr Philosophy and Socicil Tfzeol?.(Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1990).

105. Adrienne Rich offers a similar critique of what she terms "the domestication of motherhood. " Adrienne Rich, Of Woman Born: Mot/zerhood as Experience and Imrir~rtion(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976). 106. One of the important differences being that Friedan, who is very much a liberal. does not advocate socialist revolution. Betty Friedan, The Feminist Mystique, Twentieth Anniversary Edition (New York: Dell Publishin3 Co.. 1984). This book was originally published in 1963 by W.W. Norton & Company. Inc., New York. Selected pieces were also published in magazines such as Mademoiselle (1962). Ladies ' Home Journal (1963). and McCall 's (1963). Pierson points out that The Feminist Mystique was widely read in Canada. and that similar ideas had appeared in Cllrirriuitre and other Canadian magazines beginning in the late 1950s. Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere." 2.

107. Part of the way this could be achieved was by not letting housework "espand to tit the rime available." Another solution was to hire women from non-dominant groups to take care of the house and children. Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere." 2.

108. However Friedan's work has a much narrower focus than de Beauvoir's does. The Second Se-Kaddresses such issues as lesbianism and race, albeit in a limited fashion. Moreover, de Beauvoir was politically opposed to legal marriage and never had children. although she did adopt a daughter later in life. (She also slept with women occasionally.) By contrast. Friedan herself was a married suburban housewife with four children. FinalIy. whereas dc Beauvoir envisioned the overthrow of capitalism. Friedan does not question the class structure.

109. Thanks to Kathleen Rockhill for challenging me on this assertion in regard to lesbians. especially those who are "hidden." In her opinion. many women who had careers historically were in lesbian relationships.

110. American feminist Robin Morgan is credited with coining the phrase "the personal is pol irical . " See Robin Morgan, ed.. Sisrerhood is Poweq~d:An Anthology of Writings from the Worrlm 's Liberation Movemenr (New York: Vintage Books. 1970).

11 1. &leg Luston. "Feminism and Families: The Challenge of Neo-Conservatism." Fc.nriniJ.nr cu~iFar rziiies. 1 !.

112. Luxton. "Feminism and Families." 23. She cites the debates over Bill 167 by \!.a? of example. I will look more closely at these debates in subsequent chapters.

1 13. See Luxton, "Feminism and Families, " 14.

114. Luxton, "Feminism and Families. " 10- 1 1.

1 15. tuxton. " Feminism and Families. " 13.

1 16. Luxton. "Feminism and Families." 15.

1 17. Luxton, "Feminism and Families. " 15-18. Critics charged that the overall effect of payment for housework would be to trap women firmly within the home doing "women's work" as well as further solidifying class inequities. See Pierson. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere." 10-1 1. 118. Luxton. "Feminism and Families. " 17. In opposition to Wages for Housework, these leftist. mainly academic feminists envisioned the collectivization of domestic labour and communal living arrangements. Luxton does not seem to find the contradictory nature of these messazes a problem. While I appreciate the point she is making about the focus on family issues, I cannot help but wonder how this tension was perceived.

119. In the seventies Me9 Luxton conducted her own research on housework in Flin Flon. northern Manitoba. Luxton. More 7Xan a Labour of love: Three Generarions of Women 's Work i1-r the Home (Toronto: The Women's Press), 1980.

120. Luxton. "Feminism and Families, " 18.

12 1. The vast majority (over 90 per cent) of perpetrators of are men. and the victims are usually women and children. And. as tMarion Lynn and Eimear 0'Neill state. "[ilt is in families that the effects of violence are most profound and are most normalized.. . ." mari ion Lynn and Eimear 0'Neill. "Families. Power. and Violence, " Cnrz~zcficz~zFmlilies. 27 1-27?. Disturbingly, abusive be haviour also occurs between same-sex couples. although only violence amongst lesbians has received much attention. See Janet Ristock. "Beyond Ideologies: Understanding Violence in Lesbian Relationships. " Cmzadian Women's Srudies 12. no. 1 (Fall 1991). 74-79.

122. Luxton. "Feminism and Families. " 18.

123. This is. of course. also the case br heterosexuals from other non-dominant groups such as people of colour and working class people. I shall go on to discuss how queer people from non- dominant groups are faced with oppression on the basis of not just sexuality. but also race. class. ethnicity. etc.

124. Bunch's work on heterosexuaIity actually predates Rich's. although the former is generally less well-known.

125. Adrienne Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, " in Blood, Bread, and Puerg: Selecred Prose 1979-1985 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986). 27. The original publication appeared as Adrienne Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." Sigrzs: Jortrnal of Women in Cuirrtre and Socirq 5. no. I (Summer 1980). 63 1-660.

136. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 23-21.

127. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." 26.

128. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," 27.

1 29. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, " 27.

130. Since the beginning of second-wave feminist movement. tension has existed in western societies between heterosexual feminists and lesbian-feminists. 13 1. The Marxist-feminist book is For Her Own Good:ljO Years of rlze Erpeta' Ahice ro Women (New York: Anchor Books. 1979) by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English. The three psychoanalytic feminist publications are Jean Baker Miller. Towurd a New Pgclto/ogy of Women (Boston: Beacon Press, 1976), Dorothy Dinnerstein. The Mennaid and rhe Minotaur: Sexual Arrangemenrs and rhe Human Malaise (New York: Harper Colophon Books. 1977). and Nancy Chodorow. Tile Reproduction of Morhering (Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978). Of these four only the latter two actually acknowledge lesbian existence. only to dismiss it.

132. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Esistence." 4046. For example. she discusses the work of Catherine MacKinnon and Kathleen Barry in some derail. See Catherine IMacKinnon. Se.~rtalHarasstnenr of Workitzg Wornen: A Case of Ses Dixrimitzrrriotz (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1979) and Kathleen Barry. Fenzde Sexual Slaven (New Jersey: Prentice- Hall. 1979). Rich also speaks favourably of -. See .Mary Daly. Gw/Ecologj,: The Meraerlzics oj' Radical Feminism (Boston: Beacon, 1978).

133. Rich. "CompuIsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." 5 1.

134. Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 5 1.

135. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Esistence. " 5 1

136. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 54. When I tirst read this piece. as a heterosexually-identified feminist. I really appreciated the inclusiveness of Rich's continuum. As a queer bisexual feminist I still like this aspect. although I have more reservations. (Including the fact that Rich feels comfortable assigning labels to people in the past and present.) Some lesbians I have spoken with find this model highly problematic.

137. She cites in this regard the Beguines of the twelfth and fifteenth centuries. Sappho's "Lesbians" of the seventh century B.C., and the Chinese communities of marriage resisters. Rich, "Con~pulsoryHeterosexuality and Lesbian Existence." 54-56. f 38. According to Rich's analysis. this lit: consists of many layers. She points to the ideology of romance. normative social science research. and the myths of "man-hating" and lesbianism as mere "refuge." In this respect Rich finds Colette. popularly regarded as a writer of lesbian novels, "a less reliable source on the lesbian continuum than ...Charlotte Bronte" who wrote about the genuine bonding of women. See Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Esistence, " 65-66-

139. See Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 60-63. Rich explains that women stay in heterosexual relationships for many reasons including economic survival. en~otionalsecurity. and the desire for "respectable" family life (57-59). Ultimately. she denies the possibility of an active female heterosexual desire. Rich refers to two novels. Meridel LeSueurts The Girl (Cambridge: West End Press, 1978) and 's Srila (New York: Bantam. 1973). as sensitive portrayals of this "double life."

140. Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, " 56. 141. Two years after it was first published. Rich wrote a Foreword to her 1980 essay. The Afterword is comprised of correspondence between Rich and three Marxist-feminists (AM Snitow. Christine Stansell. and Sharon Thompson) from 1983 to 1986. These newer sections are written in an insightful and critical manner. See Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 2 1-26 and 68-75.

142. See. for example. the critiques put forth by Snitnow. Stansell. and Thompson. as well as Rich's response in the Afterword. Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 68-75. On this topic see also the essays written by AM Ferguson. Jacquelyn N. Zita. and Kathryn Pyne Addelson in "Viewpoint: On 'Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence' : Defining the Issues." Signs 7, no. 1 (Autumn 1981). 158-199. Ann Ferguson. "Patriarchy. Sexual Identity, and the Sexual Revolution. " 158-172: Jacquelyn N. Zita. "Historical Amnesia and the Lesbian Continuum." 172-187: and Kathryn Pyne Addelson. "Words and Lives." 187- 199.

143. A colleague of mine proposed that this linear model be replaced by a more circular design. Although I do not believe that this would solve all the problems inherent in continuums. the sw,oestion is thought-provoking .

133. This raises further questions: who gets to judge? based on what criteria'? Since Rich is highly critical of pornography and s/m activities. are straight and bisexual women and lesbians who partake of these activities displaced from the continuum'? See Rich. "Com~~ulsory Heterosesuality and Lesbian Existence. " 30.

145. Moreover. it is historicalIy suspect to apply terms with modern meanings to people in the past.

146. Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 72-73.

147. In "The Meaning of Our Love for Women Is What We Have Constantly to Expand." written in 1977, Rich documents her break from the gay (male) movement. See Rich, "The Meaning of Our Love for Women Is What We Have Constantly To Expand." in On Lies. Secrurs, nrzd Silence: Selecred Prose 1966-1978 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Ltd.. 1979). 223-230. In 1986 she noted that lesbians and gay men share a "complex 'gay' identity. " Her main concern seems to be with preserving the lesbian experience as a "profoundly fenzalr experience. " Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Esisrence. " 53.

148. As Gary Kinsman pointed out to me on a paper I wrote for him at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. "false consciousness" has become more of a "moral classification" than an analytic tool. Rich reworks this controversial term in 1986 as "control of consciousness." Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence, " 7 1.

149. Although Isuspect that Rich does not regard all feminist political frameworks as equal.

150. Rich points to the importance of racial difference in the Afterword to her essay. See Rich. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 74.

15 1. Rich, "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. " 49-50. 152. Audre Lorde. "I Am Your Sister: Black Women Organizing Across Sexualities." in Gloria Anzaldua. ed.. Making Face, Muking Sorrl/HACIENDO CAR4S.e Creative and Critical Perspecrives by Wotnen of Colortr (: Aunt Lute Foundation Books. 1990). 3 2 1-325.

153. In 1979 Lorde took Mary Daly, one of the writers Rich admires. to task for dismissing black women in her work. See Audre Lorde. "An Open Letter to Mary Daly," in Cherrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua. eds.. This Bridge Called My Back: Wrirings by Radical Women of' Colorrt- (New York: Kitchen Table. Women of Color Press. 1981). 94-97.

154. Charlotte Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only." in Paxsionare Polirics: Feminisr Throt~in Acfion, Essqs 1968-1956 (New York: St. Martin's Press. 1987). 176.

155. Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only. " 178.

156. Charlotte Bunch. "Lesbians in Revolt, " in Alison M. Jagger and Paula S. Rothenberg, eds.. Fernhist Frorrt el vorks: A lrernarive Theorerical Accounts of the Relations Between Wotnen a& ltfen. Second Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984). 147. Although.- like Rich. she acknowledges that lesbians are political in varying degees.

157. See Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only," 178- 179.

158. Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only." 181.

159. Refer back to Chapter One for my discussion of the term "queer" in politics and scholarship.

160. Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only." 177. Rich. on the other hand. regards "queer" as a Jcro~atoryterm. See "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence," 40.

161. Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only." 177.

162. Bunch. "Not For Lesbians Only," 177

163. Monique Wittig. "The Category of Sex. " Feminist Issues 2. no. 2 (FalI 1982). 63-65.

164. Monique Wittig. "The Straight Mind. " Feminisr Issues 1. no. 1 (Summer 1980). 107.

165. Sharon Stone uses the term "" to distinguish the fear and hatred of lesbians from the fear and hatred of gay men. bisexuals. etc. Lesbophobia is meant to reinforce the fact that lesbians are oppressed both by heterosexism because they are not straight. and by sexism because they are women. See Sharon Dale Stone. "Introduction: Defining the Context. " in Sharon Dale Stone. ed., Lesbians in Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1990). 16.

166. Last October vigils and protests were held across , including Toronto, in response to the murder of Shepard. In New York over 10.000 people gathered in what has been called the "rebirth of Stonewall." Author Leslie Feinberg wrote a gripping report of these events which she posted by electronic mail. When queer activists were picked up by the police and thrown into jail, Feinberg, a transgendered and very butch lesbian, was placed in a cell with men. (Writer Minnie Bruce Pratt, her femme partner, was locked up with the other women.) See Feinberg . "Jail House Rocks! Matthew Shepard Lives! " Public Correspondence (October 22. 1998)- James Byrd. a black man from Texas. was murdered within weeks of Shepard. Debbie Douglas. Executive Director of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immi_grants. draws links between these two deaths. She is quoted as saying that they died "[olnr because he was gay. and one because he was black." Xtra! no. 364 (February 25, 1999). 19.

167. Audre Lorde. "Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on the Barriers to Women and Loving. " in Sisrer Ottrsiclec Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde (Freedom: The Crossing Press, 1984). 45.

168. Lorde. "Scratching the Surface. " 45.

169. Lorde, "Scratching the Surface. " 45.

170. Lorde. "Scratching the Surface." 15.

171. In this regard Lorde cites the relationships between African co-wives. the Amazon warriors of ancient Dahomey. and modem West African Market Women Associations. She also recounts that in some pans of Africa women are still permitted to marry other women. See Lorde, "Scratching the Surface." 49-50. The sources she cites are Iris Andreski. Old Wives Tales: Lfe- Stories of African Wonzerz (New York: Schocken Books. 1970) and Melville Herskovits. Dnllorm~.2 vols. (Illinois: Northwestern University Press. 1967).

172. Lorde. "Scratching the Surface. " 49.

173. Lorde. "Scratching the Surface." 52.

173. When more than two adults decide to form a family. of one or more genders. the challenses are enormous. The topic of multiple partner families is vast and deserves to be researched separately. See Kevin Lano and Claire Parry. eds., Breaking the Barriers to Desire: Pofyarnory, Pol~rfideliyand Non-Monogamy - New Approaches to M~iltipleRelationships ( Nott ingham : Five Leaves Publications. 1995). For the purposes of this section I have mainly limited my discussion to same-sex relationships between two people (primarily women) with children. I will revisit this issue further on.

175. This matter will be explored in some detail in subsequent chapters.

176. See Carole-Anne 0'Brien and Lorna Weir. "Lesbians and Gay Men Inside and Outside Families. " Canadian Farztilies. 1 12-1 15. The authors cite the historical and current existence of " two-spirited" aboriginal people. who engage in same-gender sexual activity, and are believed to embody both female and male elements. Being "two-spirited" was and is regarded as lucky, and respected within some First Nations communities today despite white Christian colonization. 0'Brien and Weir. 112. O'Brien and Weir use the term "same-gender" in place of "same-sex." They also concentrate specitically on lesbians and gay men in this article.

177. 0'Brien and Weir, l 1 I. 178. O'Brien and Weir. 115.

179. 0'Brien and Weir, 1 13-1 15.

180. See, for example. Roben E. Goss and Amy Adams Squire Strongheart. eds.. Orrr Families, Orrr Values: Snapshots of Qcreer Kinship (New York: The Haworth Press. Inc.. 1997).

181. In Chapter Five I examine these various family types within the context of the interviews I conducted with queer community activists.

182. See also D. Merilee Clunis and G. Dorsey Green. Lerbian Corrpks (Seattle: Seal Press. 1988). O'Brien and Weir reiterate that lesbians and gay men are usually posited as outside of "the family." and little research has been done on lesbians and gay men within families or on the formation of same-gender families. The studies which do exist often focus on young, white, urban queer peopte. because heterosexism and homophobia limit participation in such endeavours. 0'Brien and Weir. 122. Moreover. although O'Brien and Weir do not make this explicit. there is more American research on lesbians and gay men than there is Canadian. The authors tiien~selvesdraw on many studies based in the United States for this section. without specifying the context.

183. O'Brien and Weir, 123. In two books Susan Johnson documents and explores lesbian relationships which have endured for ten to thirty-seven years. See Susan E. Jo'mon. For Love and Lve: Intimate Portraits of Lesbian Cortples (Tallahassee: The Naiad Press. 1395). and Susan E. Johnson, Staying Power Long Terrn Lesbian Couples (Tallahassee: The Naiad Press. 1990). See also Richard A. Mackey, Bernard A. 0'Brien, and Eileen F. Mackey, Gay and Lesbian Couples: Voices from Lasfiizg Relatiorzsf~ips(Westport and London: Praeger Publishers. 1997).

154. O'Brien and Weir. 123.

185. O'Brien and Weir. 123. They cite P. Blumstein and P. Schwartz, American Cortples: Monq, Work. Sex (New York: William Morrow. 1983).

186. O'Brien and Weir. 123.

187. 0'Brien and Weir, 123. Recent research from Cambridge University verifies this finding. Reported in The fndependenl (February 15, 1999). I will return to this study further on in the chapter.

135. O'Brien and Weir. 123-124.

189. O'Brien and Weir. 123.

190. 0'Brien and Weir, 123. As to this latter point, the authors also cite work which dispels the idea that people of colour are rarely rejected by their families of origin. See for example Weston, 59-6 1.

191. O'Brien and Weir, 124. 192. As I shall go on to discuss. this is particularly true for lesbians. There are no figures available for bisexual women. bisexual men. or transgendered people. I would guess that parenthood is also on the rise for these groups. especially bisexual women.

193. O'Brien and Weir. 128-129.

194. O'Brien and Weir. 129.

195. O'Brien and Weir. 129.

196. O'Brien and Weir. 129.

197. The American Psychological Association has found no evidence to suggest that same-sex parenting negatively effects children. Cited on 20/20 (Friday March 5. 1999). In Ontario. two judges have made key judgements which echo this sentiment. I will come back to these cases in later chapters. moreo over. as we shall see. there is some evidence to susgest that beins raised by lesbian parents is advantageous for children.

198. Although I have outlined the main ways in which queer people may become parents. other variations exist. For instance. women could also use donor eggs and donor sperm and a surrogate mother. A woman could also carry her partner's baby, using egg extraction and in vitro fertilization with donor sperm. See also O'Brien and Weir, 127-128.

199. Or a same-sex relationship. although this is a relatively new phenomenon.

200. I will return to the difticulties encountered in custodial battles between once-married men and women. I will also cite some recent cases of custody disputes between women in later chapters.

201. This _growth in surrogacy for gay men was the topic of a recent edition of the American television news show 20/20 (Friday March 5, 1999). Two gay male couples who each used a surrogate mother to have children were interviewed. One couple, who used the egss from one woman and had the fertilized eggs implanted in another woman. estimated the total cost at 50.000 dollars U.S. The bulk of this money went to cover medical and legal costs. (Both couples went through Growing Generations, the first and only surrogacy tirrn specitically dedicated to serving lesbians and gay men.) The surrogate mother. who was also interviewed. said that she did not provide this service for money. The woman remarked that she could make more money working at a fast food chain like MacDonald's. There was no gender. class. or race analysis brought to bear on this issue. In fact, one of the men made a point of saying that gay family life should be viewed as normal rather than political. However, all of the men also talked about constantly being asked why they wanted to be parents.

202. This tlgure is based on the assumption that 10 per cent of women are lesbians. See Katherine Arnup. "In the Family Way: Lesbian Mothers in Canada, " in Feminism and Families, 50. Arnup cites Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. Lesbian/Woman (New York: Bantam. 1971). 6. By comparison. therapist Arlene Ishtar Lev estimates that the rate of lesbian motherhood is just slightly lower than the rate of heterosexual motherhood. See The Alternative Family Home Page (www.altfammag.com/ari-glp.htm1).According to Emily Nett, approximately 90 per cent of women who are or were married have at least one child. (This figure could. of course. include lesbians who had children in a heterosexual relationship.) Emily M. Nett. Canadian Families: Pasr md Presenf. Second Edition (Markham and Vancouver: Butterworths Canada Ltd.. 1993). 166.

303. See Maureen Phillips. "Real or Not. the lesbian baby boom births books: Motherhood gains new respectability and profits in the lesbian mainstream." Xtra! no. 279 (July 7. 1995). 35.

204. Some works include both lesbian and gay parents. although the focus is pxrally on the former. See. for instance. Frederick Bozett, ed.. Gay nnd Lesbian Parents (New York: Praeser. 19871, and April Martin. Tire Lesbian and Gay Par-mring Handbook: Creating and Raising Our Families (New York: HarperCollins, 1993). Robert Barret and Bryan Robinson's publication entitled Gay Farhers (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1990) deals specifically with men as does the children's book Daddy's Roorrznlate (Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc., 1990) written by Michael Willhoite.

205. I will revisit this matter.

206. See Katherine Arnup. "Introduction." Lesbian Pcrrenring. vii.

207. See Shari L. Thurer. The f&-rlrs of rMotl1e1-izood:Hmtv Cirlrlrt-e Rein\wr~.r/ze Good illorher (Boston and New York: Houghton ~MifflinCompany. 1994).

208. According to Katherine Arnup. judges in custody cases have traditionally divided lesbians into "good mothers" and "bad mothers. " Good lesbian mothers are not political. nor do they have lovers. Bad lesbian mothers, by contrast, refuse to remain in "the closet." See Amup. "Living in the Margins: Lesbian Families and the Law. " Lesbian Parenring. 382-383.

209. Take. for instance. a recent newspaper story about the policies of Prime Minister Jean Chretian's Liberal government. One of the critics quoted in this piece was Toronto social activist Kathleen Wynne. An accompanying photograph shows Wynne, her female partner. and their children sitting around the dinner table. That Wynne was a lesbian. and a lesbian mother. was never articulated. Generally same-sex families only appear in the mainstream press when "alternative" sexualities or families are the issue at hand. William Walker. "Which Way Will Chretian Turn'?. " The Toronto Star (March 13. 1999), El and E4.

210. See Kaufman and Dundas, 166.

2 1 1. See Katherine Arnup "In the Family Way: Lesbian Mothers in Canada." in Luxton. ed.. Fcwlinisnz and Furnilies. 80-97.

212. Minnie Bruce Pratt, S/HE (New York: Firebrand. 1995). 92-93. For an account of Pratt's struggle see "I Plead Guilty to being a Lesbian." in Rebeilions: Essri~~s1950-1991 (New York: Firebrand Books, 1991). 83-1 10.

2 13. See Sharon Dale Stone. "Lesbian Mothers Organizing, " Lesbians in Cunadc, 198-208. The Toronto group folded in 1987. although some smaller branches remained in existence in other parts of the country. 1 14. See, for instance. Laura Benkov. Reinventing the Family: The Emerging Stq of Lesbian find Gay Parents (New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1994). 108.

2 15. Kaufrnan and Dundas. 166.

216. Although a writer occasionalIy identifies herself as "bisexual" or "gay. " it is the term " lesbian" which dominates the literature.

2 17. bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Edrtcarion as the Practice of Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1994), 90.

2 18. Kathleen Canning. "Feminist History After the Linguistic Turn: Historicizing Discourse and Espsrience." Signs 19. no. Z (Winter 1994). 369.

2 19. Ellen Lewin. Lesbian Mothers: Accortrrrs of Gender in Anzericm Crrltrtre (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1993).

220. In 1987 Dian Day conducted interviews with lesbian mothers in . See Dian Day, "Lesbian/Mother," Lesbians in Canada. 35-47.

221. To be included in the research, women could not be married to the father of their children. However. some of the lesbians and heterosexual women lived with a partner. Lewin. 9. Interestingly. some of the women in Lewin's study redefined the term "single" to refer to people who did not have children. See Lewin. 10.

222. See Martin and Lyon cited by Katherine Arnup. "In [he Family Way: Lesbian Mothers in Canada. " 80.

523. Lewin. 4.

224. Lewin. 13.

225. See Lewin. 14.

226. I discuss the process of working with oral narratives in a critical fashion in Chapter Two.

227. Lewin, 190.

228. Lewin, 74.

229. Lewin. 192.

230. Lewin. 188.

23 1. Weston. 2.

232. Julia Brophy, "New Families. Judicial Decision-Making, and Children's Welfare." Canadian Jurrrttal of Women and the Larv, 5 (1992), 496. Quoted in Amup, "Living in the Margins. " 385. 150 233. See The Independent. "Lesbians Make Better Parents" (February t 5. 1999).

234. Interestingly Dr. DUM~is referred to as a "widow" in this article. 1 suspect that this personal information was added as a way to establish the heterosexuality (and perhaps lesjtimacy'?) of the researcher.

235. Most of the research subjects had some postsecondary education and were employed outside of the home. Neither race nor class analyses are referred to in this report.

236. This quote is from Valerie Riches. director of Family and Youth Concern. She maintains that the presence of a father is necessary for a healthy home environment.

237. Sandra Pollack and Jeanne Vaughn. eds.. Politics of the Heart: A Lesbian Parenring Anrhofogy (New York: Firebrand Books. 1987).

23 8. Arnup, ed .. Lesbian Purenting .

239. Arnup. "Introduction. " xi.

240. Weston. 3.

24 1. Weston. 7 and 12.

212. Weston. 213. But. I would argue that this statement is only partially accurate. Blood ties (and legal adoption) do exist between parents and children.

243. Weston. 108.

244. See Weston. 35-37. However. some lesbians and gays of colour drew a comparison between non-biological kinship ties in queer communities and African American cornmunitirs.

245. Weston. 212. Although she references lesbians and gay men. Weston often uses "gay" to describe non-heterosexual sexual identity.

246. Weston. 199.

247. Weston. 209.

238. See Benkov. 5.

249. Benkov. 5.

250. Benkov. 9.

251. Benkov. 13.

252. Benkov. 13.

253. Benkov, 142. 254. Ruthann Robson. "Resisting the Family: Repositioning Lesbians in Legal Theory." Signs 19. no. 4 (Summer 1994). One of the lesbian mothers I interviewed. Alison Kernper. was wary of speaking to me because she thought I might hold similar views. See Chapter One for a fuller discussion of this incident.

255. See als~Becki Ross. "Sexual Dis/Orientation or Playing House: To be or Nut To Be Coded Human," Lesbians in Canada. 133-145.

256. And Robson means lesbians excIusively, not gay men or bisexuals. She insists on gendering the category of "sexual orientation" because lesbians are marginalized in a very particular manner. See Robson. 975.

357. Robson. 979.

259. Robson, 985.

260. Robson. 987.

26 1. Robson, 986-987.

262. On the Iesbian moms listserve which I cited earlier. many of the women (w-ho are primarily r-Irnerican) use the term "wife" to refer to their partner and/or themselves. The feminist objections which have been raised condemning this language as patriarchal and heterosexual are in the minority.

263. Robson. 977. See also Gavigan who discusses the concepts "experience" and "family" in regard to feminism. She argues that the valorization of lesbian and gay relationships has "paradoxicaIIy decontextualized heterosexual reIationshipsWand "decontsxtualized and declawed heterosexism. " Gavigan. 1 1 1.

263. Robson. 992.

265. Robson. 986.

266. Robson. 992.

267. Robson, 993. It could be argued that the "lesbian outlaw" that emerges in this piece comes close to replicating the old liberal ideal: autonomous. self-sufficient. unfettered. childless.

268. Carol Allen, "Who Gets to be Family: Some Thoughts on the Lesbian and Gay fight for Equality ." in Linda Carty , ed., And Still We Rise: Feminist Political Mobilizing in Conremporary Canada (Toronto: Women's Press, 1993), 101-107.

269. Allen. 103.

270. Allen. 103. 271. Allen, 103.

272. Allen. 105. Currently if two women are living together. and one is collecting social assistance, the government does not assume that one is financially dependent on the other. Allen speculates that the "spouse in the house" rule could be reactivated and altered to encompass people of the same gender who cohabitate.

273. Alien. 106.

274 - Fiona Kelson. Lesbian Morherhood: .4n Erpiomrion of Cunuciic~nLesbian Ftmrilies (Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1996). 137. She prefers to use the term "lesbian women" to highlight the fact that lesbians. like gay men, have otherlmany identities.

275. As Nelson's research indicates. a problem with naming arises when both parents are women. The participants in her study grapple with this dilemma, as does Nelson herself. See Nelson. 73.

276. Nelson. 83

277. Nelson. 136.

278. NeIson. 136- 137. And reproducing males! Interestingly. Nelson observes that lesbian women tend to conceive male babies at a much higher rate than female babies due to the timing of insemination. "Thus." Nelson writes. "in twenty to thirty years. a sisnificant cross-section of the population of youns men in North America will have been raised by lesbian mothers." Nelson. 117.

279. Nelson. 18-19.

250. See Nelson. 17 (Table 1. "Demographic Characteristics of Overall Sample").

281. Nelson. 18.

282. Refer back to Das Gupta and Monture. both who write about the devastating effects that the Canadian government's residential schools have had on Native families and communities.

283. Nelson, 127.

2%. Mart ha A. F ineman, TfzeNeurered Mother, The Sexual Family and Other Twentieth Century Tmgedies (New York and London: Routledge. 1995).

285. But not lesbian couples without children.

286. Fineman is critical of the gendered and privatized narure of care of dependents. She notes that women end up doing the vast majority of such work. and in doing so relieve the state of responsibility for children. the elderly. and people with disabilities. See Finernan. 161-163.

287. Fineman, 67. 258. See Fineman. 67-69.

259. Fineman. 67. She does not mention that this same "specificity" can be dangerous for mothers who are women of colour and/or lesbians.

290. "Caretakin_g" is used by Fineman instead of "caresiving" to emphasize that the work is real. and should not be regarded as a gift. See Fineman, 9.

291. Fineman. 69.

292. Fineman. 145.

293. Fineman. 145.

293. Fineman. 147.

295. On the topic of disability in regard to families. see Karen A. BIackford. ''A Different Parent, " Heairhslzaring (Summer 1990), 20-25. and J. Ridington. The Only Parenf irz ffw ~Veiglzbor~rhood:Morhering and Wornen 1c.irfz Disabliries (Vancouver: Disabled Women ' s Network). 1989.

296. Fineman. 117-148. Finernan. unlike Eichler, retains the term "single."

297. This point is debatable. I would argue that the signifier "lesbian mother" also says a great deal about (lepl. heterosexual) married status.

298. Fineman. 7 1.

299. In terms of same-sex couples. the legal system is more concerned with the rights of male sperm donors than those of the non-biological lesbian parent. I shall return to this issue in following chapters.

300. A prime example of this in Ontario are the new OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Profram) rules which disallow a person (mainly women) receiving student loans to collect Family Benefits. In order ro fund their education. many poor tone-parents are forced to incur larze debts.

30 1. Fineman. 23 1.

302. Bruce Ryder writes that the law creates material inequality in two ways: lesbians and gays pay more taxes than heterosexuals and in turn receive fewer public benetits. "In other words. gays and lesbians are being forced to subsidize heterosexual privilege." Bruce Ryder. "Equality Rizhts and Sexual Orientation. " Canadian Journal of Family Law 4 (1990), 48. Of course, the situation is a little more complicated than this as how much one pays depends on which tax bracket one is in. The main point. however. is well taken.

303. See Sandra Harding, The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1986). 304. Brenda Cossrnan, "Same-Sex Couples and the Politics of Family Status." in Janine Brodie. ed.. Women and Canadian Public Policy (Toronto: Harcoun Brace and Company. 1996). 229.

305. Cossrnan. "Same-Sex Couples and the Politics of Family Status." 224. While I appreciate the way Cossman holds together the "inside" and the "outside." I am disconcerted by what I perceive as the colIapse of the legal functions of the family with the social functions of the family.

306. See Brenda Cossman. "Family Inside/Out." Frininisrrr and Fm~riiirs.121. In their report to the Ontario Law Reform Commission. Cossman and Bruce Ryder resist simplifyins the complex relationships which lesbians and gay men have to "family" and families. But despitc their best efforts, even formal equality did not sell. As Cossman writes: "Law reform is not bursting with opportunities to embrace complexity and contradiction." Brenda Cossman and Bruce Ryder, Gay, Lesbian and Unmarried kiereroserrral Cortples and rhe Fanlily Law Acr: Accontmodnring a Diversiy of Family Forms, Research Paper prepared for the Ontario Law Reform Commission (Toronto: Osgoode Hall Law School. York University, June 1993). 250.

307. Includin~where we slept.

308. See Cossman. "Family InsideIOut, " 121.

309. Cossman. "Family Inside/Our. " 139.

3 10. Cossman. "Family Inside/Out. " 125.

3 11. See Doma Haraway. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Priirile~eof Partial Perspective." Frrrrinisr Studies 13. no. 3 (Fall 1988). 581.

3 12. Cossnlan. "Same-Sex Couples and the Politics of Family Status. " 23 I.

3 13. Cossman. "Family Inside/Out. " 148.

3 14. Of course, I am afforded a wider range of choices because of my relative privilege. Thanks to Kari Dehli for reminding me of this.

3 15. Eichler, 124.

3 16. Shared household costs being an exception. Eichler. 133.

317. See Eichier. 124-144.

318. Irecognize that this proposal does not account for the emotional care of family members. to which children are the most vulnerable. This is a dilemma which I am still thinking through.

319. Instead people wishing to make legal commitments could choose from a variety of contracts. This would not preclude holding public ceremonies, whether religious or civil in nature. See, for instance, the guidelines for cohabitation agreements in Kathleen Baker's The Legal Guidefor Gay and Lesbian Couples in Ontario (Toronto: Legalworks Press, 1995). 33-52. 320. Carl Stychin, Law's Desire: Sewaliy and the Lirnifs of Jrrsrice (London and New York: Anchor Books. 1995).

321. Stychin. 107. CHAPTER FOUR:

"We Are Family?" I:

The Political Drama of Bill 167

Introduction

In the opening chapters of this thesis I reviewed bodies of thought and theory that have laid the ,oroundwork for the assumptions and beliefs that shape the debate around "frtrnily" and same-sex spousal rights taking place in contemporary Ontario. The starting point for this analysis was my own participation in, and re-thinking of. the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition. as outlined in Chapter One- I went on in Chapter Two to argue that the concept of "experience" is problematic and hence must be deployed in a critical fashion. Neither the description of different experiences nor deconstructive analyses of how difference is produced constitute the

"~vhole story." Likewise "family" is simultaneousIy an interpretation and in need of interpretation.' This became most apparent in my interrogation of the dominant ideology of "the family" and the organization of families in Chapter Three. Upon highlighting the tension in lesbian writings between a "pro-family" and an "anti-family" stance. I concluded that this binarism was theoretically and politically inadequate. Simply deconstructing "family" or valorizing queer families is restrictive. Movement only becomes possible when these strategies inform one another.

The definition of "family," as we have seen. is a site of theoretical contestation in the

1990s. "Family" is currently also contested ground in the realm of politics. This struggle was most apparent in the events surrounding the introduction. and subsequent defeat. of the Ontario

New Democratic Party's (ONDP's) 1994 Eqrcalih Riglzfs S~urrrreAt~refzrhienr Lair*. better known as Bill 167. In this historical moment a governing body attempted to argue that queer families

156 are "normal" and as such are worthy of official legitimation. Lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people who emulated the heterosexual nuclear standard. the ONDP asserted. should be regarded as "family." Significantly. when the government of the time sought to expand the definition of "family" to include queers. queer activists took up the slogan "we are hmily" as a rallyins point.

However. as I will demonstrate. cracks emerged in this picture. The ONDP as a whole was not supportive of the proposed same-sex spousal recognition legislation. Moreover. many lMembers of Provincial Parliament (MPPs), including a number of ONDP MPPs, actively opposed a redefinition of "family." Some queer activists also felt ambivalent about the move to endow political and legal rights and responsibilities on same-sex couples and their children. A few even spoke out against what they regarded as the assimilation of lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people into the heterosexual model of "family. " In this chapter I will proceed to outline and critically analyze the rise and fall of Bill 167 in this province in the mid-1990s. I will include commentary from the community activists whom I interviewed in regard to these political events. In the next chapter I will shift the focus ro the grassroots lobby efforts for same-sex spousal recognition legislation. I will explore the perspectives of variously- situated queer activists in regard to both Bill 167 and the concept of "family."

Sources

A handful of people have documented and analyzed the events surrounding Bill 167 in

Ontario. They include Brenda Cossman, Gary Kinsman, Alex Munter, Bob Rae, David Rayside,

Becki L. Ross. and Susan Ursel. I will draw on the work of these writers in my analysis of the

ONDP' s proposed same-sex spousal recognition legislation. In addition. I will examine and make use of journalistic accounts of Bill 167 from the mainstream and alternative presses. I will also 158 look to primary sources such as The Ontario Le_gislative Assembly Ofticia Report of Debates

(Hansard). documents from community groups including the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay

Rights in Ontario (CLGRO) and the Campaign for Equal Families (CEF). transcripts of legal cases, and other rerevant government documents. Finally. I will refer to my own experience as a "participant observer" of these events. and the accounts of queer community activists.

To reiterate. I have generated oral narratives by activists as a source. they are not meant to be regarded as representative of queer community activists in Ontario as a whole.' In other words, this thesis is not based exciusively on the interviews I conducted. Rather. the viewpoints of the people I spoke with serve to challenge and supplement the information I have gathered from orher areas. as well as my own assumptions. As I explored the topic of same-sex spousal recognition legislation in this province. it became evident that a vital piece was missing. I thus enlbai ked on an oral history project in order to (critically) add the insights of activists. which rarely appear in texts. to my analysis. The main purpose of this project. as the reader will recall. was to investigate the experiences. thoushts. feelings. ideas. retlections. and opinions of ten community activists in regard to Bill 167 in particular, and "family" in general. As 1 have stated previously. the voices of queer activists enrich my interrogation of "family" just as the deconstruction of "family" sharpens my analysis of queer politics.

Different Perspectives

In the recent publication On the Fringe: Guys and Lesbians in Politics, David Rayside, a Toronto-based political science professor and gay activist. provides the most detailed anaIysis of the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario to dare.' Importantly Rayside does not just focus on politicians; he also includes the experiences of lesbian and _gay activists involw.i with the political process.' This crucial research helps to fill a void by providing "an assessment 159 of the relevance of legislative politics for achieving gay and lesbian equality."' Rayside's

contribution to queer political history is. without a doubt, invaluab1e.Wowever. although the

study of Bill 167 presented in On r/ze Fringe has furthered my own work. I have some critiques

of Rayside's analyticaI framework.

To begin with. Rayside's argument is limited by a focus on state politics. He does not talk to anyone who is not either an "insider" (i.e.. politician. aide. civil servant) or an activist pressing for legislative change.' In this manner he effectively excludes the opinions of queers who are critical of political institutions, and/or positioned outside of this privileged realm because they are not white. male. middle-class. educated. etc. Rather than questioning this route. Rayside asserts that it is imperative for "sexual minorities" to become involved in political battles (such as same-sex spousal rights) in the govenunent and the Working outside of this system is not an option. He emphasizes:

...that becoming a player in mainstream political processes is necessary, though costly: that making gains through them is possible. though only under very particular circumstances; and that maintaining links between political insiders and outsiders in the gay and lesbian movement is both difficult and essential .'

In addition. Rayside gives short shrift to feminist critiques of "Fm~ily"and families.

Rather than interrogating the complexities of inclusion in an institution which is rooted in patriarchy and heterosexuality, Rayside takes the desirability of this goal for granted. This is puzzIing, in lizht of the feminist contestation of "family" which I examined in Chapter Three.

Moreover. although he claims to be intluenced by feminist modes of analysis. Rayside in fact only references feminism a few times throughout On the Fringe.'" For example. Rayside cites the importance of the recognition of heterosexual common-law relationships in Canada as an a1 ternative , and less pol itically-charged, model for same-sex spousal rights. " However, he does not cite the role which feminists played in the stru_egle to strengthen common-law unions. He 160

also raises the critique of employment benefits being a "white male issue. " again with no mention .. of feminism.'- On a related note. Rayside does not problematize the concept of "experience"

nor does he acknowledge the theoretical complexities of working with oral narratives..;

Finally. Rayside minimizes differences such as gender. race. class. and sexual identification. Althoutgh he does allude to tension between lesbian. gay, bisexual. and rransgendered activists. Rayside prefers to highlight cooperation and unity. For instance. he acknowledges. though does not really explore. the debates between lesbians and gay men over the prioritizins of issues such as benefics and adoption rights." Instead Rayside emphasizes how well lesbians and gay men worked together on the campaign for Bill 167. as opposed to previous

Iobby efforts which were dominated by men. He in fact makes a point of underscoring the leadership roles which women took up in the mid-1990s lobby for spousal recogniti~n.'~In actuality. the situation was more complicated. as I will demonstrate. Similarly. Rayside mentions the assimilationist debate oniy to smooth it over.'" From his perspective. lesbians and gay men are not in danger of being "normalized" because they are "located on the fringe of the political mainstream. " ''

Thus in a number of significant ways. my analysis differs from Rayside's. To begin with,

I am not convinced that working within legislative politics is the only option. This is reflected in my own history as someone who has participated in various struggles for change. mainly of a feminist nature, both within and without political institutions. Although the majority of the people I spoke with were involved with lobbying the government, or in some cases working in politics. a few rejected this route and/or worked in other areas as well. I felt that it was important to hear rhe voices of queer activists who were positioned. or had positioned themselves. outside of the formal political system. As we shall see. these narratives offer a critique of same-sex spousal recognition legislation not found in Rayside's work. 161 Secondly. feminist postmodern analysis. specifically feminist critiques of families and

"family," are central to my work. The concepts of "family" and "experience." as I have

demonstrated in previous chapters. are problematic. In a sexist society such as ours. the marriage

contract signals a relationship of dependency. Women may no longer be blatantly regarded as

property, but we are still expected to fulfil certain functions in the heterosexual nuclear family

such as childcare and housecleaning. My own contradictory feelings in regard to family status

for same-sex couples were in fact the inspiration tbr writing this thesis. While some of my

interviewees clearly supported the quest for same-sex spousal rights. others shared my unease

with wholeheartedly embracing the (heterose.uua1. patriarchal. nuclear) model of "family. " A few

activists 1 spoke with were quite critical of this pursuit.

Thirdly. unlike Ray side f am more interested in investigating tension between queer

activists than in smoothing over rifts. I myself witnessed conflict during the lobby for Bill 167.

In my oral history project a number of differences and disagreements emerged between the

people I interviewed. I believe it is more fruithl to tease out these points of contestation than

to disregard them. although I have also pointed out sites of unity and/or co-operation.

Significantly, much of the conflict that surfaced in the oral narratives had to do with race and gender. As well. friction was apparent between activists with more "mainstreanl" sexual identities such as lesbian and gay. and more fringe positionings such as bisexual. transgendered. and queer.

These divisions are most interesting in terms of the assirnilationist/pro-family versus anti- assimilationist/anti-family debate which is highlighted in my work.

Setting the Stage

During the course of the interviews, the story of queer activism which emerged highlighted political flashpoints which built upon one another. Both Don Franco and Bob 162 Gallagher described a Toronto-based struggle which began with the Bath House Raids in the

1970s. continued through the onset of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. and culminated in the recent lobby for same-sex spousal recognition in the form of the ONDP's Bill 167.Yn their own way. each of these battles constitutes a rallying point for queer communities. In the face of threats from hornophobic police. politicians. religious organizations. right-wing groups. etc.. as well as disease, couraseous lesbians. gays. bisexuals. and transgendered people mobilized. Those of us who fought for same-sex spousai rights in the mid-1990s are indebted to these earlier activists.

A number of political and legal events preceded the introduction of same-sex spousal recognition IegisIation for lesbians and gay men in Ontario in 1994." it is worth noting that in this area the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary is complicated. The main question today seems to revoIve around where the responsibility lies in regard to same-sex spousal recognition. Increasingly elected officials are avoiding rhis issue. or even actively opposing same-sex spousal rights. I shall return to this matter when I examine the events which unfolded following the defeat of Bill 167. In this section I will point to some of the key occurrences which shaped the political climate of Ontario in the mid-1990s. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to offer a thorou_ghgoing analysis of all pieces of legislation and court rulings relevant to same-sex spousal rights.'"

Incernationally. Denmark was the first country to bring a resistered partnership law into effect. Since October 1989. Danish same-sex couples have had marriase rights similar to opposite-sex couples, including immigration. The former, however, are not permitted to marry in the church or adopt children." Norway passed similar legislation in April 1993, making it possible for lesbians and gay men to register their relationships with a notary public. As in

Denmark. same-sex couples are denied adoption rights and church weddins ceremonies.'' In

February 1993 the Greenland Parliament adopted the Danish registered partnership law? In 163 June of that same year the Swedish government enacted a piece of legislation regarding same-sex couples similar to Denmark and Noway. However. in addition to not being allowed to legally adopt children or marry in the church. lesbians and gay men are prohibited from employing arriticial insemination to conceive children in Sweden.--..

During this same time period. a few jurisdictions world-wide recognized same-ses relationships in a more limited fashion. Same-sex partner registration was permitted in San

Francisco (199 1)," Washington, D.C. (1992),'6 and Sacramento (1992).'? In 1991, the t\ustralian government granted recocgnition to lesbian and say couples as "relationships of emotional dependency." AIthough the law fell short of equality with heterosexual couples. spousal status was extended to same-sex partners trying to immigrate into the country.:' Neu.

Zealand also opened its doors to lesbian and gay partner immigration in 199 1. with the caveat that the relationship be at least four years old." Two years later the Hawaii Supreme Coun ruled in the 1993 case of Baelzr el al. v. Lervirz that the denial of marriage licenses to lesbian and -cay couples was discriminatory." In 1967 then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a bill to repeal the provisions in the Criminal Code that made private homosexual acts illegal for two consenting adults over the age of twenty-one." The man who would become the next Prime Minister of Canada declared that "the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."" Two decades later same-sex relationships were still not legally recognized anywhere in Canada.j3 However. sexual orientation came to be considered a prohibited ground of discrimination in terms of the Cmudinn

Hrrnzan Righrs Acr (CHRA).w Sexual orientation aIso came to be interpreted as an analogous ground of discrimination in section 15 of the 1984 Canadian Chaner of Righrs and Freedoms

(CCRF or "the Charter")." Moreover, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was 164 prohibited by provincial Mtrnan Rights Acfs (HEW)% in Quebec ( 1977). Ontario (1986).

Manitoba (1987), the Yukon Territory (1987). Nova Scotia ( 1991). New Brunswick ( 1992).

British Columbia (1992). and Saskatchewan (1993).j7 The governments of Ontario and the

Yukon Territory extended same-sex spousal benefits to public employees in 1990." Other jurisdictions followed suit. inchdins Toronto (1990). Vancouver (1990). Ottawa-Carleton (1992).

Metropolitan Toronto (1992). and New Brunswick (1993).''

Two of the most important early federal challenges to the definition of "spouse" were not ultimately successful in a narrow sense. although they each have wider ramitications. The first such case to be taken to the was Mossop ry. Canada (Secreran of

Srare). Brian Mossop. a federal employee, was denied bereavement leave in 1985 to attend the funeral of his male partner's father." He argued that he was pan of a "family" and thus entitled to spousal benefits." Although in 1989 the Canadian Human Rights Commission ruled in favour of Mossop's claim. the decision was overturned." Mossop lost his case at. t'irst. the Federal

Court of Appeal (1990) and. then. the Supreme Court ( 1993)."

In Ega!r v. Canada, two gay men who had been live-in partners for over fony years challenged the heterosexual definition of "spouse" in the Old Age Security Act in order to obtsin pension benetits." The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled asainst and John

Nesbit in 1991 as did the federal Court of Appeal two years later." The Supreme Court upheld these earlier decisions in 1995. while at the same time aftinning both that "sexual orientation" is a protected analogous ground under section 15 of the Charter. and that this protection extends to same-sex partnerships." I will return to this complex case. which has profound implications for same-sex spousal recognition, in my discussion of the events following the defeat of Bill

167 ." 165 As noted above. Ontario was the second province in Canada to offer protection on the

basis of sexual orientation. In 1986 the Onrario Human Righrs Code (HRC) was amended by ths

Eqrtalizy Rigirrs Arrtendrnent Act. known as Bill 7." However. we still do not have

thoroughgoing LegisIative recognition of same-sex relationships. We have instead "a crazy quilt

of rights and obligations for say men and lesbians" as the definition of "spouse" is contested in

the courts." Karen Andrews. a library worker. launched one of the first such challenges in

Ontario in 1985? With the support of the Canadian Union of Public Empioyees (CUPE).

Andrews attempted to have her health coverage extended to her partner and their children.

Although heterosexual couples were entitled to this benefit. Andrew 1.. Onmrio (Ministn of

Hralrh) was lost in 1988." Andrews continued to fight for same-sex spousal benetllts until 199 1.

invoking the now well-worn slogan "We Are Family" to raise funds for her campaign.''

The Ontario HRC once referred exclusively to "persons of the opposite sex." although the document had been expanded to encompass opposite-sex common-law couples in addition to

those who were married." In 1988 Michael Leshner. a gay male lawyer. charsed that section

1 O(1) of the Ontario HRC was discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation. Four years later an OHR Commission's Board of Inquiry found in the case of Leshner v. Onrario that section

lO(1) was inconsistent with section 15 of the Charter, and awarded Leshner full spousal beneflt~.~'As a result lesbian and gay partners in this province. who are not permitted to marry. are no longer excluded from the HRC's definition of "conjugal relationship."" Moreover.

"[glay and lesbian relationships must be treated as equal in status to heterosexual unions. "'"This

1992 decision was interpreted by the Attorney General (AG), Howard Harnpton. as applying only to the public sector." The next year the new AG (Marion Boyd) intervened in the same-sex spousal support case of M v. H to argue that the Ontario (FLA) was 166 discriminatory.'? will revisit this case which was settled. and then challenged. after the demise

of the ONDP's same-sex spousal recognition legislation.

The Seeds of Bill 167

On September 6. 1990. the ONDP. led by Bob Rae. unexpectedly won seventy-four seats

in the provincial election.") Reflecting back on election day. Rae wrote that he. together with family and friends. "watched the results with a _gidd>#sense of disbelief.""' As an NDP member and supporter. I was thrilIed by this news."' (I had in fact campaigned in for

Boyd, director of a feminist agency serving battered women. who defeated former Premier David

Peterson in this election.) Unlike right-of-centre parties such as the Progressive Conservatives

(PC. Tories) or the Reform Party (Reform). or even more moderate parties such as the Liberals

(LP). the NDP has traditionally been committed to defending minority interests. As a woman and a feminist I was particularly attracted to the pro-choice stance of the ONDP. as \veil as the party's belief in employment equity. As a bisexual. the ONDP seemed like the best (it' not only) hope for queer rights and same-sex relationship recognition.

The ONDP formed its first ever majority government in this province on October 1,

1990. Four years earlier the ONDP had played a key role in adding srxual orientation as a protected ground of discrimination to the list of amendments of the Ontario HRC. and had exerted pressure on the minority Liberal government to pass Bill 7."' At that time Evelyn

Gigantes persuaded the ONDP caucus to include sexual orientation in the list of amendments put forth by AG Ian S~ott."~Thus in 1986 the Ontario HRC was amended, opening the doors to the recognition of same-sex relationships." According to Rae, the intent of the amendment was never to provide lesbians and gay men with a springboard for legal challenges to the definition of "spouse." Rather. the issue was simply "the rights of gays and lesbians to be able to live free 167 from interference. "* In his 1996 publication From Proresr ro Power. Rae insinuates that he was not pleased with the shift from "privacy" to "acceptance."" Nor, he writes, was the caucus of the newly-formed government prepared to deal with this change in dire~tion.~'

Ready or not. CLGRO had already identified relationship reco~nitionas n priority for lesbians and gay men in Ontario by the time the ONDP came to power." The lesbian and gay umbrella group. that had campaigned from 1975 to 1986 to add sexual orientation to the provincial HRC, wanted the government to move on same-sex spousal rights. In August 1989

CLGRO hosted a conference in Toronto. "On Our Own Terms. "" The Statement of Principle which was adopted. after much debate. read as such:

All people, regardless of sexual orientation. have the right to determine for themselves their primary personal relationships and to have these relationships supported and recognized in law and by social institutions.'"

This conference also resulted in the formation of the Working Group on Relationship Recognition

(WGRR)." The mandate of WGRR was to provide education. and lobby the government, on the issue of same-sex spousal rights. For the next two years a group of six lawyers scrutinized provincial documents and determined that seventy-nine laws discriminated asainst same-sex partners. .~'

The new ONDP government extended same-sex spousal benefits (with the exception of survivor pensions) to all provincial public service employees in December 1990.- Frances

Lankin. who was then chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. took the lead on this initiative. She further stated that: "The principle that all of Ontario laws and programmes must treat people fairly regardless of their personal relationships or their famity unit is the major consideration of these changes. "" Lankin's declaration was "seen as a sign of the government's commitment. "" The ONDP also announced that it was going to review all provincial legislation pertaining to same-sex relationship^.'^ 168 However. Rae maintains that Lankin merely "made a quick regulatory amendment" to the - employee benefit package. ' He asserts. moreover. that the cabinet wanted the issue of same-sex spousal recognition to be carefully examined before considering action. From the Premier's perspective, he and the AG agreed that the caucus did not wish to pursue le_gislation at this time." Looking back. Rae writes that "[mly own hope was that enough cases would work their u-ay through the courts that opinion in the caucus and the province would move."" And yet. in March of the next year. the ONDP unanimously adopted a resolution in support ot same-sex families at its provincial convention. recognizing "the relationships and families of lesbian and gay men.. .as equal and equivalent to heterosexual couples. ""' According to Rayside. this 199 I statement "largely reflected the gay and lesbian activist agenda. ''''

While I concur that the goal of many queer community leaders was this type of lesitimation. the CLGRO conference on relationship recognition demonstrated that there was no easy consensus on this issue amongst lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people."

This discord will be fleshed out in the next chapter. The ONDP also promised at this time that it would make changes to the Ontario HRC. as well as other relevant laws and policies. Lankin once again played an important role in instigating these changes.83Ministers from the Premier's

Office and the Ministries of the AG and Citizenship held private meetings with the Lesbian. Gay.

BisexuaI Committee of the ONDP (LGBC). in which they insinuated that legislation would be introduced shortly." In contrast to Rae's comment above. Bill Dwyer. LGBC co-chair at the time, is quoted as saying that " led us to believe he would push the issue in caucus and at [Cabinet's] Policy and Priorities Committee.. .. ""S

But when the ONDP seemed to be stalling. groups. such as CLGRO and the LGBC. stepped up their efforts to lobby the government. The brief entitled "Happy Families: The

Recognition of Same-Sex Spousal Relationships. " prepared by CLGRO's WGRR, was delivered 169 to every member of the Ontario legislature in 1992." This document contains CLGRO's revised

1990 Statement of Principle which, even more than the earlier declaration. attempts to balance an anti-assimilationist thrust with a demand for legal equality:

CLGRO believes that, while our preference would be that benefits be made available on an individual basis (with allowances for the dependence of children. the aged. and the disabled). whenever benefits are made available to heterosexuals livinz in [sic] couples. these same benefits must also be made available to same- sex couples on the same footingsi

"Happy Families" also lists all of the provincial starutes which discriminate against same-sex relationships. and includes thirty-five recommendations for change. Significantly. CLGRO suggested both that the definition of "spouse" and "marital status" in the OHRC be amended to include same-sex partnerships. and that the government institute an optional system of relationship desi_gnation."

That same year two different occurrences served to put same-sex spousal rights in the public eye." Firstly. the struggle for same-sex spousai benefits by employees of the municipality of Ibletropolitan Toronto was gaining nlornentum. Well-known Toronto queer activists. such as

Bill Dwyer. Bob Gnllagher. and Mary-Woo Simms. had filed complaints of discrimination with the Ontario HRC.w All three later became pivotal in the lobby for Bill 167: Dwyer through the

LGBC and Gallagher and Simms through the CEF. Secondly, the ONDP amounced that it would not appeal the judgement of an OHR Commission's Board of Inquiry in the Leshner decision.

"effectively stating its agreement in principle with the concept of recognition of [same-sex1 partners. ""I

At the ONDP Convention in June 1992, AG Hampton reiterated the commitment of the government to move on same-sex relationship recognition." Lnter that month, over 5000 pink postcards. demanding that Rae enact same-sex partnership legislation. were collected on Pride

Day in Toronto." I was at this celebration. and remember signing a card. This was the first 170 time that I realized that same-sex spousal rights might actually become a reality in Ontario. As

I had just embarked upon my first serious relationship with a woman. such legislation had become personally as well as politically important to me. Back then I was relatively uncritical of same-sex spousal recognition. Rather. this struggle seemed revolutionary. That fall the pink postcards, numbering more than 7,000, were deIivered to the Premier at Queen's Park."

In the winter of 1992 Ian Scott. MPP for St. George-St. David. resigned. This riding encompasses the area. commonly known as Toronto's "say ghetto.""

Unwilling to wait any longer for the government to make a tirm commitment to same-sex spousal recognition. the ONDP Riding Association (RA)in this area refused to elect a candidate for the by-election. The goal of the RA was to force Rae into announcing a timetable for proposed legislation. Bob Gallagher. who was at that time working for an NDP councillor. resigned his position as an executive member of the RA to take a lead role in this car.?paign which was supported by the LGBC. He recounts that some members of the ONDP were opposed to this course of action on the grounds that it would hurt not just the government. but also the party as a whole.

However. Gallagher maintains that without the attention which the RA drew to the delays

in announcing Iegislation. " [Bill] 167 would never have been introduced. " Although the Ontario office of the NDP appointed a candidate over the objections of the St. George-St. David RA. the attempted sabotage of the by-election was an important factor in the government's decision to move ahead with a bill.* The ONDP had to take action on same-sex spousal recognition, or risk losing support. Furthermore, the RA's refusal to nominate a candidate in order to make a point opened a space for the other political parties. In his account of the by-election in St. George-St.

David, Rae glosses over this event. He writes only that "[wle paid a political price for the delay in calling a by-election in the riding of St. George-St. David. "* 171 In order to gain the backing of queer communities. the Liberal candidate. Tim Murphy.

said that he would introduce a Private Member's bill on same-sex spousal recognition.* He

emphasized that the Liberals were prepared to do what the ONDP had failed to do. namely move

forward on same-sex relationship legislation. The Liberal leader and Leader of the Opposition

Lyn McLeod publicly supported this commitment. In fact. McLeod challenged the OSDP LO move on same-sex spousal rights legislation. and promised her support- Accordins to Susan

Ursel, this "[set] in motion the series of events which lead to the introduction of Bill 167. ""

I would argue that both the refusal of the RA to nominate a candidate. and the actions of the

Liberals. were important occurrences which helped put pressure on the government to introduce legislation. All in all, the by-election in the riding of St. George-St. David can be regarded as a turning point in the political history of same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario.

The Introduction of Bill 167

Prior to the by-election. ~VcLeodhad written a letter to the AG "askins for action on the sovernrnent's review of all provincial policies and laws that contain a definition of 'spouse.' with a view to possible reform."!"' On March 9. 1993. McLeod sent another letter to Premier Rae:

"I am writing to urge your government to act on the issue of the extension of family and survivor benetits to same-sex couples and the CLGRO brief."'"' Rae claims that he held on to this note in the belief that the Liberal caucus would help to pass same-sex spousal recopition legislation when it was introduced by the ONDP.'"' By this time the Premier had appointed a group to work on same-sex spousal recognition reforms. which conducted a series of "eleventh hour" meetings with activists. Ursel notes that Rae himself was not involved with these discussions and in fact refused to meet with queer groups outside of the party. '03 Despite a clear message from the LGBC that a compromise package was not acceptable. the result was an options paper for the inner cabinet recommending a bill that was limited to employee benetits.""

Tom Warner. a spokesperson for CLGRO and later Co-Chair of the CEF. emphasized that the lack of communication between the government and community activist groups was a pr~blem.'~He told me that while CLGRO members met with individual Cabinet Ministers such as Boyd and Lankin. the ONDP preferred to deal only with the LGBC. "We provided them with a copy of the brief ['Happy Families']," Warner said. "but they did not work with us or consult with us in terms of what should be in the bill." McLeod had met with CLGRO late in 1992. and. according to Warner. had not seemed very encouraging regarding same-sex spousal legislation.

But on March 24, 1993 McLeod wrote to Nick Mule of CLGRO clarifying that both she and

~Murphywanted "the extension of family and survivor benefits to same-sex couples. " ""

The Liberal leader continued to state her support:

Let me be clear. We must end discrimination against lesbians and gays. Your brief to the Legislature, 'Happy Families,' makes that clear. It is my belief that human rights should not be up for negotiation and that Ontario legislation should be made consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I";

McLeod concluded this missive with these words: "I share your community's anger with the continued inaction of Premier Bob Rae and the continued discriminatory position of the Ontario

Progressive Conservative part^.""^ Similarly Nancy Jackman. a Conservative and an our lesbian, campaisned in this by-election with the assurance that the Tory party was committed to same-sex spousal recognition. Jackman is quoted as saying that "My leader, Mike Harris. is encouraging me to work to redefine the term 'spouse' in all le_gislation."Iw

According to Munter. a planned boycott of the by-election by lesbians and gay men failed when some high-profile CLGRO activists threw their support behind the Liberal candidate.""

Despite the fact that Rae promised to introduce legislation at Provincial Council just prior to the 173 by-election. Murphy won the seat in St. Georze St.-St. David on April 1. 1993.'" However.

his bill (Bill 45). introduced two months later in June 1993. turned out to be limited to amending

the definition of "marital status" in the Ontario HRC. "Murphy's Law." as it was dubbed. in fact overlapped with the gains already made by the Leshner decision. and left the heterosexual definition of the term "spouse" untouched."' In the ha1 analysis the Liberal Private kIrmber1s bill would have affected only one of the over seventy discriminatory pieces of Iegislarion identified by CLGRO in the "Happy Families" brief."'

In spite of the shortcomings of this bill. the ONDP surprised the Liberals (many of whom were by this point attempting to distance themselves from the issue) by voting the proposed legislation through second reading on June 24. 1993."' This development "energized the

Christian right,"''5 Letters and petitims were sent to Queen's Park by people who did not approve of a redefinition of "marital status." This was only the beginning of what would evolve into a massive and well-orchestrated protest by religious leaders and parishioners. When I interviewed them. Sky Gilbert and Warner each expressed concern regarding the intluence of relisious factions. If Bill 45 signalled a dent in the institution of "the family." Bill 167 was perceived by the right as an all-out demolition.

Earlier in 1993, there had been a Cabinet shuffle and Boyd had been named AG. As Rae so diplomatically describes the move: "an advocate for change replaced a competent and savvy political manager, Howard Hampton.""" To lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and other queer people, the appointment of Boyd was a hopeful sign. Unlike the former AG. she was well-known as a supporter of same-sex spousal rights. Moreover. there was some feeling. as Kathryn Payne put it. that "Marion Boyd was.. .a 'big closet lesbian' and that in bringing the bill forward. in doing what she did around it. she was sort of redeeming herself to a cenain degree.""' At

Pride Day in late June 1993. Boyd publicly assured queers that she was committed to bringins 174 forward same-sex spousal recognition legislation. During private meetings with the LGBC Boyd said that she plamed to use the public consultations on Bill 45 to introduce more thoroughgoing legislation. ""1 though there was clearly opposition within the ONDP caucus. Ray side maintains that the Premier seemed somewhat supportive of Boyd. "'

Community activists continued throughout this time to put pressure on the ONDP to introduce an omnibus bill. In early August 1993 CLGRO produced a package of materials designed to rally queers outside of Toronto. "The CLGRO Relationship Recognition Lobbying

Kit" contained such items as a Iist of resource people. a critique of Bill 45. a summary of the

"Happy Families" report, a report on the issue of same-sex spousal rights in Ontario. sample letters to Cabinet Ministers and MPPs. and a petition to the Provincial Parliament.'" By

September 2.500 packages were sent to various Iocations across Ontario.'"

The government had promised same-sex spousal recognition legislation at even meeting of Provincial Council that year (March. June. and November 1993). Moreover. the AG had reiterated her commitment to this issue on a number of other occasions.''' And in May the

ONDP had asked the Ontario Law Reform Commission (OLRC) to examine the FLA. and assess whether or not same-sex couples should be included in this ~tatute.~Then. in August 1993.

Boyd announced that she would introduce legislation during the fall session. However. just before the Christmas break. the Liberals requested that Bill 45 be removed from the agenda and the government cancelled the hearings."' This dashed Boyd's hopes of launching her own legislation during the debate over Murphy's bill.

In February of the next year CLGRO held a sit-in at the Premier's office. demanding to know when legislation would be introduced. The ONDP responded by announcing that a bill would be brought fonvard in the spring. However. the government would not elaborate on the parameters of this bill.'" Likewise. Boyd refused on two occasions that month to meet with 175 CLGRO to discuss the specifics of the proposed legislation. She also declined an interview with

Xtra!? Later that month the ONDP caucus held a retreat. The decision to introduce some sort of legislation on same-sex spousal recognition passed by a margin of only one vote on February

27. 1994.'' A few days later Boyd publicly announced that the government would be moving bnvard on this matter.'"

In early March another by-election was called in the northern riding of Victoria-

Halibunon. In contrast to the earlier campaign in St. -George-St. David, where all three parties embraced the discourse of same-sex spousal rights, the 1994 by-election was marked by blatant homophobia. The PC candidate. Chris Hod_gson. emphasized that he was opposed to same-sex spousal benetits which would "increase the cost of doins business in Ontario and drive jobs away. "I2' Hodgson successfully played on the fear that the Toronto by-election had stirred up. namely that the so-called "traditional family" was threatened. When the Tories won the seat in

Victoria-HaIiburton on a "family values" platform, Rae correctly surmised that "McLeod's letter was dead almost as soon as it was ~ritten."'~

The events surrounding this by-election served as a harsh reminder to politicians that same-sex benefits and relationship rights were volatile topics.'-ll Despite this. Boyd told her colleagues at the March provincial council meeting that she wished to proceed with thoroughgoing same-sex spousal recognition legislation. At this time she also raised the possibility of a "free vote." much to the astonishment of queer activists. "' (A free or open vote means that an MPP is not required to adhere to her or his party policy. but may vote according to her or his own conscience.) Rae writes that he supported Boyd. but "knew we would face a hard political battle. both inside the caucus and in the province."'33 He recounts that relationship recognition caused "extraordinary resentment, " as many members of the ONDP did 176 not view this issue as a priority. especially with an election looming in the future."" .Moreover. there was a great deal of tension in the caucus regarding how far such legislation should go.

On April 26 MPPs were presented with three different options to choose from in regard to same-sex spousal legislation. The packages ranged from minimal benefits to comprehensive recognition of same-sex families. 13' Acknow Iedging that the government was divided. the

Premier indicated for the tirst time that he looked favourably on the idea of a free vote?

Accordins to Rae. Boyd insisted that the vote on same-sex spousal recognition legislation be open because it was such a controversial topic (especially for peopie with religious objections). He maintains that while this proposal was helpful in some respects. it also "ended up aIlowing a

bitter and divisive public debate. " 13' Commenting on what Rae wrote. Gallagher insisted that

"none of the insiders I've ever heard ever have blamed Marion Boyd for wanting a free vote."

He felt that either Rae or was behind that decision. Rayside contends that the free vote was "a critical trade-off in getting caucus go-ahead f~rthe package. ":'"

On May 10. 1994. the caucus narrowly approved the most extensive package of rishts. an omnibus For almost four years the government had been assuring queer activists that it would take action on same-sex spousal recognition. "Despite its 1990 promise to eliminate statutory discrimination aginst lesbian and gay families. " Munter writes. "the government was clearly having great difficulty mustering up the courage to move fonvard on this issue-"'"'

Finally. in early May, Boyd announced that she would introduce legislation aimed at recognizins same-sex partners and their children as "family." This was to be. as the AG put it, the "jewel in her crown. " "' Although she knew that it would not be easy to pass sweeping same-sex spousal recognition legislation, Boyd was confident that enough poiiticians would vote in favour of the bill. Interestingly, she also verbalized concern at this time that activists were not doing enough to rally support."' 177 In the mid-1990s many queers. as we have seen. had been pressing for an overhaul of

laws pertaining to same-sex couples for some time. And as Rayside points out. activists were

mainly in agreement regarding strategies and pri~rities."~However. as I will go on to demonstrate. there were lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people who remained critical of the extension of spousal status. -Moreover the courts. as well as various human rights bodies. were advancing the rights of same-sex partners who souzht litigation.." Although there had been some setbacks, judicial bodies were predominantly supportive of equality rights for same-sex couples. And finally Ontarions. as opinion polls indicated, were generally accepting of same-sex spousal recopition."' Voices of dissent were few. There were rumblings from fundamentalist factions and other detractors. as evidenced during the progress of Bill 45 and the

Victoria-Haliburton by-election. but the right had yet to really mobilize around this issue.

First Reading

On lMay 19. 1994. AG and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues Marion Boyd introduced omnibus legislation to extend same-sex spousal recognition in the form of BiII 167

(the Eqrtali~Rights Stafirre Antendmenf Law) for first reading. '" This le@slation proposed to give same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as common-law heterosexual couples by redefinins the term "spouse" in fitiy-seven pieces of legislation. including the Ontario

HRA and the FLA."' As the explanatory note reads: "The Bill provides for the extension of rights and obligations to same-sex spouses in the same manner as Ontario statutes provide for the rishts and obligations of opposite-sex spouses who are not married.""' In the end. the ONDP government opted to correct most, but not all, of the seventy-nine discriminatory laws identified by CLGRO in the 1992 "Happy Families" brief.'" Nonetheless. Bill 167 would have amended 178 some of the most important (and controversial) statutes including those regulating adoption.

spousal pension benetlts. and tax benefits. lso

Prior to the introduction of Bill 167. the OLRC had released its findings pertaining to

"the discrimination inherent in Ontario law which fails to recognize gay and lesbian citizens. their partners and their families. "I5' According to Cossman who, together with Ryder. wrote the background report for the OLRC study. the ONDP amendments in no way reflected the

OLRC recommendations.'" In their research paper Cossman and Ryder attempted. like

CLGRO, to balance the concerns of queers critical of emulating heterosexual relationships and the desire of lesbians. gay men, bisexuals. and transgendered people to have their relationships officially recognized. I concur with them that it is crucial to simultaneously deconstruct the concept of "family" and permit queers to claim family status.'53This is particularly important from a race-critical perspective. M. for instance. criticized Bill 167 for being grounded in a white. middle-class. heterosexual model of family.

To this end Cossman and Ryder advised the OLRC to include same-sex couples in the

FLA mainly through contract and registered . Spousal status. albeit redefined. would only be conferred upon partners of the same sex in regard to division of property and the matrimonial home.'" Although the fina1 report of the OLRC did not capture all of the complexities raised by Cossman and Ryder. many of their suggestions were taken into acc~unt.'~jLike Cossman and Ryder. the OLRC felt that same-sex relationship recognition should be primarily of a voluntary nature. Furthermore, the OLRC advocated that spousal status not be ascribed at all untiI further consultations were conducted with "the gay and lesbian community. "!5Thisis noteworthy in light of Rayside's relatively uncritical acceptance of the redefinition of "spouse" to include same-sex partners. Although he did conduct extensive 179 interviews with queer activists. his discussions were mainly 1 imited to white middle-class gay men involved in governmental politics.

Ultimately the AG rejected all of the recommendations of the OLRC in favour of a model of formal eq~ality.'~'In doing so the ONDP government indicated that it was not interested in either feminist critiques of "family" as inherently patriarchal or queer anti-assirnilationist arguments. Had Bill 167 been enacted. same-sex couples would have become "spouses" just like unmarried opposite-sex couples (who themselves are becoming more like married "spouses" in

a legal sense).'jY regardless of personal choice. ''' Political theorists such as Rayside proffer that the legislature is not the place for ideological complexities. Similarly Chris Phibbs told me that "you have to start with something that you think you can get passed. and then you deal with the fall-out. or adding to it. or amendments afterword." It is certainly true that in 1991 pol it icians had enough trouble grappling with the relatively straightforward idea of removing discrimination against same-sex relationships. Nonetheless. as Cossman. Ryder, and the OLRC. as well as activist groups like CLGRO demonstrate. there are a number of ways to recognize same-sex couples other than emulating the heterosexual family.

But during its term in office. the ONDP consistently measured same-sex spousal rights against a heterosexual standard. More nuanced visions of equality as "different but equal " were eclipsed by a less complicated notion of "the same as. "I" Not surprisingly then. strict equality rights were promoted by the government (and a few other supportive politicians) durins the debates over Bill 167. Proponents of the proposed legislation limited their discussion to liberal notions of justice, fairness, and human rights. Rarely did they address the concept of "family." except to distance the amendments from this terrain. In contrast. opponents of the bill framed their arguments in terms of a defence of "the :raditional family. " A redefinition of spouse. from this perspective. signalled an attack on heterosexual. nuclear families. Critics of the legislation 180 avoided discussion of rights as much as possible. Hence a restrictive discourse of "equality" was

pitted against an equally limited discourse of "family. "

This dichotomy framed the debates over same-sex relationship recognition both within and

without the Ontario legislature. One of the main areas of concern, as Ursel points out. revolved

around the sanctity of heterosexual mamage. Many people felt that Bill 167 threatened this

institution. despite the fact that legal matrimony. being primarily a federal matter. was never on

the agenda? Contractual rights. especially in regard to employment benefits. were (and still

are) the least controversial topic aspect of same-sex rights. Many people can grasp the unfairness

of paying into a plan which cannot be fully accessed.IQ Likewise. the general (heterosexual)

pubiic seemed in the mid-1990s willing to accept limited rights for lesbian and gay partners in

specific areas such as health care.'" However. support for same-sex relationship recognition

declined when a redefinition of "spouse" was proposed. The feelings of detractors ranged from

ambivalence to outright hostility. "Nowhere is the unresolved nature of the recognition of lesbian

and gay humanity clearer." Ursel writes. "than in the current controversies over marriage and

children. "'"

AcknowIedging that same-sex couples being accorded family status was a sensitive area.

Boyd sought to appease members of the provincial legislature after she moved tirst reading of

Bill 167. The AG immediately emphasized that the proposed legislation was pan of a "long.

progressive tradition in the field of human rights" in Ontario.'* Extending "basic human rights"

to cohabitating same-sex couples, she continued. was the "next Iogical step. "'" Significantly.

Boyd followed up this statement by declaring that the amendments to the term "spouse" would

not "change the special status in our traditions and laws regarding marriage. "'"'

Despite these conciliatory words, Bill 167 passed through first reading with a free vote by only five votes on May 19, 1994.1M This is unusual, as bills rarely come close to being 1S 1 defeated on first reading unless they are especially contentious. Rather. it is customary to vote legislation through at this stase so that it may be fhrther debated. That Bill 167 almost did not -onrner enough support on first reading did not bode well for the future of same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario. Queer activists expressed mixed opinions on the matter of the open vote.

Many voiced their concern that the proposed same-sex recognition legislation would be lost if the government allowed an open vote.'" As Laverne Monette put it: "We knew as soon as it was a free vote that it was toast." By contrast, Franco justified the choice to have a free vote by citing the strength of the opposition and McLeodls promises. And Alison Kemper still held out hope that Bill 167 would pass. despite the open vote in the Iqislature.

-Mike Harris. leader of the Conservative Party (and Rae's successor). was clearly opposed to lesbian and gay rights in general and same-sex spousal rights in particular. Despite the campaign promises which Jackrnan made during the St. George-St. David by-election. Harris referred to the proposed amendments as "very offensive. "lX (Jackman later defended Harris. explaining that he never said he would lobby caucus for her.)"' The Tory MPPs unanimousIy opposed the legislation. Moreover. when Boyd announced that Bill 167 would move fonvard.

Liberal leader Lyn McLeod immediately withdrew her support. She is quoted as saying that "this bill goes beyond what the people of Ontario are prepared to accept and it goes beyond what I am personally prepared to accept. My position on this has been clear for more than a year. "'"

In fact. just a Iittle over a year prior to tirst reading .McLeod had been an outspoken advocate of same-sex spousal rights. "' Finally. Premier Bob Rae did not actively promote Bill 167. (And

George Marnmoliti, an ONDP backbencher, worked within the government to defeat the bi11.y~~

The final tally after the vote on first reading was tifty-seven to fifty-two, with twenty of the one-hundred and thirty MPPs absent, includin,o Rae (York South).'" Ten members of the 182 government. including two Cabinet Ministers. voted against their own party's bill. '" The b government whip. (Frontenac-Addington). did not vote.'- McLeod (Fort William) was also not in attendance for first reading of Bill 167. and most of her party voted against the

ONDP bill. None of !he Tories supported the proposed legislation. and Harris (Nipissing) was the only leader present for first reading. He in fact flew back from a meetins in Ottawa specifically to register his objection to Bill 167. Harrisf presence sent a strong message. as did

McLeod' s and the Premier' s absence. "'

Second Reading

On June 1. 1994. Boyd moved second reading of Bill 167. Again she emphasized how the proposed legislation fit in with the province's "leadership in the development of human rights legi>lation."" She cited the OHRC. as well as pay and employment equity. by way of esample. Moreover, the AG referenced case Iaw in the area of same-sex spousal recognition.."

It is the responsibility of the government and not the judiciary, she asserted. to bring Ontario statutes in Iine with the Charter.''' In a lengthy speech. Boyd proceeded to outline the specific aims and limitations of Bill 167. The proposed legislation would amend the provincial HRC to prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples and change relevant Ontario laws to make them

consistent with basic human rights as embodied by the 0HRC.'s2 Bill 167 would not, Boyd re-stated. "redefine or affect the institution of n~arriage.f"n3

Nor would it create a "right to adopt children," "impose significant costs. " or "take away rights from anyone else."'" The AG went on to discuss the many changes which have occurred in the composition of families in this province over the last two decades. She said that despite the fact that the ideal of the "traditional family" remains strong. the reality is that many Ontario families are now blended. headed by single parents, and comprised of common-law heterosexual couples. !83 In fact. the most well-known fictional Canadian family. namely AM^ Shirley and Matthew and

Marilla Cuthbert, is composed of a sister and brother and an adopted child? "Bill 167," Boyd declared. "respects the rights of individuals to make their own choices about their personal

relationships and ensures continuing support for Ontario's famiiies in all their diverse forms. "!"

Thus on second reading the AG reiterated that the proposed legislation was about equality

richts.b and then proceeded to put forth a liberal analysis of "family" which highlighted choice. diversity. and relationships of care. Despite the feminist components of this argument. Boyd carefully avoided critiquing the "family." Instead she underscored the desirability of this institution, and stressed that same-sex couples and their children simply wanted to be included.

This demand. as we saw in the last chapter. is complicated. Expanding the boundaries of

"family" can have the effect of both normalizin,o queers and challenging heterosexual norms.

After Boyd finished speaking, the Liberal Leader was the first to state her objections to Bill 167.

McLeod's main concern was that the bill would change the meaning of "spouse" and hence

"family." Although she remained open to same-sex benefits as summarized in Bill 45. McLeod drew the line at allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.'" And so began the legislative debate on Bill 167 which took place on June 1. 2. 6. and 9. 1994.

My analysis of the record of this debate is that supporters of same-sex spousal recognition legislation were not able to overcome the fear expressed in the legislature in regard to the redefinition of "family. " Rational. tegalistic discussions of "equality" and "human rights" fell flat. as did factual accounts of the changing nature of families. Instead emotional appeals to the sanctity of "the family" and the protection of children caught the attention of the majority of the politicians (and their constituents). Opinions expressed by opponents of Bill 167 ranged from heterosexist assumptions to outright homophobia.'" Marnmoliti of the ONDP was the worst in 181 this respect. at points resonins to graphic (and skewed) accounts of queer community and

sexuality. !'"

According to Ross. after first reading: "the debate in and outside the legislature whipped

up considerable moral anxiety about the stability of 'the family.'"'*' This sense of uneasiness

was fuelled most notably by the aggressive actions of the Roman Catholic (RC) church. Almost as soon as Bill 167 made it through the tirst legislative hurdle. Aloysius Ambrozic- the RC

Archbishop of Toronto. publicly condemned same-sex spousal rights.'" He sent a letter to over two hundred parishes. representing about one million parishioners. instructing Catholics to write letters to Queen's Park denouncing Bill 167. In Ambrozic's words: "Any attempt to promote a

homosexual lifestyle as the equivalent of legal marriage must be vigorously opposed. "Iw Of course. the ONDP bill sought to give same-sex couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex cotntnon-hrv cortples. not heterosexual married couples. But the be1 ief that marriage (along with "the family" and civilized society) was under attack was made prevalent at this time. especially in more rural areas.;" This misconception played nicely into the hands of the religious right.

On May 24. 1993. tive days after the first reading of Bill 167. the CEF (Campaign for

Equal Families) was formed in Toronto.'" The name of the group is signiticant as it held a direct challenge to the right's claim on "the family, " an area which feminists have been reluctant to enter, with an emphasis on equality rights. In this way it could be argued that the discursive construction of the title served to disrupt the restrictive "familyw-"equality"binarism which had emerged in the Iegislative debates. Of course. it could also be asserted that the pursuit of "equal families" was inherently assimilationist and signalled an uncritical acceptance of heterosexual norms. Gallagher. Co-ordinator of the CEF, rejects this interpretation. Rather. he argued. taking on "the terrain of family" was a radical. and necessary, strategy. 185 The mandate of the CEF, which included members from CLGRO and the LGBC. was to lobby the government to ensure the passage of same-sex spousal recopition legi~lation.'~

"Thus besan the most intensive and well publicized lobbying and media effon that Queen's

Park.. .had ever seen. The campaign garnered attention and respect on an international scale. " '"

Quickly raising funds. the CEF set up on office in Toronto's gay ghetto. Four full-time employees were hired to coordinate activities. and hundreds of volunteers signed up to help.

"Within a few weeks," Rayside writes, "they were able to trigger visible suppon for Bill 167 from a number of groups and mobilize over twenty thousand supportive letters. "I*

My former partner Lisa Jeffs was one of the four staff members at the CEF. I volunteered my time. and would often drop by the office to see what was soing on. The CEF "headquarters" was a very busy place. with people talkins on the phone. following the news. planning actions. making signs, etc. What I recall most clearly was the high energy which marked the campaign. especially in its early stages. (Everything had to be done yesterday!) It felt like we were making history. If Bill 167 was passed. all of our lives would change. Meanwhile. we were up against some weighty opponents. Across the province lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people tried to persuade their MPPs to support the proposed legislation. This called for a great deal of courage, particularly in smaller communities. I do not remember being critical of the goals of the campaign, nor do recollect anyone else expressing divergent views. However. C I I do know that I felt uncomfortabIe as a bisexual woman with the almost exclusive use of the terms

"lesbian" and "gay. " As a feminist I also had some qualms regarding the deployment of "family" discourse.

While the Christian right wing mounted their (very successful and well-organized) "family values" crusade, a number of other religious organizations spoke out in favour of Bill 167.

Proponents included "Dignity, " a goup for gay and lesbian Catholics. and progressive leaders 186 from a variety of denominations including RC. Anglican. Jewish. and the United Church.""

Four-hundred clergy from across the province signed a petition endorsing relationship recognition

for same-sex couples.1w Visible backing for the proposed legislation also came from Liberals

for Equality Rights. the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers. the Children's Aid

Societies of Ontario, the Canadian Labour Congress. the Ontario Federation of Libour. the

Ontario Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. the Ontario Public Service

Employees Union. and the Canadian Automobile worker^,"^' As well. members of the National

Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Toronto Mayor's Committee on Race Relations.

the Toronto Chapter of the Chinese National Council, the Urban Alliance on Race Relations. and

the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation voiced their support. "' Finally. celebrities

such as Bruce Cockburn and Sonia Smitts spoke out in favour of the legislation.

During the course of the struggle over Bill 167. the issue of same-sex spousal recognition

appeared on almost a daily basis in the mainstream media. Rarely. if ever. had lesbians. gay

men. bisexuals. transgendered people or queer communities received this much press .:"' In my

search of national newspapers including The Toronto Srar. The Orrarva Citizen. The Kitcizener-

Wuterloo Record. The Vancorcver Sun. The Montreal Gazette. and The Ccrlga~Heraid. I found

over one-hundred entries dated between May 22. 1991 and December 19. 1996?" Tire Torolz~o

Star and The Ottawa Citizen. both inclined to be supportive of Bill 167. published the bulk of

the stories. editorials. and letters. Likewise Tire Globe and Maii covered the debate over same-

sex spousal rights from a favourable angle. The voice of opposition was represented mainly in

the right wing The Toronro Sun.'"

Reports on Bill 167 peaked. not surprisingly, in June 1994. In fact. about half of all the coverage in regard to the ONDP government's proposed legislation appeared during that one 187 month. The day the Iegislation was defeated. June 9. the bill made the front page of papers such as The Globe and Mail, The Toronto Srar. The , and The Ottarva Citizen?

Moreover. The Toronto Srar devoted a sizable section of the "Insisht" section to outlining the arguments for and against extending spousal rights to same-sex couples."" The following day

BiIl 167 was once again headline news in The Globe and ~Mnil.The Toronto Srar. The Toronro

Sun. and The Ottarva Citizen-l"'

This was. from my viewpoint, an exciting time in Ontario. As Ross puts it: "these fiercely competing positions approached the character of an informal national referendum on homosexuality. sexual liberation. and the family.. . . "-""Queers offered their energy and their time on a grand scale in Iarse cities. especially Toronto. Lesbians and gay men came out publicI), in smaller communities. Religious leaders stated their opinions on same-sex spousal recognition.

Politicians debated the ramifications of the proposed legislation. Unions and numerous other organizations took a stand on same-sex spousal rights. The media covered the issues. Straisht people argued the pros and cons of lesbian and gay families. If nothing else. rhe yneral public became aware that queer couples with children exist.

However, homophobic attitudes had solidified around the issue of adoption.''" Anxiety ran high despite the strategy of the CEF to familiarize MPPs and the general public with (white, middle-class lesbian-headed nuclear) same-sex families, and the efforts of some politicians. particularly Boyd. . and Lankin. to reason with their colleagues. In a last-ditch attempt to get Bill 167 passed on second reading. the AG suggested that she would amend the

Iegislation before third reading by removing adoption, which had become the most controversial aspect of the bill, and substituting "spouse" with "domestic partner~hip.""~Thus a mere twenty-four hours before second reading, Boyd announced that she would radically alter the 188 terms of the proposed legislation by creating a new category of relationships for same-sex

couples in order to see Bill 167 progress to public hearings.'"

This was a controversial move, to say the least. The AG was asking members of the

legislature to cast a vote not on the bill at hand, but on the promise of t'uture amendments.

Moreover. the government was going back on the commitment it had made to queers in regard to comprehensive same-sex spousal recosnition legislation. Community activists were shocked and angered. As Kemper remarked: "The big time when the communication was the most frustrating was the night or two before second reading when the NDP said maybe if we take out spouse and take out adoption. it'll pass. They said, what do you guys think? We had to get back ro them with a 'don't you dare.' We would rather have it lose than have you gut it. To say that we ivanted it the way you guys would put it forward would weaken our cause forever."

The suggested amendments were significant on many levels. For one. the offer represented an admission that the government. which could not get the support of its own MPPs, could not get Bill 167 through second reading without the help of the Liberals. McLeod had stated quite clearly that she could support neither adoption rights nor a redefinition of "spouse. "

Secondly. the replacement of the category "spouse" with that of "domestic panner" came close to the recommendations put forth by the OLRC. as well as CLGRO's position on relationship recognition (although this was not the government's intent). In effect. domestic partnership registration would have appealed to many queers who were wary of assimilationist policies. and may have garnered wider support amongst MPPs. Thirdly. the proposal to remove adoption rights from the bill had a much greater impact on queer women than men. In its bid to pass same-sex spousal legislation. the government was willing to sacrifice women and children first.

Ultimately. the gesture was all for nausht as the Liberal leader refused to budge. In fact the promise of amendments to the ONDP relationship recognition legislation did not sway 189 anyune. Rather. the government was soundly criticized for this change in tactics. On June 9.

1994. Bill 167 was defeated 68-59 on second reading. This time. only two MPPs were absent."' In the end 12 New Democrats. including two Cabinet Ministers and the government

,. . whip, voted against their own party's bill."3 Three Liberals voted in favour of Bill 167,-.- as did one Independent.'I5 All twenty-two Tories again voted against the proposed irgislation.

In total. twenty-two votes shifted from first to second reading. and not one person who opposed the bill on first reading changed her or his vote. One Independent. two Tories. three NDPs

(including the government whip). and ren Liberals (including the current leader Dalton

McGuinty) who did not vote on May 19 changed their vote to no. One Independent and one

NDP who voted no on first reading did not vote on June 9. One Liberai changed his vote from yes to no. Three NDPs (including Rae) who dic! not vote on May 19 voted yes on second reading.""

Although Premier Rae was present for the second reading of Bill 167, the Liberal leader did not show up asain. (Harris made a point of being there. as he had for first reading.) Thus a fairly comprehensive same-sex spousal rights bill. which proposed to give lesbian and gay couples the same legal rights and responsibilities as common-law heterosexual couples. lost by nine votes. It is considered somewhat insulting not to let a piece of legislation through second reading so that it can be publicly debated. Usually MPPs would let a bill reach this stage, referred to as a vote on principle. and then defeat it on third reading.

The moment that Bill 167 was defeated chaos erupted in the legislature. The queers that filled the public galleries shouted "shame! shame! shame!""' In a display of homophobia and ignorance, police officers and security guards put on latex gloves before coming into contact with the crowds. Considering themselves safe from the threat of HIV infection, they then proceeded to grab, push. and beat protestors."Toliticians such as Premier Rae were quickly escorted out 190 of the building. Five to ten thousand people later held a demonstration which began in downtown

Toronto and continued to Queen's Park."' Kemper. who witnessed the vote that afternoon. told me that she felt "deeply sad." "The visuals of Brent Hawkes being hauled out with rubber

boloves. A very, very powerful icon, and I think something that galvanized people. They're not

teoing to fucking do that again to us. And then the defiance at the march that night. it was really beautiful. "

Althouzh I was not at the le,oislature on June 9. 1 joined the protest. A11 day I had waited anxiously to learn if Bill 167 would pass second reading, bringing Ontario one step closer to becoming the first province in Canada to grant spousal recognition to same-sex partners. When

I heard on the news that the bill had not received enough votes. I felt a wave of emotion. Anger. disappointment. fear. and a deep sense of grief filled me as I made my way to Yonge and

Wellesley. My critiques of the campaign were set aside for the moment. as 1 lay down on the street with other queers. Even Sky Gilbert, who is tirrnly anti-assimilationist. told me that he felt badly when he heard about the legislation being defeated. Gilben believes that many lesbians and gay men want same-sex spousal recognition because they need acceptance by the heterosexual majority. Despite this. he said: "But I'm not jumping up and down in glee because I know it comes from hate and prejudice that the bill didn't get passed. so I'm not happy that it didn't get passed. " Blocking the intersection queers chanted "We're here. we' re queer. we' re family. get used to it! "

By contrast. the Christian right regarded the defeat of Bill 167 as confirmation that lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered people were not family. According to a press release issued by Federal Reform MP Myron Thompson (Wild Rose. Alberta): "[tlhe failure of the militant gay and lesbian special interests to get same-sex legislation passed in Ontario is a victory for the traditional family. "= The government of Ontario immediately made it clear that 191 it was not going to introduce similar legislation during the remainder of its term in office. But the AG also indicated that she would not contest same-sex partner adoption cases in the judicial system if they were "in the public interest.""' Meanwhile, the CEF shifted its focus back to

Bill 45. The lobby group demanded that ~Murphyproceed with his bill. bur McLeod blocked this course of action.-7--

Reflecting back on the defeat of same-sex spousal rights legislation. Rae writes that " f t]he irony is that political gamemanship produced a result that was less than what the province could really accept. Sadly. this was the case. especially in regard to younger people and urban- dwellers. A survey conducted by the Environics Research Group in LMarch and April 1993 revealed that 55 per cent of Ontario residents were supportive of same-sex spousal benetits. while

39 per cent were opposed."' On the question of redefining "spouse" 50 per cent were against such a change and 40 per cent were in favour. Similarly. 56 per cent of people indicated that they did not approve of adoption rights for same-sex couples, while 37 per cent were supportive.

An Angus Reid poll released June 8. one day prior to second reading. showed that 38 per cent of Ontarions were in favour of Bill 167. Moreover. another 16 per cent of those poIled indicated that they would support the proposed legislation if the section pertaining to adoption was remo~ed.'~In other words, despite the homophobia and heterosexism which are embedded in our society. in 1994 about half of the people in this province believed that same-sex partners and their children should have at least some of the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual families. Why then. given public support on the issue. were legislators unable to push Bill 167 past second reading'? The Defeat of Bill 167

Certainly the Conservatives represented an obstacle to the progress of same-sex spousal recognition legislation in 1994. Tory MPPs unanimously opposed Bill 167. and continuous1y played up the idea that queers constituted a privileged "special interest group." The real issues. according to this right wing political party. were jobs and the economy. Same-sex spousal rights were only of importance to a minority of people who lived in downtown Toronto. While Harris and the rest of the Tories mainly avoided homophobic statements (the Victoria-Hal iburton by- eIection being an exception). their heterosexist stance was bIatantly obvious. And despite

Jackman's campaign platform, the PC leader demonstrated his opposition to the proposed

Iegislation at every turn. As the next . Harris would seek to repeal the limited gains made by lesbians and say men throuzh the coun system.""

The Liberal party was another matter altogether. Even if one did not agree with the stand the Conservatives took in regard to Bill 167. at least they were fairly consistent. Because Tory

MPPs were so tirmly opposed to the proposed legislation, little time and energy was spent trying to persuade them to change their minds. The Liberals. however. radically shifted their position between March 1993 and May 1994. McLeod became notorious durins this period for her series of "flip-flops." The same leader who once wrote: "Let me be clear. We must end discrimination against lesbians and gays.""' later declared that Bill 167 "goes beyond what 1 am personally prepared to accept. ""Vnfortunately. same-sex spousal recognition could not become taw without the support of the Liberals on a free vote. When McLeod refused to support legislation which excluded adoption rights and a redefinition of "spouse." and further stopped Bill 45 from moving forward, it seemed clear that her earlier statements had only been part of a strategy to help Murphy win the seat in St. George-St, David. 193 Ultimately. the Liberal leader sabotaged the first bill ever put forward in Canada to bestow comprehensive family rights and responsibilities on same-sex partners and their children.

Although three Liberal MPPs voted for Bill 167. and a small number of Liberal party members publicly supported the legislation. it was not enough to offset McLeod's actions."' When I lived through this historic political event. I. like many other queers. placed the blame for the defeat of Bill 167 firmly on McLeod. As Franco remarked: "1 don't think it's quite fair to be so angry with Bob Rae and the Cabinet for the free vote. I think the anger should go where it belongs and that is to the Liberals betraying a policy their leader had committed herself and her party to.. . ." Even when 1 first began to research and write about the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition. I commended the ONDP government for at least bringing legislation fonvard. I empathized with Boyd and Rae when they expressed dismay that the Liberal leader could do such an about-face. As the Premier later wrote: "I genuinely believed she [McLeod] and a good number of her coIleagues would live up to her promises. even to the last day.

But. after pondering the rise and fall of BiIl 167 from many angles. I have a different perspective. While I condone neither the narrow-mindedness of the Tories nor the deception of the Liberals. I now hold the social democratic government primarily responsible for the failure of same-sex spousal recognition legislation in this province. Along with the Conservatives and the Liberals, the ONDP also deserved the cries of "shame! shame! shamc! " on June 9. Bill 167 was mishandled by the government party on a number of levels. To begin with. the,Uovernment waited until too late in its term as a majority government to introduce a controversial piece of legislation. Although the ONDP indicated that it was committed to same-sex spousal rights almost from the time it was elected (and the party had supported the amendments to the Ontario

HRC before that) the government waffled for almost four years before bringing forward a bill.

Franco and I agee on this point. In his opinion, Bill 167 would have become law if it had been 194 "dealt with in the first year or so." Former AG Howard Hampton. whom Franco met with as

an executive member of the LGBC. was in his view a "major obstruction. "'j' (By comparison.

the current provincial majority government. ted by Harris. has instituted controversial changes

in the face of public protest since coming to office.)

Secondly, and most importantly, I firmly beIieve that same-sex spousal recognition

legislation should never have been subject to a free vote. Allowing MPPs ro vote as rhey wished

(with a tcovernment whip who opposed the bill) signalled that the government was lacking in

political will."' From the beginning it was doubtful that Bill 167 could gamer enough support

under these circumstances. According to Monette, any govenunent that wants to pass legislation

does "not allow a free vote" and uses its "majority for some purpose. " Warner disagreed. stating

that he was not surprised as an open vote had also been implemented when the OHRC was

amended.

The difference. however. was that the Liberal vote on Bill 7 in 1986 was still "whipped."

that is, MPPs were expected to uphold the party line. ONDP members such as Shirley Scarrow

maintain that without a free vote, the result would have been a vote of "no confidence" in the

government (because critics refused to abstain from voting) and an election would have been b called."' But the situation would probably not have reached such a crisis point if Bill I67 had

been introduced earlier, and in a less haphazard fashion. This miscalculation can perhaps be partly attributed to the lack of experience of the ONDP _government. There has also been speculation that the open vote was a trade-off within caucus for the introduction of the full packase (i-e.. the omnibus bill).- Again, many of these internal conflicts could have been avoided if the government had acted more decisively.

And this brings me to my third point, namely that same-sex spousal recognition is a human rights issue and should have been treated as such. It is not enough to merely speak of 195 human rights ("talk the talk"). without backing up this discourse with strong action ("walk the

walk"). Many of the activists I spoke with voiced a similar opinion. M summed it up like this:

"I don't believe everything requires public debate. It's a human rights issue. Why do we have to debate a human rights issue?" Unfortunately. the Premier never demonstrated any leadership on Bill 167. As Phibbs explained to me: "I think it all goes back to the leader. it all goes back to Bob Rae. He had absoluteiy no courage in how this was introduced. in how ir went through the House. and in how it was voted upon." I concur with her that the Premier did not have control of his Caucus on this issue, and for that reason I am not sure that a whipped vote would have been successful. In fact. except for a final plea just before the vote on second reading. Rae seemed ambivalent about same-sex spousal recognition legislation. "' For example. he never made any public appearances with queer families in order to show his support. -Moreover. Rae was not in the legislature to vote on first reading.

His absence on May 19. 1994. served to reinforce the perception that Bill 167 was the

AG's issue and Rae was merely permitting her to go ahead. This was not the tirst time the

Premier had stayed in the background while the women in his party. especiaIIjr Boyd and Lankin. took the lead on same-sex spousal rigzhts. Rayside speculates that Rae had hoped that anotlier

(unnamed) member of the caucus would have emerged as the champion of same-sex spousal recognition legi~lation.~He is probably referring to Dave Cooke. whom Gallagher describes as "the gay member of Cabinet who had the ear of Bob Rae." Cooke. however. seemed mainly concerned that a redefinition of "spouse" in conflict of interest leeislation would have the effect of publicly outing closeted politician^.^'

Rae was thus able to maintain a somewhat neutral public image. On the one hand, he could point to the fact that his government was moving ahead on legislation as promised. On the other hand. Rae himself did not become personally associated with what he referred to as an 196 issue of "raw emotion.""This is not an effective way for a political leader to protect the human rights of a minority group. If Rae had been serious about legislating same-sex spousal rights. he should have clearly articulated his commitment and educated his caucus. Furthermore. he would not have permitted last minute amendments designed to significantly weaken the package which caused activists like Payne to feel "sold out and betrayed." From her perspective,

"the fact that they were willing to compromise on it signalled a spinelessness. a need ro please.

I mean. if we were going to fail anyway why did we need to do that? And I think that in some way it engendered failure. al!owed those paranoias to run wild and those stereotypes to take hold. " Scarrow was also not happy about the proposed amendments. and felt they made no difference.

Finally, the ONDP did not attempt to educate the public on the importance of same-sex spousal rights. A great deal of misinformation circulated at this time. especially outside of cities such as Toronto. Ottawa, and London. I concur with Monette that the onus should be on the government to explain such policy to the electorate. Instead. as she said. "they leave it on the peopIe who are the most discriminated against, whether gays or lesbians, or in terms of human rights legislation, people who are in minorities, to sell their stuff for them. And they expect us to do it on top of all the other work we do."'3' Moreover, the ONDP did not consult enough with community activists. According to Phibbs. if the government had spoken more with queer groups. "we could have helped them get it passed as opposed to battling with them most of the time." The government also dithered on this issue for such a long period that it was difficult for supporters to mobilize.

Hindsight, of course, allows for a certain amount of clarity. But given that same-sex spousal recognition had been on the ONDP agenda since it was elected in 1990. the government's strategy could have been (indeed should have been) better thought out. For Bill 197 167 to have become law the government would have had to make it a priority. This would have

meant introducing legislation early and being committed enough to push it through without a free

vote. But an omnibus bill was not the only ~ption.'~The OLRC. as wet! as CLGRO. had both

recommended the institution of partnership registration- This system was not untested. as I

demonstrated above. but had already been adopted by four countries and three American cities

by mid-1993. From Rae's perspective. a smaller package would have had a better chance in the

legislature.'" He holds queer activists. who did not understand "accommodation and

compromise" and "demanded the whole loaf. or nothing." partially responsible for the failure

same-sex spousal rights in this province."'

What Rae does not acknowledge. however. is that there is a vast difference between

accepting incremental change from the beginnins. and being promised sweepin? legislation only

to be asked to accept a compromise at the last minute. Queer activists were not given a say as

to which package the government chose. Some (especially those with anti-assirnilationist leanings)

may have supported a plan to attach benetits to individuals as opposed to couples. with allowance

made for dependents. In this manner the nuclear family would have been de-centred. instead of

further shored up.

In the previous chapter I discussed policy suggestions in this regard. as well as critiques of the privileging of people involved in sexually intimate partnerships."' CLGRO had in fact stated a preference for this strategy in 1992. Finally. if the government was reluctant to "de- privilege " families. it could have opted to redistribute benefits to encompass all people involved

in relationships of dependency. In other words, legislation could have been brought forward which recognized children caring for elderly parents. sisters who had set up a household together. etc.. as well as same-sex couples and their children. 198 Although Bill 167 was mismanaged and eventually defeated. the struggle which emerged over same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario in 1994 was by no means inconsequential. For the first time in Canada's history a piece of legislation was drafted which sought to redefine the term

'v~p~~~ev'to include same-sex partners. Despite its shortcornings. the ONDP biIl shook the very foundation of "family." Opponents of the legislation immediately recognized that expanding the detinition of "family" constituted a threat to what they regarded as a sacred institution. LMany queer activists also perceived same-sex spousal recognition legislation as a challenge to "the

(heterosexual) family." Bill 167 thus signalled an important opening for the political contestation of "family" which continues to be played out in this province and this country.

Conclusion

I begin this chapter by stating that "family" is disputed terrain not just in the theoretical realm, but also in the area of politics. To demonstrate this contestation I outlined and critically analyzed the rise and fall of Bill 167 in Ontario in the mid-1990s. Particular attention was paid to the political and legal events which set the stage for BilI 167. the lead up to the introduction of same-sex spousal recognition legislation. and first and second reading of the ONDP bill. For the purposes of this study I drew on academic writings. journalistic accounts. primary sources. documents from community groups. transcripts of legal cases. and relevant government documents. In addition. I cited my own experience as well as the accounts of queer community activists. In the next chapter I will shift the focus to the grassroots lobby efforts for same-sex spousal recognition legislation. I will explore the perspectives of variously-situated queer activists in regard to both BilI 167 and the concept of "family." ENDNOTES

1. See Joan W. Scott. "Experience," in Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. eds.. Fetninisrs Theorize [he Political (London and New York: Routledge. 1992). 37.

2. Refer back to Chapter One where I discuss this oral history project and provide a brief biographical description of the participants.

3. David Rayside. On rlze Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Polirics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1998). In addition to same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario. Rayside discusses a number of other political issues including the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA). the U.S. military ban, and the British age of consent. However. his chapter on Bill 167 is the most extensive in the book.

4. Rayside conducted unstructured interviews with about 350 activists in three countries for the comparative case studies included in this book. These subjects were chosen for their involvement with legislative politics, and are thus primarily white. middle-class. and male. Rayside acknowledges that being an openly-gay politician, or political activist. requires gender. race. and class privilege. See Rayside, xv-xvi. Probably not uncoincidentally. activists are most often described as "gay" in this work. Even when Rayside uses the terns "lesbian. " "bisexual. " or " transgendered. " they are usually preceded by "gay. " See Ray side. xvii.

5. Rayside, xiii.

6. In this regard see also Didi Herman. Rights of Passage: Srruggles for Lesbian and Gay Equalin (Toronto. BuffaIo. and London: University of Toronto Press. 1994). Herman critically investigates the politics of lesbian and gay law-refom initiatives in Canada prior to the introduction of Bill 167.

7. Rayside. xv.

8. See Rayside. 3.

9. Rayside. 1.

10. See Rayside. xiii. I am primarily concerned with his detailed chapter on Bill 167. although mention of feminism is also strikingly absent in the other chapters.

11. Rayside, 150 and 169.

12. Rayside. 173. These words are attributed to an unnamed (and featureless) lesbian activist. In contrast to my oral history project. the activists Rayside interviews are mainly anonymous.

13. See Chapter One for feminist analyses of oral history.

14. Rayside. 169.

15. Rayside. 168-169. 16. See Rayside. 5-8. It is telling that he refers to "rlrr movement" and "an actii!isc agenda" (my emphasis).

17. Rayside. 8. This statement strikes me as having a lot in common with feminist standpoint theory. Writers like Nancy Hartsock. as I demonstrated in Chapter Two. posit "women" as a marginalized group with a special viewpoint. Differences between women are minimized under this schema. Likewise Rayside underscores the exclusion of lesbians and gay men from mainstream politics. without acknowledging that some queers are located more closely to centres of power than others.

18. Gary Kinsman provides an excellent analysis of this history. Set: Gary Kinsman. The Regrtlclrion of Desire. Second Edition (~Montreal.New York. and London: Black Rose Books. 1996).

19. Rarely does liberal discourse encompass bisexuals. transgendered people, or other queers. See Carl F. Stychin, Law's Desire: Saualizy and the Limits of Jusrice (Routledge: London and New York. 1995).

20. For instance. in my brief sketch of same-sex spousal rights in countries other than Canada. I cite only major acts of recognition. I have omitted many failed attempts to change laws. as well as homophobic backlash to these initiatives. When I turn to the situation in Canada and Ontario my analysis becomes somewhat more detailed. although it is still an outline a:. opposed to a thorough examination.

21. "The Spousal Collection: October 1989-May 1999," compiled by C. itl. Donald for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (Toronto), I.

22. "The Spousal Collection." 13.

23. "The Spousal CoIIection." 21.

24. "The Spousal Collection." 26. See also Brenda Cossrnan and Bruce Ryder. "Gap.Lesbian and Unmarried Heterosexual Couples and the Famil! Law Acr: Accommodating A Diversity of Family Forms." A Research Paper prepared for the Ontario Law Reform Commission Osgoodt: Hall Law School. York University, June 1993. 203-212. This appendix contains an overview of legislation in selected countries including Sweden and Denmark.

25. "The Spousal Collection, " 3.

26. "The Spousal Collection." 7.

27. "The Spousal Collection." 1 1.

28. "The Spousal Collection." 4.

29. "The Spousal Collection." 4.

30. "The Spousal Collection," 14. Heated battles continue to this day in the U.S. over the issue of same-sex marriage. 3 1. Kinsman. 267. Currently age of consent for anal sex remains eighteen years of age. despite successful constitutional challenges in Ontario. Fourteen is the marker set for most other sexual activities. except with people in positions of "trust and responsibility" when the age rises to eishteen. See Kinsman. 356.

32. Kinsman. 263.

33. Although some employers were beginning to extend same-sex spousal benetits and pension plans. See "The Spousal Collection." 57-59. The Canadian lobby group Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE) also keeps a list entitled "Employers Offering Same-Sex Benefits. " This information can be found at: http://www.egale.ca/features/employer. htm

33. See Rayside, 105-2 1 1. In this chapter, entitled "The Canadian Human Rights Act." he traces the strusgie to have the words "sexual orientation" added to the CHRA. Bill C-33. the amendment to the CHRA. was tinally passed into law in the spring of 1996. However. as Cossman and Ryder point out. the CHRA has been interpreted as if it included sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination since the 1992 ruling in Haig 1.. Cunariu (Mitrisrrr oj' Jrcsrice). Cossman and Ryder. 107-108.

35. Cossman and Ryder, 108-109. In 1990 the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled in Brown and Vancouver PWA Sociery v. BC Ministry of Healrh that section 15 should be interpreted to include sexual orientation as a protected ground of discrimination. See "The Spousal Coilection," 1. This decision was later upheld in the case of Haig v. Canada (Minister of Jrcsrice) in Ontario. In 1992 the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the absence of sexual orientation in the CHRA violated section 15 of the Charter. The court thus ordered the CHRA to "be interpreted, applied and administered as though it contained sexual orientation" as a prohibited _ground of discrimination. Cossman and Ryder. 108.

36. Areas covered by provincial Human Rights Acts are employment. housing. and access to services.

37. Laurie Bell, On Our Own Terms: A Pracrical Guide for Lesbian and Gay Relationships (Toronto: The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. 1991). 3. See also Cossman and Ryder, 108, 1 will return to examine the situation in the remaining provinces and territories in Chapter Six.

38. Bell. 10.

39. "The Spousal Collection." 2, 8, 9. and 13. Prior to the formation of the new City of Toronto, or the "Megacity." there were six lower-tier municipalities (Metropolitan Toronto) and one upper-tier municipality (City of Toronto). Harris amalgamated these municipalities. which were once separate entities responsible for providing different services. "Metropolitan Toronto" was in charge of roads. garbage collection, etc., while the "City of Toronto" administered services such as welfare. I will revisit the high-profile struggle for same-sex spousal benefits in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

40. See Kinsman, 3 12. 11. Canadian feminist sociolo_eist Margrit Eichler offered expert testimony at this trial which supported the "familial" nature of Mossop's relationship with his same-sex partner. Herman. 25- 26.

32. Bell, 14. A number of right wing groups including REAL women and the Salvation Army. as well as a pro-lesbian and gay rights coalition comprised of EGALE and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC). among others. obtained intervenor starus in the Mossop case. See Herman, 77-102 and 103-127.

43. Kinsman. 3 12.

33. See Kinsman. 312.

45. "The Spousal Collection. " 13.

36. See barbara findlay, Barrister and Solicitor, "All in the Family Values: An examination of the construction of 'family' and the impact of law on the lives of lesbians and gay men," unpublished paper prepared for course on family law in Vancouver, British Columbia (Juty 1995). 12-13.

47. 1 will also come back to the Iandmark 1998 Supreme Court of Canada decision which ordered the Albena Government to read sexual orientation into the provincial Human Rights Code. Seven years after DeIwin Vriend was fired from his job as a teacher at an Edmonton Christian college. he won a major legal victory (although he did not get his position back). Brian Laghi and Kirk Makin. "Court Protects Gays." The Globe and Mail (April 3. 1998). A 1.

38. Bill 7 is the topic of Herman's work. See Herman. especially 32-53 and 54-76. Ross also offers a critical account of Bill 7 in her essay "Sexual DidOrientation or Playing House: To Be or Not be Coded Human," in Sharon Dale Stone, ed.. Lesbians in Canada (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1990). CLGRO played a key role in this struggle. Bell. 3.

49. Kathleen Baker, L.L.B.. The Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Coriples in Ontario. First Edition (Toronto: Legalworks Press, 1995). 7. 1 will look more closely at this topic in my interrogation of post-Bill 167 Ontario. In Chapter Six I will also discuss updates in this area.

50. Kinsman. 3 12. See also Karen Andrews. "We Are Family." Henirfzsharirzg (Fall 1989). 18.

5 1, Kinsman, 3 12.

52. Karen Andrews. "Ancient Affections: Gays. Lesbians and Family Status," in Katherine Arnup. ed.. Lesbian Parenting: Living with Pride and Prejudice (Charlottetown. P.E.I.: gynergy books. 1995 and 1997). 358. Andrews credits Curt Lush with coining this phrase. In Chapter One I attribute "We Are Family" to the song by Sister Sledge.

53. See Cossman and Ryder, 105.

53. Cossrnan and Ryder, 106. 55. Cossman and Ryder. 107. Although this was a landmark victory for same-sex spousal recognition, the Leshner decision left over seventy relevant laws unchanged.

56. These are the words of two of the chairpersons on the Leshner Board of Inquiry. as cited by Cossman and Ryder. 107.

57. "The Spousal Collection." 9.

58. "The Spousal Collection." 13.

59. See Thomas Walkom. Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of the NDP (Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited. 1994). 50-53. Prior to the ONDP coming to power. Ontario had had a Liberal

Lgovernment. Before the Liberals were elected in 1985, this province had been a Tory stronghold for over four decades.

60. Bob Rae. From Proresr ro Power: Personal Reflecrions on a Lrye in Pofirics (Toronto: Viking Press, 1996), 125. The night before the provincial election Rae thought that the NDP might form a minority government. A Liberal win was predicted. Rae. 124-125.

61. 1 was on a plane returning from Paris. France when the captain announced that the NDP had won the Ontario election. I can still remember the sense of excitement and anticipation that I felt.. ..

62. See Rayside. 141. and Herman. 33-37.

63. By contrast, in 1980 a similar amendment to the Ontario HRC had been debated. and the ONDP caucus as a whole was not supportive. See Rae. 250. One year later. according to Kinsman, the gap movement branded the NDP the "No Damn Principles party" because of then party leader Michael Cassidy's statement that sexual orientation protection "was not a priority at the time." Thanks to Kinsman for sharing this information with me.

64. Rayside, 131-142.

65. Rae, 250.

66. Rae. 251.

67. Rae, 251.

68. Leah Darke, "Same-Sen Spousal Rights Are Special Rights." Siren magazine (December 19971January 1998). 14. In 1987 CLGRO had sent out a survey to individual members and member groups across Ontario asking for input on the direction of queer activism. There was tension surrounding the choice of relationship recognition above other issues, as well as the form such recosnition should take. I will revisit these issues in Chapter Five.

69. I will return to the CLGRO conference in the next chapter.

70. Bell, 6. 71. See Rayside. 143. Members of CLGRO's WGRR included Michael Davenport. Bill Dwyer. Bob Gallagher. Don Franco. Keith Hambly. Michael Leshner. and Susan Ursel.

72. Alex Munter. Fighting For Our Families: The challenge of mobilizing Ontario's lesbian. gay and bisexual communities." Unpublished Paper (April 6. 1994). Munter is (and was during the tenure of the Rae government) an openly-gay Regional Councillor in Ottawa-Carleton. as well as an activist.

73- At that time approximately 68.000 people were employed by [he Ontario Public Service (OPS). "The Spousal Collection. " 3. Heterosexual couples were guaranteed survivor pensions under the Pension Benefirs Acf. The ONDP claimed that it could nor extend survivor pensions to same-sex couples because of the definition of "spouse" contained in the federal lrzcor?ze Th Acr. In 1992, in light of the Leshner decision, Attorney General Hampton a~ouncedthat the ONDP would support Rosenberg er al. v. Aftornq General of Canada. a CUPE challenge to the Income Tax Act. See "The Spousal Collection." 9.

73. "Legal Highlights: A Look Back at Pink Postcards and Blue Cross," Xtra! News Flash (June 10, 1994). 3. This was a special news bulletin issued by Xrra!, a Toronto-based gay and lesbian biweekly newspaper. the day after the defeat of Bill 167. The stories are mainly written by Eleanor Brown. but sections such as "Legal Highlights" and "How They 'Voted" are not attributed to any specific person. (Presumably they werc put tosether by an editor or group of editors.)

75. Munter. 6.

76. Bell. 7.

77. Rae. 251.

75. Rae. 251.

79. Rae, 251.

80. "The Spousal Collection." 4.

8 1. Rayside, 143.

82. See Tom Warner, "Story of a Same-Sex Spousal Rights Strategy: Bandwagon effect and media attention narrowed the focus of the campaign." Xrra! no. 329 (June 5. 1997), 28.

53. Munter. 6.

84. See Munter, 6.

85. Munter, 6.

86. CLGRO, Co-ordinated by Michael Davenport and Rob Elliot. "Happy Families: The Recognition of Same-Sex Spousal Relationships," April 1992. The title of this document apparently refers to a British card game, and is meant to be ironic. Personal conversation with CLGRO activist Christine M. Donald. 1997. I will return to CLGRO's "Happy Families" brief in the next chapter.

87. See "Happy Families, " iv.

88. "Happy Families." v.

89. See Munter, 2.

90. See "The Spousal Collection," 4. 5. and 8. This battle began in 1991. and resulted in a total of flve Memo employees filing complaints against both the municipality and the province. 1 will return to the role queer activists played in the next chapter.

91. Susan Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights," in Lesbian Parenting, 343.

92. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights. " 342. Xtra! incorrectly identifies Boyd. who was then .Minister of Community and Social Services and held the Womer,'s Issues portfolio. as AG. In fact. she did not replace Hampton until early in 1993. "Lssal FtighIights." 3.

93. "Lezal Highlights." 3.

94. "Legal Highlights." 3.

95. As well as wealthy Rosedale and impoverished .

96. UrseI, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 343.

97. Rae. 251.

98. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 343.

99. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 343.

100. Cited by Rayside, 300. note 4.

101. Rayside, 330, note 4.

102. See Rae. 251.

103. Ursel. "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 344.

104. Rayside, 144.

105. Thanks to Kari Dehli for pointing out that this lack was pervasive in the ONDP's relations with community-based and union groups.

106. McLeod's letter to Nick Mule letter is reprinted in Bra! News Flash (June 10. 1994). 2.

107. McLeod's letter to Nick Mule, 2. 108. ,McLeod's letter to Nick Mule. 2.

109. Rayside. 330. He references Walkom. who cites Nancy Jackman's campaign literature in "Liberals Most Subtle of Political Players on Gay Rights Issue." Tlze Toronro Srar (May 26. 993).

110. Munter. 3. He does not name the CLGRO members who voted for Murphy.

111. Rayside. 145.

112. Ursel, "Bili 167 and Full Human Ri~hts."342.

1 13. See CLGRO. "Happy Families."

114. Rayside. 145.

115. Rayside. 135.

116. Rae, 251.

1 17. Although Boyd's own sexuality remains elusive, it is fairly well-known that her family is unconventional. Her husband, an AIDS activist. lives with his male partner in a home in Boyd's riding of London Central. Boyd mainly lives with her mother in Toronto. Her adult daughter now lives on her own. "The Spousal Collection." 28. Interestingly. although this information has never been a secret. it did not surface during the campaign for Bill 167. (Although Boyd's own sexuality was questioned. )

1 18. Munter. 3.

119. Rayside, 145. He cites Rae's announcement at an earlier provincial council meeting in this respect.

120. See "The CLGRO Relationship Recosnition Lobbying Kit" (Au_gust 11. 1993).

12 1. blunter. 3.

122. Munter. 6.

123. The OLRC commissioned a background report, which is the document by Cossman and Ryder which I have cited in this chapter. I will return to the recommendations put forth by both the OLRC and Cossman and Ryder.

124. See Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 343.

125. "The Spousal CoIlection, " 2 1.

126. "The Spousal Collection." 20. The next month Boyd's communications oftker apparently contacted Xtra! to explain that the AG was not a lesbian. but rather a "married woman. " (This presumably in response to a suggestion in the lesbian and gay paper that Boyd was not heterosexual. ) See "The Spousal Collection. " 12.

127. Rayside. 146.

125. Rayside. 146.

129. Ross. 225. She cites Chris Hodgson Campaign. "Same-Sex Benefits." Lindsay Posr (March 1 1. 1994). A5. Actually. as Bruce Ryder writes. married heterosexuals (and to some extent heterosexuals living in common-law relationships) are legally and economically advantaged in our society. Moreover. lesbians and gay men, who are exciuded from "spousal" status. are forced to subsidize heterosexual privilege. See Ryder. "Equality Rights and Sexual Orientation: Confronting Heterosexual Privilege. " Canadian loirrnal of Family Law 9 ( 1990). 39-97.

130. Rae, 251.

131. Rayside. 147.

132. Rayside. 147.

133. Rae, 252.

134. Rae. 252.

135. See Rayside, 146.

136. Rayside, 147.

137. Rae. 252.

138. Rayside, 147.

139. Rayside. 147.

140. Munter. 1.

141. Rayside, 147.

142. Rayside. 147. He cites Joseph Couture. " Attorney-General Appeals to Armchair Activists. " Mra! (May 27. 1994). 11.

143. See Rayside, 169.

144. One such case was that of Beth Clinton. a nurse who pressed to have spousal benefits extended to her female partner. In July 1993 an Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry supported Clinton's claim. and ordered Blue Cross to extend its benefit package to include the partners of lesbian and gay employees. "Legal Highlights," 3. 145. See the table in Rayside's book entitled "Attitudes to same-sex relationship recognition in Ontario. l997,-95." 152. He cites the Environics Research Group as his source of information. especially Focus Ontario. no.4 (1992). 33; no. 1 (1992). 42: no. 2 (1993). 36: and no. 1 ( 1995). 23.

146. Note that the full title of the proposed legislation skilfully avoids any mention of sexuality. same-sex rights. family. etc.

147. Susan Ursel. "What Does it Mean'? How Bill 167 couId change our fives. " Xrra! no. 25 1 (June 10. 1994)- 12,

148. See "Bill 167: An Act to amend Ontario Statutes co provide for the equal treatment of persons in spousal relationships. " 3rd Session. 35th Legislature. Ontario. L994.

119. CLGRO. "Happy Families. "

150. Martin Mittelstaedt, "Same-sex benefits package would require changes to 56 laws." The Globe and Moil (May 20, 1994). A9.

151. Ursel, "Bill 167 and FuII Human Rights," 344. As I mentioned above. the ONDP commissioned this study of family law reform in May 1993.

152. Cossman. "Same-Sex Couples and the Politics of Family Status." in Janine Brodie. rd.. Women and Conndian Public Policy (Toronto. New York. London: Harcourt Brace and Company. 1996). 247.

153. See Cossman. 244.

154. See Cossman. 244.

155. See OLRC. "Report on the rights and responsibilities of cohabitants under the Fan~ilvLaw Acr." 1993.

156. Cossman. 244. Cossn~ansays that while she and Ryder did not disagree with this suggestion, they were worried that a model based solely on self-designation would create two (unequal) systems. Furthermore. they did not realize that further consultation was an option. Cossrnan. 245.

157. Cossman. 247. Although. as we shall see. Boyd tried to move away from this position prior to second reading.

158. See Chapter One.

159. In addition to the theoretical problematics, the ascription of spousal status to same-sex couples can have serious material ramifications. For instance. low-income People with AIDS (PWA) would be in danger of losing their Ontario drug cards if the Ministry of Community and Social Services investigates the income of the perscn they cohabitare with (who may or mar not be a partner). See "Drug Cards and Welfare, " Xrra! no. 25 1 (June LO, 1994). 12. 160. Why the government. or more precisely the AG. took this view is a good question. In my research I have not come across any documents written by or about Boyd on this topic. My guess is that paralleling same-sex couples with opposite-sex couples was thought to be an easier sell.

161. See Ursel. "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights," 346.

162. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 315.

163. Ursel. "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 346.

164. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 346.

165. The Ontario LegisIative Assembly Official Report of Debates (Hansards). May 19. 1994.

166. Hansards. May 19, 1994.

167. Hansards. May 19. 1994.

168. Craig McInnes and James Rusk. "Gay-couples bil1 survives vote. " The Globe and Mail (May 20, 1991), A1 and A9.

169. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights. " 344.

170. Rayside. 138.

17 1 . Eleanor Brown. "Whose side are you on: Tories and Liberals mouth restrictive family values." Xrra! no. 251 (June 10, 1994), 12.

172. Brown. "Whose side are you on. " 12.

173, See above where I quote from the letters which McLeod sent to both the government and CLGRO in this regard.

174. Rayside, 148.

175. "The Spousal Collection," 24. The Speaker (in this case David Warner) does not vote unless there is a tie.

176. Rayside. 148.

177. "How They Voted." 2.

178. Rayside, 148. Rae was apparently overseas on government business.

179. Hansard. June 1. 1994.

180. Hansard, June 1, 1994.

18 1. Hansard, June 1, 1994. 182. Hansard, June 1. 1994.

183. Hansard. June 1, 1994.

184. Hansard. June 1. 1991. In fact. the cost of providing same-sex spousal benefits are estimated to add only about 0.0 1 '% to 0.05 % to the expense of packages. (And queers have long subsidized these benefits by paying into plans and not being able to claim their partners.) See "The Spousal Collection." 59. By the time Bill 167 was introduced, many companies had already instituted same-sex spousal benefits.

185. Boyd _gives credit to Professor Susan Daniel for this example. Hansard. June 1. 1994.

186. Hansard. June I. 1993.

187. Hansard. June 1. 1994. What many people seemed to have forgotten. including klclrod. is that lesbians. gay men. bisexuals. and transgendered already had the right to apply to adopt as individuals. I will revisit this matter.

188. Ursel compares the denial of human status and rights of full citizenship. including marriage. of lesbians and gay men to other groups including African slaves and people with disabilities. See Ursel. "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." 347.

159. For example. he stated that homcsexuals should not be allowed to adopt children because they are into "electric torture. whipping. water sports and scat." See Eleanor Brown. "Whipping Boy Apologizes: George Mammoliti votes for spousal rights--but he has his limits." Xm! no. 347 (February 12. 1998). 19.

190. Becki L. Ross. The Hortse That Jill Brtilr: A Lesbian Nation in Fonnariotr (Toronto. Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press Incorporated. 1995). 225. Ross cites in this regard Craig McI~es,"To Homosexual Parents. A Family is a Family." The Globe and Mail (June 10. 1994). A4. In the same note she references the Unemployment Insurance (U.I.) case where my former partner and I challenged the definition of "spouse. "

191. "The Spousal Collection." 21. The Archbishop explained [hat he was not opposed to homosexuals as individuals having rights, but only to a redetinition of "spouse" to include lesbian and gay partners. This signified a shift from his earlier position. when he spoke out against Bill 7.

192. Ross, 225. She cites Julie Smith. "Archbishop Assails Same-Sex Benefits. Tile Globe and Mail (May 30, 1994). A5.

193. See for instance -Martin Mittelstaedt. "Same-Sex Bill Troubles Traditionalists". The Globe and Mail (June 7, 1994), Al and All.

193. Rayside. 137.

195. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights. " 344. Many activists who were pivotal in the tight to get same-sex benefits for employees of Metropolitan Toronto held leadership roles in the CEF. This will be examined in the following chapter.

196. Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights. " 344.

197. Rayside, 148.

198. Ross, 225.

199. Rayside. 151.

200. Rayside, 139 and 151.

201. Brown, "Whose side are you on," 12-

202. The coverage of the Supreme Court decisions in the Vriend case in Alberta. and M. v. H. in Ontario. later garnered similar attention. I will return to these landmark rulings in the final chapter.

203. One-hundred and thirty-eight to be exact. Although the search produced one hundred and thirty-nine pieces. one was actually a financial story about T-bilk being up 167 basis points.

204. See. for instance. Liz Braun. "Canada'! Gimme a Break. " The Toronro Sun (June 12. 1994). 5. Despite the prevalence of stories such as this one which condemns the pursuit of "gay rights" as frivolous, The Toronro Sun employees received same-sex spousal benefits (except for pensions) in March I994 "The Spousal Collection." 22.

205. See Craig Mclmes. "Boyd Backs Off on Gay Spouses." The Globe and Mail (June 9. 1991). AI; William Walker and Leslie Papp. "NDP Alters Same-Sex Bill: Last-ditch bid made to save it, " The Toronro Star (June 9, 1993). A 1: and William Walker and Leslie Papp. " NDP Drops Adoption to Save Same-Sex Bill." The Ortarta Citizen (June 9. 1994). A1 . The headline on page one of The Toronto Sun read: "NDP Caves on Gay Bill: Adoption Rights. Spouse Definition Dropped in Desperate Bid to Save Law."

206. See William Walker, "Arguments For and Against Gay and Lesbian Rights Bill: Bill 167 would ensure benefits for same-sex couples, " The Toronto Srar (June 9. 1994), A27.

207. See Martin Mittelstaedt and James Rusk. "Ontario Bill on Gay Rishts Defeated." The Globe mcl Mail (June 10. 1994). A 1: Thomas Walkom. "Ontario Parties Cloaked in Shame: Politics runs roughshod over real people," The Toronro Srar (June 10. 1991). Al: William Walker. "MPPs Crush Same-Sex Bill." The Toronro Srar (June 10. 1994). Al: and Greg Crone. Richard Brennan, and Elizabeth Payne. "Gay Activists Clash After Vote: MPPs defeat same-sex bil I. " The Ortawa Citizen (June 10. 1994). Al. The front page headline of The Toronto Srttz proclaimed "Near Riot After Gay Bill Kilted." The accompanying photographs by Warren Todd showed Brent Hawkes shouting, Ailsa Crais crying, and Bob Rae and Marion Boyd looking grim.

208. Ross, 226.

209. See Ursel. 350. 210. Rayside, 148-149.

21 1. On February 17. 1998. at meeting of rhe LGBC executive. 1 raised the issue of Boyd's proposed amendments to Bill 167. Not one of the members in attendance (many of whom were involved in the struggle for Bill 167) recalled this compromise. In fact. some of the activists denied that such a suggestion had been made. Fortunately. I was able to find ample documentation of this event. See, for example. Cossman. "Same-Sex Couples and the Politics of Family Status," 223. McImes. "Boyd Backs Off on Gay Spouses," A1 , Rayside. 148-149. and Walker and Papp. "NDP Alters Same-Sex Bill. "

2 12. Once again the Speaker. David Warner. could not vote unless there was a tie.

213. The so-called "Dirty Dozen" were: Anthony Peruzza (). Tony Rizzo (Oakwood), George Mammoliti (Yorkview). (Cabinet Minister. Cambridge). Gord lMills (Durham East), Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent). Fred Wilson (government whip. Frontenac- Addington), Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot). Ron Hansen (Lincoln). Dan Waters (~Muskoka- Georgian Bay). (Cabinet Minister. ). and Donald Abel (Wentworth North). See "How They Voted.'' 2.

214. They were Jean Pourier (Prescott and Russell). Tim Murphy (St. GeorgeISt. David). and Dianne Poole (Ecglinton). Liberal leader McLeod (Fort William) did nor vote on first or second reading. "How They Voted. " 2.

2 15. ( Welland-Thorold). formerly an NDP MPP.

216. See "How They Voted." 2.

2 17. Mittelstaedt and Rusk. "Ontario Bill on Gay Rights Defeated." A1 .

2 18. See WaIkom, "Ontario's parties cloaked in shame. "

2 19. Walker. "MPPs crush same-sex bill. "

220. "The Spousal Collection. " 23.

22 1. "The Spousal Collection. " 25.

222. "The Spousal Collection," 24.

223. Rae, 252. Although Rae is probably referring to the Liberals, or possibly even queer activists, I maintain that the ONDP government played some games of its own.

224. "The Spousal CoIlection. " 25. Of those people who indicated that they were in favour of same-sex spousal benefits. 63 per cent were aged 18-24. Only 18 per cent of people polled over 55 years of age indicated support for such measures.

225. "The Spousal Collection, " 24. 226. I will return to Harris's intervention in cases such as M. v. H. in the final chapter of this thesis.

227. McLeod's letter to Nick Mule. 2.

228. Brown. "Whose side are you on. " 12.

229. Note that Dalton McGuinty. who became leader of the LP after McLeod. was not supportive of same-sex spousal rights.

230. Rae, 253. However. as I have previously discussed. Rae also stated that he knew as early as the March 1994 by-election in Victoria-Haliburton that McLeod would not support samesex spousal rights. See Rae, 25 1.

231. Hampton, as I discussed earlier in this chapter, did not move on same-sex spousal recosnition legislation despite his repeated promises. During the course of the 1999 provincial election. ONDP leader Hampton admitted that the government should have introduced same-sex spousal recognition iegislation earlier in its mandate. However. he still blames the failure of Bill 167 on the Liberals. I will return to this matter in Chaptersix. See Heather M. Ross. "Hindsight is a beautiful thing: Give us another shot. begs NDP leader." Xfra! no. 380 (May 20. 1999). 20.

232. Kinsman points out that the Rae government did not hold a free vote when it made the decision to implement social contract legislation. which was also an issue marked by controversy. He says that the free vote on Bill 167 was defended on the grounds that same-sex spousal recognition was a "moral issue." Kinsman, 3 13.

233. LGBC members also frequently expressed this sentiment to me when the matter came up in executive meetings.

234. See Rayside, 147.

235. In his book From Protest to Power. Rae is highly critical of what he terms "the polirics of the single issue. " While opposition governments can afford to devote considerable attention to specific groups of people (presumably including queers). governments must focus on "reconciling competing interests. " Rae. 280.

236. See Rayside, 161.

237. See James Rusk. "Drafters of same-sex bill had to watch their words." The Globe and Mail (June 7. 1994). A1 1, But the flip side of this matter. namely that some same-sex partners were perhaps benefiting from this loophole. was rarely raised.

238. Rae. 250.

239. See. for instance. Boyd's comments regarding a "lack of queer community support" which I cited earlier in this chapter. Couture as cited by Rayside, 147.

240. In Chapter Six I will discuss the situation in British Colombia, where the NDP government hzs successfully passed a number of key amendments regarding same-sex spousal recognition. 241. See Rayside. 162-163.

242. Rae, 252. See also Kelly Toughill, "Rae blames gays for same-sex rights bill loss.'' Tile Toronto Star (March 14, l995), A 14 and Bob Rae's Letter to the Editor. "Gays not blamed for bill's defeat, " The Toronto Sfar (March 17, 1995). A18. As I have previously cited. in From Protest to Power the former Premier attaches similar blame to other activist organizations.

243. See Carol Allen. "Who Gets To be Family: Some Thoughts on the Lesbian and Gay Fight for Equality," in Linda Carty, ed., And Still We Rise: Feminist Poiirical Mobilizing in Contempormy Canada (Toronto: Women's Press. 1993), 101 - 107; Margrit Eichler. Family Sir $s: Furnilies. Policies, and Gender Eqrraiiy (Toronto. New Y ork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997): Martha A. Fineman. The Nerrrered Mother, [he Se-rrcaf Family, and Other Twentieth Centrtn Tragedies (New York: Routledge. 1995): and Ruthann Robson. "Resisting the Family: Repositioning Lesbians in Legal Theory. " Signs 19. no. 9 (IMarch 1994). 975-996. CHAPTER FTVE:

"We Are Family?" 11:

Queer Activism and Bill 167

Introduction

In 1994. as we have seen. a majority of Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) in

Ontario opposed lesjslation which would have granted family status to same-sex couples and their

children. In the previous chapter I detailed the introduction and subsequent defeat of Bill 167 by

concentrating on the moves of elected politicians. The activities of community activists were

outlined in this analysis primarily in relation to Legislative strategies. Likewise. the commentary

I inciuded from the queers I interviewed reflected a range of opinions on the political matters cited. In this chapter I will shift the focus to the grassroots lobby effons for same-sex spousal

recognition legislation. I will explore the perspectives of variously-situated queer community activists in regard to the struggle around Bill 167 in particular. and notions of "family" in general.

Before I launch into this analysis. I would like to stress that the words of the activists whom I spoke with do not represent "the truth. "' The purpose of my oral history project was to gather information from queer activists in order to supplement and challenge my own remembrances. as well as textual accounts. of Bill 167. I felt that it was vital to incorporate [he experiences, thoughts. feelings. ideas. reflections. and opinions of other queers into my work in a critical fashion. This was the piece that I identified as missing when I initially researched the topic of same-sex spousal recognition legislation. However. as I have previously argued. it is erroneous to simply replace a so-called "objective perspective" with the "authority of 216 experience." As rich as the activist narratives are. they do not tell the "whole story." nor should they be exempt from deconstructive analysis.

In the opening chapter of this thesis I quoted Alessandro Portelli who asserted that oral history "tells us less about events as such than about their meaning. "'Certainly the queers whom

I interviewed (re)interpreted the events surrounding BilI 167 in diverse and sometimes contlicting ways. Bur what I found interesting was not how "accurately" someone recounted a particular historical moment, but what it seemed to signiw to her or him. Most of all. I was intrigued by issues which signalled sites of contestation. Thus rather than detail every move activists made during the time period of the mid-1990s. I have chosen to focus primarily on debated themes which arose during the course of the narratives in regard to "family" and same-sex spousal rights.

In other words. it is my intention to explore troublesome areas which have been left out or glossed over in other accounts. In Chapter Four I distinguished my work from David

Rayside's by contrasting our analytical frameworks.' Although we both write about the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario. and the role of queer community activism. our approaches are different. Unlike Rayside, my focus is not limited to legislative activities. Instead

I sou@ out narratives from activists who were located outside of the system of formal state politics. Furthermore, I view feminist analyses of "family" and "experience" as vital. whereas

Rayside pays little heed to these critiques. As I have demonstrated. the issue of inclusion in "the family" is complex. Finally. Rayside is more interested in emphasizing unity among queers than he is in exploring conflict. By contrast, I highlight differences and divisions among activists. Queer Mobilization and Resistance

The queers whom I interviewed mobilized around. and/or resisted. the stru_ggle for Bill

167 in Ontario in a variety of ways.' These activists can be divided into broad categories according to what extent. and in some cases if, they were involved in lobbying to have the definition of "spouse" expanded to include partners in same-sex relationships- Most of the people who participated in my oral history project. with the exception of Sky Gilbert and M. actively supported the legislation put forward by the Ontario New Democratic Party (ONDP) in 1991.

However, as we will see. levels of support for Bill 167 varied by degrees. as did critiques of the legislation.

Many of the queer activists who spoke with me were involved in fighting for same-sex spousal rights in Ontario prior to Bill 167. Tom Warner is a prominent member of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario (CLGRO). Alison Kemper participated in the 1989 conference on relationship recognition organized by CLGRO. Don Franco and Bob Gallagher were members of CLGRO's Working Group on Relationship Recognition (WGRR). Gallagher was also pivotal in the fight to obtain same-sex spousal benefits for employees of Metropolitan

Toronto. Franco. Gallagher. M. and Shirley Scarrow all were. and in some cases still are. members of the ONDP. and active in the Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual Comnlirree (LGBC).

In 1994 Franco, Gallagher. Alison Kemper. Laverne Monette. Krtthqm Payne. Chris

Phibbs, Shirley Scarrow, and Warner participated in the Bill I67 lobby effort. Some of these activists heId key positions in the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario. Warner was a spokesperson for CLGRO and Co-Chair of the Campaign for Equal Families (CEF),

Franco was a longstanding member of the LGBC. and Gallapher was Co-ordinator of the CEF.

Levels of participation in queer politics, as I have previously discussed. are contingent upon such factors as time, money, ability, geographical location, etc.' Not surprisingly, then, the Toronto- 218 based white middle-class gay men whom I interviewed (Franco. Gallagher. Warner) were the

most involved in the Bill 167 lobby. followed by similarly-positioned lesbians (Kemper and

Phibbs). By contrast Monette. a Native lesbian. Payne. a bisexual woman located in Ottawa. and

Scarrow. a London lesbian. played less active roles in the campaign for same-sex spousal rights.

Sky Gilbert and M did not take part at all in the struggle for same-sex spousal

recognition. As a Black gay man, M made it clear that the white lesbian and gay community is

not "home" to him. He supported neither the proposed legislation nor the lobby efforts which

he saw as shaped by racism and colonialism. Gilbert was not in town when Bill 167 was being

debated. and he was glad that this was the case. From his perspective as a drag queen. the

assimilationist impulse of lesbians and gay men who wish to emulate heterosexuality is suspect.

Payne was also concerned by what she regarded as conservatism on the part of lesbians and gay

men during this strugle. Although she was a member of the CEF in Ottawa. she was

simultaneously critical from a feminist, bisexual perspective of the narrow conception of

sexuality and family which framed the legislation.

After interviewing queers in Ontario in regard to Bill 167. I was struck anew by the gulf

which exists between community activists and elected politicians. To an activist like myself. this

is not an unfamiliar scenario. As a delegate to meetings of the National Action Committee on

the Status of Women (NAC), for example, I all-too-often found myself lobbying unresponsive -governments. However. as 1 pointed out in the last chapter. New Democrats are associated with social justice issues such as lesbian and gay equality and same-sex spousal rights. More than any other major political party, the NDP has taken a lead in this area. Thus when the ONDP formed a majority government in October 1990. queer activists, myself included. were optimistic.

The new government got off to a good start by almost immediately extending same-sex spousal benetits to all Ontario public service employees." At this time the ONDP announced that 219 it would review all provincial legislation pertaining to same-sex relationships.' Despite this hopeful beginning. and numerous promises. it took the ONDP until May 1991 to introduce a bill which would redefine the term "spouse" in tifty-seven pieces of legislation. The Equalin Riglzrs

Statute Arnendrnenf Law. or Bill 167. was defeated on second reading. As I detailed in the previous chapter, the ONDP legislation failed for a number of reasons. Most notably. Lyn

McLeod. the leader of the Liberals. radically changed her position and refused to suppon Bill

167. At the same time Bob Rae's New Democratic sovernment mishandled the legislation by stallin_g for too long. alIowing a "free vote." not treating same-sex spousal rights as a human rights issue. and neither educatinz the public nor consulting with community activists.

Queers who had been fighting for same-sex spousal recognition legislation in Ontario were frustrated by the defeat of Bill 167. (And even some activists who were unsupportive of the legislation criticized the government for its mismanagement.) Tom Warner summarized this epoch as such: "...it was after the NDP got elected that we felt we had an opportunity. probably the most supportive ,oovernment that we could expect to get on the issue. and so we started meeting with MPPs and Cabinet Minsters over the four year period leading up to the bill, with various promises being made and then not delivered, and then reaching a point where we didn't think it was going to happen. and then suddenly they decided they were going to introduce anyway. and it was introduced very quickly in 1994 without a lot of groundwork beins laid terms of securing political suppon within the NDP caucus."

Points of Debate

So what happened "behind the scenes" of the rise and fall of the ONDP same-sex spousal recognition legislation'? In this section I will examine contested areas in queer activism. The points of debate which I located in the oral narratives revolve mainly around assimilationist 220 versus anti-assimilationkt stances. While some community activists accepted. or even promoted.

a "normalizing" thrust, other queers were critical of this type of strategy. This split was most

apparent in discussions of relationship recognition as a potitical goal for queer communities.

Significantly. race. class. gender. and sexuality analyses intersected and challenged this discourse at various sites. In addition. activists expressed conflicting opinions regarding both the substance of Bill 167 and the organization of the lobby efTons for same-sex spousal recognition.

Building Consensus

The introduction of Bill 167. as we saw in the last chapter. was preceded by such legal challenges to the definition of "spouse" as Mossop v. Canada. Egan I.. Canada. Andrms v.

Onrario, Lesi~nerv. Ontario. M v. H.' as well as my own case against the Unemployment

Insurance (U. I.) Commission. lo Meanwhile. CLGRO had campaigned from 1975 to 1986 to have sexual orientation added to the Onrario Human Righrs Code (OHRC) as a protected ground of discrimination." After that victory. CLGRO began polling its members in order to ascertain which issues were most important to members of lesbian. gay. bisexual. and transgendsred communities.

According to Warner, relationship recognition was the tirst or second choice of the majority of respondents. "We knew that it was a difficult issue on which to build consensus," he toId me. "because there are so many divergent views in our communities about that and some people didn't think it was an issue that should be dealt with at all and others had substantial disagreements in terms of how it should be dealt with. " So right from the beginning the issue of same-sex relationship rights was a hotly debated topic in (some) queer communities. It is important to note that while surveys provide valuable information, they do not reflect the opinions of all community members. In this case. for instance. I could hypothesize that queers 22 1 who belonged to an activist organization like CLGRO already had some interest in working

within the formal political system to promote rights such as relationship recognition.

In August of 1989 CLGRO organized the "On Our Own Terms" conference so that queers could discuss same-sex spousal rights. Alex Munter credits CLGRO with putting this issue on the "political map. "" Again. such an event would most likely attract a certain segment of queer communities, namely activists with enough privilege to be out and involved in political issues.

During the course of this meeting Warner says that a consensus was reached on the issue of relationship recognition. and a grassroots strategy worked ouc in terms of such matters as political demands? (AIDS. and homophobia in the educational system. were also identified as important areas.) Participants discussed grassroots organizing, resource development. and community building. A further result of this provincial conference was the formation of

CLGROfsWGRR. This body did the research for the "Happy Families" brief. a document which outlined provincial statutes that discriminate against same-sex relationships. and made recommendations for change. It was eventually used as a tool to educate and lobby MPPs."

Alison Kemper was one of the eighty participants in attendance at the CLGRO conference on relationship recognition. which she refers to as her first "gay rights conference. " She told me that this event. the first public forum of its kind to be held in Ontario. was important in terms of her own politicization around lesbian and gay family issues. Kemper recalls that tensions emerged between and among those who took part in the conference. While most lesbians wanted lf~p~~~e~,"gay men were far more resistant to the reification of heterosexual norms.

Interestingly, Kemper went on to assert that the situation has shifted in the nineties with lesbian legal theorists critiqueing "normalization" and gay men fighting for spousal benetits-" While

I concur that theorists such as Ruthann Robson are at the forefront of the deconstruction of the legal concept of "family," there are still many lesbians who strive to expand the definition of "family."'" Moreover. while gay men have taken a leading role in the struggle for same-sex spousal benefits, lesbians have been pivotai in custody and adoption battles.''

Rayside also alludes to friction among some conference participants who supported spousal benefits and others who were critical of privileging queers who emulated the. heterosextial model of romantic coupledom. 'Wowever. he does not indicate who argued these positions. or if there were any clear gender divisions.:' According to Rayside, CLGRO was able to reach a compromise position which a majority of its members accepted. With its "Statement of

Principle, " CLGRO sought to balance legislative reform with more thoroughgoing change.'" As discussed in the previous chapter. CLGRO ended up incorporating a vision of voluntary partnership recognition with a demand for Iegal fairness.'' Rayside adds that the marriage debate. which is common in the United States, was avoided by concentrating on equality with heterosexual common-law couples .--7 7

According to Bob Gallagher. "CLGRO was reaIly the hero" during this initial phase of mobilization. He says that this period ended with the passine of same-sex benefits for approximately 50.000 employees of Metropolitan Toronto in 1992." Gallagher initiated this struggle in the early nineties when his partner Jamie was ill and his benetits were rumin=a out.

In Gallagher's opinion. CLGRO's research not only provided a base for the Metro effort. but in turn benefited from being put into practice. The Metro struggle is important. according to

Gallagher. because it put the issus of same-sex spousal rights into the public eye. Moreover, as

Munter adds. this issue "infused new energy into the relationship recognition working group. ""

The people involved in pushing for benefits for same-sex partners at Metro (Gallagher. Mary-

Woo Simrns. and Bill Dwyer) went on to form the core of the team that lobbied for Bill 167. Pressuring the Government

Gallagher describes the second phase of mobilization as extending from the victory at

Metro to the introduction of same-sex spousal recognition legislation by the ONDP. CLGRO had laid the groundwork for a redefinition of "spouse" in Ontario, and the Metro effort had put the issue on the agenda. So, by 1992: "there was direct pressure to introduce 167.. ..We were no longer- deciding what 167 would Look like. we were no longer decidins that it was a priority in our community. we decided what relationship recognition was. we had decided it's the priority after AIDS. " At this point Gallagher was an active member of the two major players. namely

CLGRO's WGFU2 and the LGBC executive.

CLGRO organized the more public events such as sit-ins in the Premier's office. while the LGBC kept up its attempts to pressure the party into introducing a same-sex spousal rights bill. "Basically what we did at .Metro we tried to replicate at the Provincial levei." Gallagher told me. "but to be really honest. we didn't have great contacts outside of the GTA. " Consequently. the initiative was less than successful in places other than Toronto and a few other large centres such as Ottawa and Hamilton. This dilemma, as we shall see, was unfortunately carried over from the early efforts of CLGRO and the LGBC to the CEF.

"That whole phase." Gallagher told me. "was always both formally and informally done through two totally different channels of communication, one was CLGRO and the community protesting and demanding public pressure. and the LGBC. which was almost the same people. but in fact. because they were in the party, and they had formal status in the party. and they were party members and party officials, they were able to put the pressure internally." It was also crucial to have the LGBC on board. Gallagher explained. because the ONDP used this committee for purposes of communication. From his perspective. the LGBC was invaluable because it had access to the government. 224 In contrast, Warner found this lack of direct communication between CLGRO and the government problematic. On an individual basis, CLGRO met with ONDP politicians such as

Marion Boyd. . and . And on a broader level. CLGRO organized postcard and letter writing campaigns. But ultimately the government "preferred to deal with people in the party. the Lesbian. Gay. Bisexual Committee of the NDP- And so we were in a rather strange (we found it strange) situation where rhsy would be communicating through party members to us rather than directly with us. and so it made the whole thing very difficult."

Therefore, even though CLGRO had provided the ONDP with a detailed brief on same- sex spousal recognition. the government neither drew on CLGRO's expertise nor did it keep the activist group apprised of its decisions. For example, CLGRO had to communicate through party members to the government that it would not support a bill which did not include adoption.

Likewise, the ONDP used party members who were involved in the LGBC to gage CLGRO's response to proposals. There was no formal consultation process between CLGRO and the government: " . . .if it was any other issue or any other constituency they [the government] would L be working directly with the community groups to see whether the lqislation was acceptable to them and how they could gain support for it in order to have it passed and there was none of that. "3

But Gallagher maintained that this arrangement made sense. " CLGRO had community skilIs. They were good at analysins the problem and goins to Xrru! and explaining why this was good for gay liberation, but they didn't have that political. strategic expertise that LGBC had

And so the two were really a good combination." LGBC executive members, who included John

Campey, Pat Dewhurst. Bill Dwyer, Bob Gallagher, Tim Gemond. . Mary-Woo

Simms, and Susan Ursel, were key: "[eJxtremely talented people who know the law, who know politics. who know communications. who know political fishting, who know strategic targeting, 225 who have all the skill sets that are required at LGBC." CLGRO. in Gallasher's estimation. simply did not have these skills.

In addition to CLGRO's frustration with the role of the LGBC. not all members of the

LGBC were entirely comfortable collaborating with people outside of the ONDP. Don Franco and Shirley Scarrow. both long-time ONDPers. and LGBC executive members. expressed some doubt during the course of the interviews in regard to the ability of party members and non-party members to work together. Franco described his party activism around same-sex spousal recognition as such: "right from the time of the election of the Rae government. we wanted to hoId them to their promise of something similar to Bill 167 and year by year we went as delegations to the Attorney General and various members of the Cabinet to insist that somethins should be done now. early in the NDP government's term of office. and of course we got no place. we were just sloughed off."

In order to pressure the NDP to live up to its promises. Franco explained that the LGBC teamed up with CLGRO. This was. in his opinion. an "interesting liaison" as many of the

CLGRO members were not NDPers. Nonetheless, Franco says that they all worked fairly well together. despite their political differences. Obviously. as party members, queer activists involved in the LGBC were ioyd to the government in a way that non-ONDP queer activists were not.

I know from my own involvement as an executive member of the LGBC that there are times when one's queer identity comes into conflict with one's political affiliations. At meetings of

Provincial Council. for example, I often felt that LGBC resolutions were not taken seriously.

And the first year that a "" was held in Toronto prior to Pride Day. the LGBC executive would not permit the use of its banner. The feeling was that the women-only demonstration was "divisive. " 226 Generally, however. activists involved with the LGBC chose to work within the party for chanse. In the case of same-sex spousal recognition. members of the LGBC such as Franco put a great deal of time and effort into trying to persuade the government to introduce legislation.

Only when this tactic failed did queer ONDPers look to farm coalitions outside of the party.

Scarrow, for instance. recounted how party activists such as herself found themselves lobbying with queers who were not ONDP supporters, and were openly critical of the government. She cited some members of the Association of London Ontario (HALO) in this regard.

By contrast. Scarrow felt that Boyd was committed to Bill 167 and had "been supportive of the cay community here in London." G

The April 1993 by-election in St. George-St. David. which I detailed in the previous chapter, highlighted this issue of divided allegiances. For one. some members of CLGRO threw their support behind Tim Murphy, the Liberal candidate. Munter. a Regional Councillor and

LGBC member, writes that this caused a planned boycott of the by-election to fail.'b Murphy, who promised to introduce a Private Member's bill on same-sex spousal recognition. won the seat in this riding. The Liberal Leader and Leader of the Opposition. Lyn McLeod. publicly upheld this commitment, and issued a challenge to the ONDP. In fact. she went so far as to write letters in March 1993 to both Premier Rae and Nick Mule of CLGRO stating her position." McLeod eventually "flip-flopped" on same-sex spousal recognition and refused to support Bill 45. which came to be known as "Murphy's Law. "'"

Secondly, Gallagher. with the support of the LGBC executive. proceeded to organize a type of nomination campaign for a "non-candidate. "" As he told me: "the party considered it

[this action] treasonous to the point that if they thought it wouldn't do them more harm they would have kicked me out of the party, because I was actively working against them." In the end. the membership not only refused to nominate a candidate. but the Riding Association (RA) passed a motion that it would not pay for any campaign expenses. The aim of this strategic

intervention. as I have previously discussed. was to force the government into making a commitment to introduce same-sex spousal recognition legislation.

One of the ways that Gallagher and the LGBC garnered support was by mobilizing people who were queer, or at least queer-positive. Gallagher told me that this was accomplished in large part by obtaining the ONDP membership list through unofficial channels. Names were passed around. and lesbian. gay men. and bisexuals were identitied by the LGBC executive. members of CLGRO. etc. Next. the list was put into a data base and sorted by two men or two women livinz together who had different last names. Finally. people who lived alone were targeted.

"And so." Gallagher explained. "we ended up identifying a tremendous amount of queers who nobody would have known about and to be honest. in many cases were closeted.. . ." A11 of these peopie were subsequently contacted by telephone. In this way many queers. as uvll as sympathetic straight people. were located and made aware of the aims of the RA.

However. Gallasher said that "[wje got a lot of resistance from real hard core NDPers that said you are hurting the party, and basically our position was. we can't wait. If they're not

human we the Cgoing to introduce fundamental rights legislation. then don't have right to put a candidate fonvard in our riding." Ultimately the ONDP nominated a candidate against the wishes of the RA, financed from the central treasury. At this point the popularity of the ONDP amongst the general public was iow. and this action signalled that party members were in conflict.

Premier Rae finally took notice: "I am still convinced to this day," Gallagher stated. "had we not done that. 167 would never have been introduced. That caused everybody in the party to have a position. to realize this is rhe issue. and it became a higher issue inside the party than even auto insurance and welfare reform." I have argued that the relirsal of the RA to select a candidate during the St. George-St. David by-election. coupled with the actions of the Liberals. pressured the government into introducing same-sex spousal legislation.

Critiques of Bill 167

The introduction of BiIl 167 by the ONDP government marks the bezinning of the third phase of queer activism around relationship recognition. On May 10. 1994. the ONDP caucus narrowly approved an omnibus bill on same-sex spousal recognition. Nine days later Attorney

General (AG) Boyd introduced Bill 167 for first reading. "The bill didn't go as far as we

[CLGRO] wanted it in some respects." Warner told me. As a result of its community consultation efforts. CLGRO favoured a system of domestic partnership resistration. Under this schema, couples would have the choice of whether to have their relationships legalized. and thus be subject to the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual common-law couples. or to opt- out of this system altogether. But. as Warner conceded, ".. . it [relationship registration] was probably more than we thought we could get out of the government. and. as it turned out. more than they thought they could get passed in the legislature. ""'

Other activists whom I interviewed were also critical of the ONDP Iegislation. Sky

Gilbert, for instance, toId me that: "...even though it [Bill 1671 was an issue which I'm sure it's important to follow up with, it's not an issue I have a particular affection for. it's hard for me to get excited about it. It's kind of like broccoli. do you know what I mean? It's like. yes. you should eat your broccoli. But can I really get excited about broccoli? No. to be perfectly honest with you." Gilbert. a drag queen. explained that he is "obviously sceptical" about the goals of lesbian and gay spousal rights.

He continued on to liken the goals of the proposed legislation to Ellen, an American sitcom about a white, middle-cIass (now) out lesbian. Gilbert said: "I can't deny that Ellen is 229 doing something to spread the word. and I can't deny that Bill 167. if it was passed. wouldn't do something to spread the word and make more rights for us and make us more accepted.. .. "

But Gilbert. as 1 learned. is not concerned with acceptance. From his viewpoint. queers and queer families are different. and this difference is important and should be embraced. He warns that something vita1 is lost in the bid to be just like heterosexual families. Furthermore. Gilbert maintains that striving for "normalcy" will not change the opinion of the right wing.

"They [the right wing] don't like us." he stated. "they don't like what we do in bed. they don't like sex, which is basically the fundamental thing. ...So it doesn't matter whether you say we are nice homosexuals, we get married and we have children and we work for a living: we're still sucking cock, we're still licking cunt. These things, they don't even like that when straight people do it, much less when queer people do it." In the final analysis. Gilbert does not believe that we as queers can (or indeed should) "buy our way into their [the risht wins's] affections. or lesislate our way into their affections. " This. in Gilbert's opinion. is precisely what the ONDP bill attempted to do.

As a bisexual woman, Kathryn Payne was also wary of the goals of Bill 167: "as much as I supported the legislation and saw it as a really important step. and was really angry and sad when it didn't work, I also was really interested in the idea of triads and of living in a threesome and didn't see that this was going to help a lot." M concurred that the proposed same-ses spousal rights bill would only benefit queers involved in intimate relationships with one other person.

"When I think of Bill 167 I think of white, middle-class, gay men who want to emulate the white heterosexual family value."'' In M's opinion. the ONDP legislation did not address a number of critical matters.

Firstly. the bill would only benefit people who had partners: "[tlhere was nothing that took into account how, for example, I as a gay man would probably like to name a friend of 230 mine who is working-class. black. poor. gay. male or female. as a person who would be entitled

to benefits because I'd have other family members living with me. immediate blood family

members living with me. in Canada." Thus. as M pointed out. "...issues of immigration and

migration were completely a non-issue."" Secondly. he critiqued the ONDP for overlooking

the ways in which women's lives differ from men's. For instance. women make less money than

men on the average because we live in a patriarchal society. Thus the government. according to

M. needed to think about benefits in terms of the private sector where the majority of women

are employed in "pink collar" jobs. Furthermore. because women have less economic power.

they are more committed to "notions of communal living. ""

Finally. M emphasized that Bill 167 was a difficult issue for many lesbians and gay of colour. especially those who are not open about their sexuality. Religion is an important factor here, he told me. because for many lesbians and _gay men of colour it is hard to be out when

"religion is community, religion is family." Hence. being publicly identified as lesbian or gay

in order to claim benefits presents an obstacle for some people of colour. From M's perspective. racial minorities rejected same-sex spousal Ie_gislation because they were told to do so by their religious leaders. However. the pastors were influenced by the risk wing. which included white clergy, white politicians. and the white establishment in general. Unfortunately. M said. racial minorities "responded in ways that made them look more violent. more barbaric. and less humane to human rights for says and lesbians than the white ones who were active in the destruction. "'"

The Campaign for Equal Families

Gallagher acknowledged that CLGRO had a legitimate claim to the struggle for same-sex spousal rights. Nonetheless. he did not feel that the group was capable of winning a major 23 1 political battle." Munter. an outspoken critic of CLGRO. has outlined the shortcomings of this activist organization in respect to the lobby for same-sex spousal recognition. He lists. by way of example. a primarily reactive approach which precluded strategic planning. little mobilization outside of Toronto. a lack of outreach to non-supportive queer organizations. and an emphasis on research and education over grassroots activism.36 Although I agree with Munter that these areas needed improvement. I am retuctant to place all of the responsibility on CLGRO, an activist organization with limited resources. IMoreover. as I argued in the previous chapter. the

ONDP government neither consulted with CLGRO nor did it inform the group in regard to its decisions or timetable.

Gallagher told me that he proceeded to make an agreement with Warner that if legislation was introduced. a new activist orsanization would be created. (Warner did not mention any such agreement when I spoke with him.) What he envisioned was a committee-based political action

Lcroup that would draw on the resources of orynizations such as CLGRO and the LGBC. but remain an autonomous entity. From Gallagher's perspective. this early deaI was key to rapid and effective community mobilization.

The CEF was formed on May 24, 1994. less than a week after the tkt reading of Bill

167. Mary-Woo Simms and Warner became the co-chairs of the CEF. with Gallagher as the Co- ordinator in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). As he had done during the by-election in St.

George-St. David. Gallagher proceeded to gather names of queer and queer-positive people for purposes of outreach. Lists were obtained from a variety of sources including Kyle Raye, Olivia

Chow. Jack Layton, . the LGBC. and CLGRO. f Gallagher asserted that

CLGRO's list was not that good.) In addition to outreach and list management. campaigns were also set up in the areas of lobbying, education, and legal issues. Four sraff people were hired. and hundreds of volunteers joined the cause." Gallagher emphasized that although Bill 167 was not passed into legislation. the CEF was

a success. In his opinion it achieved a great deal, in a very short time. in a conservative

province. Imponantly. in his opinion. most of the key activists had been involved in the struggle

for same-sex spousal rights long before the ONDP introduced legislation. "So we recognized that this battle is actually three battles in one." Gallagher continued on: "The one battle is to try and convince legislators to vote the way we want them to vote. That's the most straightforward one.

The second one is we were trying to win the hearts and minds of Ontario and we knew that. We can't win this without winning a whole lot of hearts and minds that have never been won over to our issue. And third. we had to keep the community on side. It's because we had gone the first ten years of it that we knew you can't guarantee that."

As I demonstrated in Chapter Four. community activists were ultimately unable to convince politicians :o redefine the term "spouse" to include same-sex couples. One of the CEF's main lobbying strategies entailed contacting individual MPPs. Activists would fax. write. and/or visit politicians in an attempt to persuade them to support Bill 167. As Chris Phibbs explained.

CEF activists were usually assigned to MPPs on the basis of some connection such as being from the same town. or having a mutual acquaintance. Queers "flooded the legislature with visits" and tried to gain entry to politicians' offices. According to Phibbs. a lot of Liberals and Tories refused to talk to anyone from the CEF. By contrast. most of the New Democrats (with the exception of George Mamollitti and a few others) met with the activists.

As it became increasingly obvious that the vote would be close. Phibbs told me that the

CEF stepped up its lobby efforts by concentrating on Liberal MPPs. She described how queer parents and their children were sent in to talk to Liberal politicians in order to convince them that lesbian and gay families are just like heterosexual fa mi lie^.^' The objective was to personalize. and normalize. same-sex spousal rights: "We were trying to paint as dull a picture of ourselves 233 as we possibly could in order to get them to pay attention to what we were saying. Although they always found it interesting to talk to us. and they really learned a lor. and were glad we had come. we rarely changed a vote." This type of assimilationist approach. as we have seen. is not endorsed by all activists. Intewiewees like Gilbert feel passionately that it is not. nor should it ever be. "normal to be queer. "

Despite this contention, the presentation of a "respectable" and non-threatening image of primarily (white. able-bodied, middle-class. nuclear. female-headed) same-sex families was the main tactic employed by the CEF. Gallagher admitted that the lobby group was criticized for this approach; however. he maintained that it was necessary. In the bid for Bill 167. queer sexuality was packaged for public consumption: "I always wore a tie," Gallagher told me, "we always sat politely at the committee hearings. " While these normalizing gestures may not have convinced many poIiticians to change their votes, public opinion poils showed substantial support for at least some level of same-sex spousal rights." This is particularIy notable given that the right wing mounted such a successfbl campaign against Bill 167. The CEF helped to raise awareness about same-sex spousai recognition in Ontario, and. in effect, "won the kitchen table war.

At the same time. Gallagher said that the CEF did not want to exclude less "mainstream" queers from the stmggle. nor did it wish to convey the message that all queers should have partners and/or children. For example. at a CEF rally at the University of Toronto's Convocation

Hall, Gallagher recounted that: "I thought it was really crucial that we have drag queens as

M. C .s, and that we have 's and rn' dykes around, and that it wasn't just suits and ties.. .this is part of the same fight that we have fouzht for years and will continue to fight around sexual

expression. " Despite this attempt ar community-building, the CEF. like CLGRO. was not entirely successfuI at bringing together the concerns of a range of queer people." This became apparent 234 during the course of my oral history project. Same-sex spousal rights were. and still are. associated primarily with lesbians and gay men who emulate the heterosexual model of family.

Phibbs, however. argued that the campaign for Bill 167 was invaluable precisely because of its public relations component. In her opinion. the lobby served to raise the awareness of a great number of queers: "I think that the interesting thing about Bill 167 and the community C response it engendered was that it pulled in, for the first time I've ever seen. all different ages and classes and components of the gay and lesbian community. People that had never been political before. young queers who had never. who don't remember the Bath Raids. who don't have any concept of Stonewall. or who don't have any sense of politic within the gay and lesbian community, for the first time got ir and they understood it.. . . "

While it is true that the 1994 lobby effort had a politicizing effect on some members of queer communities. I would argue that the people who participated in the CEF were predominantly privileged (i-e.. white, middle-class. and able-bodied). Moreover. it would be a mistake to overestimate the unanimity of queers on this issue. Gallagher admits that not a11

Iesbians and gay men fully support the goaI of same-sex spousal recogition. The aim of the

CEF, he told me, was to build consensus around the importance of Bill 167. In other words. activist leaders wanted to forge a general agreement amongst queers that same-sex spousal rights were a priority. (Five years earlier a similar type of consensus-building had taken place at the

CLGRO conference on relationship recognition. ) As for people who remained critical. the stratezy was to make them "...realize that it [the lobby for Bill 1671 is the battle that is happening, and to get in its way or be public about it or try to sabotage it would be harmful to everybody. " 235 Critiques of the Lobby Efforts

While I realize that this argument is based upon the need for political expediency. I

nevertheless question the wisdom of repressing dissent. During the campaign to pass Bill 167 into legislation. few queers openly critiqued same-sex spousal recognition." But. as I have discovered, there are many different views on this topic and not all queers wholeheartedly support the pursuit of same-sex spousal rights, In many respects. the liberal ideal of inclusion into the dominant (heterosexual) model of the family is restrictive. This observation led me to the central conundrum of my dissertation: is it possible. or indeed desirabls. to tight for same- sex spousal recognition while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and conception of

"family" operating in this struggle'?

Ultimately I believe it imperative that we both "claim family status and de-centre the family. "'3 While the CEF had some degree of success with the first part of this project. namely assertins that "we are family." and it also acknowledged diversity amongsr families. I would argue that it effectively ignored challenges to the concept of "family. " For example. in an infomation pamphlet put out by the CEF, the group bluntly states: "We don't want to change the definition of family. we just want our families to be recognized too."" Reflecting back on the struggle for same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario. Warner writes that it became impossible to maintain consensus around this issue. In his opinion, the focus of the lobby efforts ultimately became too narrow:

. ..by the time of Bill 167, the vast majority of those who worked for its passage saw the issue as being strictly about legislative reform. There was no commitment to achieving broader social change."

I will return to investigate the concept of "family" in the next part of the chapter. In this section I will now turn to critiques of the lobby efforts around Bill 167. To begin with. Gary

Kinsman asserts that "only an active organization of lesbians, gay men, union supporters, 236 feminists, and others. and the building of a broad-ranging coalition in support of Bill 167 could have brought about a victory. "'Vn Kinsman's opinion, activists needed to educate, mobilize, and apply pressure to the government as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, he writes. both the right wing and even the Liberals were more successfid at this type of grassroots organizing than the CEF was. Furthermore. Kinsman notes that the lobby group did not orzanize any public demonstrations in Toronto until after the defeat of the proposed legislation. One earlier protest of the free vote by various goups including unions, student organizations, feminists, and leftists. was not endorsed by the CEF."

The effons of the CEF. according to Rayside. were further weakened by its inability to convince Ontarions that Bill 167 was important outside of Toronto.'Kinsman. on the other hand, states that there was "unprecedented organization across the province."" 1 subrnir that they are both right: queers came out and mobilized in small towns across Ontario. and same-sex spousal rights were cast by opponents as an issue affecting only a vocal urban minority.

Interviewees such as Franco. Gallagher. and Warner all expressed concern about the centralization of the lobby effort in Toronto. but also pointed out that new queer organizations were formed in many areas around this issue. Again I would add that the political actions of the

CEF, as open to critique as they are, were further hampered by lack of time and resources. as well as scarce communication with the government.

Rayside emphasizes that the lobby for Bill 167 was marked by "widespread a,oreement on the issue among lesbians and gays themselves. "'"Most signiiicantly. he cites that same-sex spousal recognition was important to both lesbians and gay men. who worked together on this issue. While gay men were more concerned with spousal benefits. lesbians lobbied for adoption rights.51 Previous queer struggles, such as the Bathhouse Raids and AIDS, had been dominated 237 by gay men. By comparison. Rayside argues. the CEF had some lesbians in high-profile jobs. as well as a strong female base of volunteer support.

Nonetheless. gender inequities within the CEF office caused rwo female paid staff members (one of whom was my former partner Lisa Jeffs) to leave their jobs before their contracts were finished. While none of the activists I spoke with elaborated on this incident.

Phibbs acknowledged that some of the women involved in the campaign were unhappy. She also discussed divisiveness between lesbians and gay men around the proposed government amendments to Bill 167. In a last-ditch attempt to get the bill passed into lesjslation. Marion

Boyd announced that she was willing to substitute "spouse" with "domestic partnership." and remove adoption altogether. '' According to Phibbs, the activist discussions around this proposal

"turned into a very sex-based thing, because the men didn't really think of it as that big of a deal. just like childcare isn't that big of a deal. and the women were saying you're takins too much. and it's all ours you're taking."

Kemper agreed with Rayside that women held leadership positions in the CEF. and had input into the political agenda. However, she added. in response to the charge that Bill 167 was mainly a white. male stru@e. that "[a]lmost everything in the gay community is a white, gay malt: thing." "Many of the women who wanted to be active." Kemper continued. "were at home taking care of kids ....The fact of the matter was it was very hard. for women with children particularly, to be pan of it because it was so intense. and so fast. and it was people with the leisure to work on it that did a lot of the work." Thus, from her perspective, more men than women participated in the campaign for Bill 167. This was also my impression. Gallagher. however. asserted that "this was an issue where there was definitely more involved. right from the beginning." He surmised that this was due to the fact that more lesbians than gay men have children. 238 M felt that most of the people involved in the CEF did not have any race. gender. or class analysis: "[flor them this was activism at its best, the first time any of them were involved with anything because their jobs were at stake in terms of protecting their partners." Because white middle-class men set the agenda. which was based on the norm of the heterosexual nuclear family, all other voices were marginalized. Besides lesbians and gays of colour. M cited disabled people and people living with HIV and AIDS. All of these groups (and they are by no means mutually exclusive) have special needs in terms of being under- or unemployed. accessing government benefits. etc.

Laverne Monette also regarded the lobby for same-sex spousal rights as dominated by white, middle-class. gay men. However. she chose to support Bill 167. which she believed would ultimately benefit less-privileged queer people. through her AIDS work in aboriginal communities. For example. she petitioned the government on behalf of Two-Spirited People of the First Nations. and spoke at rallies as the Executive Director of this agency. As Monette explained: "What's really important is to recosnize the commonality in the issues. and how we can push the agenda forward by making these steps. That's why as much as gay white males are privileged, the further they push, and the more they get. the more we all get."

M recounted for me how he would visit the CEF office on Church Street. Due to the privileged nature of this struggle. M told me that his involvement consisted mainly in observing what was going on around him: "I went to all the demonstrations. I went to all the walks. and you know. I would look around. and I would keep looking around and I'd wonder where would the colour in this march come from at some point'? I kept looking and wondering where's the colour'? Where is the colour? And don't they understand that part of their fear has to do with their lack of coalition-building?" 239 Right from the onset. M noted a lack of communication with lesbians and gays of colour.

One of the primary reasons that Bill 167 failed. in his opinion. was because white queer community activists did not attempt to form alliances with gays and lesbians of coiour or other minority or$anizations. (While I agree that this was highly problematic. I am not as sure as M is that anything queer activists did or did not do could have altered events inside the legislature.)

A related difticulty which M identitied was that the lobby effort for Bill 167 did not take into account the different experiences of people of colour. Out lesbians and gays of colour. he charged. should have been consulted in regards to what same-sex benetits might look like in various communities.

The fact that one of the CEF co-chairs was a lesbian of colour did not impress M. He told me that Mary-Woo Sirnrns did not speak for him. nor was she connected to any racial minority community in a meaningful way. (M did not elaborate on this point.) "And this is where the arrosance, the ethnocentrism. the racism was played out in this bill using Mary-Woo

Simms as the only person speaking for every person of colour. and Mary-Woo Simms is as white as ever." Upon questioning, he clarified that what he meant by "white" was that she, in his estimation. was "passive" and "stereotypically constructed. " M added that he has nothing against

Simms personally. but he did object to white activists pointin? to her as the one voice for all lesbians and gays of colour. Although I appreciate M's frustration with tokenism. I did not agree with his assessment of Simms. whom 1 perceive to be a very capable woman. as ineffectual."

Like M, Gilbert did not participate in the Bill 167 lobby effort. He was out of town in the spring of 1994. and glad that this was the case. Although Gilbert has never actively opposed same-sex spousal rights. he is not a proponent of this issue. In fact. Gilbert is known for being

"caustic about the idea of the family, " and has publicly contested the notion of same-sex families based on a heterosexual, nuclear model. I surmised that this was why his name came up when 240 I was searching for interviewees who could offer a critical perspective on Bill 167. Gilbert was

not surprised to hear this: "Basically I think when people are looking for a radical opinion they

come to me. because there aren't that many people left with radical opinions politically in

Toronto. ""

Kathryn Payne was located in Ottawa in 1993. She remarked. as Scarrow did. that the

lobby efforts for Bill 167 seemed to be primarily centred in Toronto. However. Payne did

become invoIved in the CEF through her association with CLGRO and Lesbians and Gays of

Ottawa (LGO). Despite her contributions to these organizations. Payne made it clear that she felt marsinalized because of her bisexuality: "the Campaign didn't seem to be able to move beyond lesbian-gay , lesbian-gay. lesbian-say .. . ." In addition to her critique of this hierarchizing of some sexuahies as more "normal" than others. Payne. like M. has a class- and race-critical perspective. As someone who had very little money at the time. she told me that "the quest for benefits seemed a little self-congrandatory on the part of the white middle-class part of the movement.. .." Both M and Monetre concur that privileged gay men. who have access to jobs with benefits. have the most to gain from same-sex spousal ri~hts.

Throughout the struggle for Bill 167 a number of things bothered Payne. For one. she recounted that debates about the proposed legislation were dominated by a small contingent of

Liberals, mainly gay white men. Their conservative agenda had the effect, in her opinion, of making everything else appear too radical. Secondly, lesbians and bisexual women struggled to be heard at the larger meetings. Payne contrasted this to forums where women constituted a majority, such as political discussions at the Saturday night dyke bars and LGO Board meetings.

Thirdly, Payne said that because she was young and female. she often ended up photocopying and making coffee. Finally, she continued to find the exclusion of "bisexual" from the discourse problematic. 24 1 Payne went on to explain that throughout her involvement with CLGRO, she had spent a lot of time and energy attending meetings in Toronto and trying to get bisexual issues on the agenda. Overall, this was a disheartening experience: " [t] he good old. you know. let's have a discussion about bisexuality tact. which really just gives everyone a chance to air their phobia. and sitting there, throughout that discussion. and feeling just profoundly annoyed and alienated. "

Despite the efforts of Payne and other queer activists. bisexual has never been added to

CLGRO's name. It is thus not a coincidence. from her perspective. that the "obliviousness and stupidity" around bisexual issues which was so apparent in CLGRO was carried over to the CEF.

During the course of her political activism. Payne has frequently been told that the inclusion of bisexuality is not politically pragmatic. "The argument that I got given a lot." she stated. "was that bi was important, and of course it was a consideration. but this particular document has to work its way through all the politicians and bureaucrats and government straight people who won't get it, won't know what to do with it. and it will lessen the chances of it succeeding. So to leave bi out was to enabIe it to go forward. to add bi was to risk it. to endanger it as a project." Although Payne acknowledges that politicians have been known to delete the term "bisexual" from documents. she maintains that this is no reason not to try and include bisexual identity." More than that. Payne would like to see bisexuality actually shaping projects instead of simply being tagged on at the end.

For instance. she suggested that lobbying for same-sex spousal rights for lesbians. gays. and bisexuals is not that unsettling. But a clause which prohibits discrimination against bisexual people is much more radical because it would force lesbians and gay men to think about this matter. In particular. they would have to examine the assumption that bisexuals are not discriminated against as bisexuals per se, but only while they are involved in same-sex relationships. But Payne said that the CEF would not take the chance of acknowledging bisexual 242 issues, especially in Ottawa. because of the constituency it wanted to mobilize. In her opinion. what remained unstated was that: "...to include bisexual in a mandate. overtly in something. meant to alienate a lot of the lesbian feminists. a lot of the conservative civil servant gay men."

Like discussions of . including bisexuality and trangenderism. Pay ne reiterated that other issues such as race. class. and gender were not taken into account by queer activists in Ottawa.

Family Values

My interviews with grassroots activists were sprinkled with references to "family" and

"families" and with various usages of a concept of "family" that were made unretlectively. as though everyone would understand what was meant. It is not surprising that "family" surfaces as a theme giver, that the purpose of my orat history project was to investigate involvement in and attirudes towards a campaign for same-sex spousal rights. However. it is important not to

-(let so caught up in the poiitical manoeuvring around the introduction of Bill 167 that one forgets that "family" is nor a term one can take for granted. Therefore. in this next section. I want to take a closer look at what was said about "family" and "families. "

As we saw in Chapter Three. it is almost impossible to define "family." which Margrit

EichIer refers to as a "moving target. As I have previously argued. families continue to flourish even as conventional notions of "family" are challenged. However. neither heterosexual nuclear families nor the ideal of "the (heterosexual nuclear) family" has disappeared. For my purposes I will continue to employ a broad working definition which encompasses a variety of family forms including same-sex families and "families of choice."'' I have adopted an egalitarian perspective that emphasizes relationships of care as opposed to more formal ties as formulated by the Vanier Institute of the Family: Family is defined as any combination of two or more people who are bound together over time by ties of mutual consent. birth. and/or adoption/placernent and who. together, assume responsibility for variant combinations of some of the following: physical maintenance and care ofgroup members; addition of new members through procreation or adoption; socialization of children: social control of members; production, consumption and distribution of goods and services: and affective nurturance--love."

I wilt structure the following section by highlighting the four main analytic groupings which emerged in my oral history project. These categories of "family" are. of course. not iron clad and there is overlap between them. Indeed. the term "famiIyl' often operates as a type of metaphor in these narratives." Firstly. almost everyone I interviewed talked about her or his own "family of orisin. " Secondly. many people discussed "chosen family. " or the significant relationships which they elected to form as adults. Thirdly, each interviewee gave me her or his take on what "family" means. Finally. many activists commented on queer communities as a type of "family." (In some cases. as I will demonstrate. this took the form of critique.) Looking back through these narratives. I find that one of the most clear. and interesting. divisions emerses between those people who view queer communities as "family" and those who do not.

Distinctions are also evident regarding how "family" is defined and lived.

One final note: ir is crucial to keep in mind that the following analyses of "family." both my own and those of the people whom I interviewed. are situated within a heteronormative socio-political framework. Much of what was shared with me was done so wich the assumption that I, as another queer person. would hear these narratives in a particular way. The unspoken preface is that same-sex relationships are marginalized and subject to discrimination." As Don

Franco so succinctly put it: "I think there's no doubt that we do have families. We are a part of family ... anybody who says that we are anti-family should look at the many different ways in which gays qualify as family members." Hence. what I wish to investigate is how "family" is contested and affirmed within queer communities themselves. 244 Families of Origin

I will now turn to the first aspect of "family" which I outlined, namely "families of

origin. " During the course of the interviews. five participants specifically referred to parents,

siblings. or other relatives (Franco. M. Laverne Monette. Kathryn Payne. and Chris Phibbs).

It is important to note that I did not specifically solicit information in this regard. although some

people discussed their families of origin anyway. In retrospect. I would have asked more

questions instead of simply leaving the option open. Nonetheless. I managed to gather a great deal of interesting and relevant inf~rmation.~'

Franco talked about his family of orisin in some detail. He emphasized the important role

family members. especiaIly his mother. played in his life. As the oldest person I interviewed. and someone who has lived publicly as a gay man for almost three decades. Franco had a

valuable historical perspective on this topic. He was fortunate in that the people he grew up with supported him throughout a number of trials and tribulations, including police set-ups and outings. "Family is. it seems to me. an extremely important aspect of our lives as gay people.

I don't think we've said it enough that after all we do all come from families ourselves. we do have a biologicat family in most cases. ..and this idea that somehow gays grew up out of the soil

like mushrooms is nonsense. r'

In contrast to Franco, "family" is, for Payne, a site of both desire and conflict. In her words: "the family stuff is really tricky." During our interview she spoke in detail about her family of origin. At the very beginning of the interview. Payne told me two rhings about her parents- First. her mother was upset when she saw the "wedding pictures" from the Lesbian

Avengers' protest? Payne was surprised to learn that her mother was worried about her safety. as this possibility had not occurred to her. Secondly, Payne recounted for me how angry she was 245 when her parents refused to phone their MPP. who was opposed to Bill 167. and urge him to

change his stance on same-sex spousal rishts.

Payne was left feeling "really burned" by this experience as she resarded her parents as

left-leaning and politically involved. She went on to describe her family of origin as "odd and

diverse." She made it clear that her parents and her eight siblings, who are related by blood and

adoption. are important to her. However, Payne also emphasized that despite her fondness for

her parents. she did not wish them to exercise any legal power over her in the event that she was

incapacitated. In particular. she worried about them having access to her writings. Payne is nut

alone in this concern. When heterosexuals marry. such parental control is eclipsed by the legal

spouse. But for unwed queers, power of attorney must be legally transferred to a partner or

friend. Reflecting on this, Payne remarked that this was perhaps one of the advantages of being

involved in an intimate partnership despite her discomfort with such arran,oements .

M advanced that many differences exist between Black families and white North

American families. He told me, for example. that in his family of origin. as in many other Black

families of origin, it is not unusual for children to live at home until they are in their early

thirties. This can be partly attributed to economic need. as well as what M perceives as a strong sense of "family responsibility." or an obligation to care for people related biologically or

legally. bell hooks writes about the importance of families of origin in black communities. and the strong ties between black women and men who are marginalized in racist societies."j

People of colour, according to M, are generally more "family-oriented" than white North

Americans. By this I take M to mean that Black people commonly demonstrate a high degree of attachment to their families of origin. On a similar note. Monette stressed the importance of networks of relatives in aboriginal communities. In Chapter Three. I cited research which found that lesbians and gay men with strong racial or ethnic identities were often more invested in these 246 formal family ties than they were in "chosen family."" Furthermore. because family of origin is so important, M feels it is less common for Black lesbians and gay men to be estranged from their blood or adoptive relatives than white queers. This topic needs to be further studied.

"White families. " M said. "are much colder around differences than people of colour families are." He added that while not all Black gay men and lesbians are out to their families of origin. there is an unspoken acknowledgement of queer sexuality. Finally. unlike the majority of white Nonh Americans: "Many of us who are people of colour. despite the violence that may be associated with what it means to be gay or lesbian or same-sexed. have a hard time negotiating between which identity to choose over family and community. So being gay. for people of colour. particularly those who were not born here. those who were not Canadianized. it means negotiating family. it means negotiating culture. it means negotiating sexuality. all in one." From M's perspective then, queers of colour have to take their family of origin. as well as their racial or ethnic community, into consideration in a way most queer Canadians with

"white skin privilege" do not?

Family of origin can be aftinning of queer members. as Franco and h1 describe. or be more complicated. as in the case of Payne. This does not depend entirely on :he racial or ethnic background of the family of origin. although both Monette and M have pointed out that differences exist between white families and people of colour and Native families. While it has been M's experience that white North American families of origin are generally unsupportive of children who are queer. this is not always the case. as Franco's narrative indicates. In fact. half of the people 1 interviewed referenced their family of origin without any encouragement. which leads me to beIieve that this family form is meaningful to many queers. Contrary to popular perception, queers are "inside families. ""b Although "family" and "homosexuality " have 247 traditionally been posited as binary opposites. most Canadians. whatever our sexual identity. do not exist independently of biological or adoptive families of origin.

Chosen Families

Again. I did not directly ask the peopte whom I interviewed about their relationship status. if they had children. or about "chosen family." Si&nificantly-as with the topic of families oforigin, the information was often shared. regardless of my oversight. Three interviewees told me that they were single (Franco. Payne. and Shirley Scarrow) while four people spoke about partners and/or children (Bob Gallagher, Alison Kemper. Phibbs. and Scarrow). Two people described caring arrangements with friends which resembled kinship systems (Monette and

Pay ne) .

"I think we are quite capable of forming our own gay families." Franco told me. "which have just as much validity as the biological family and in many cases are more loving and more caring than the biological family." He explained that when he first came out in the late 1960s. gay relationships were fairly short-lived. But now. from his perspective. lesbians and gay men L are forming partnerships, often involving children, which are just as long term as heterosexual relationships. and in some cases even more stable."' Franco regards opposite-sex unions as a

"broken wheel." and is thus not an advocate of same-sex marriage." M. on the other hand. argued that many queer relationships "fall apart because of homophobia, many of the families fall apart because of societal and institutional issues that put pressure on us."

I think that they are both correct: queers are building strong relationships. and we are disadvantaged by the lack of societal support for our relationships. Phibbs and Scarrow concur with Franco that opposite-sex couples can no longer claim that they are the only ones who can form solid unions and raise children. although like M they were less idealistic. Scarrow, drawing 248 on her own experience. told me that the "bottom line is that kids are given a loving home. where the parents work together and are consistent. " In her opinion there are a number of destructive myths about same-sex relationships which need to be dispelled." Gay men are not pedophiles by virtue of their sexuality. homosexual parents do not necessarily raise queer kids. and there is more to lesbian and gay relationships than sex. "You don't think of them as a couple who go out and work. took after their accommodations. pay their bills. and conuibure ro society. because you may do all those things. that doesn't matter. but they have sex."

Phibbs. who comes from an "upper middle-class Westem-type family. " critically reflected on the life she has built with her Ions term partner Chris. "Our family." she said. "is probably starting to look like most middle class families in the sense that we bought a house. we have a

IittIe yard, we have a kid.. .. In the summer of 1991. Phibbs. Chris. and Zack (their son) were featured on posters for the Bill 167 lobby. The representation of same-sex families during this time period, as I have discussed. is linked to the historical construction of motherhood in the West. White. middle-class lesbians were promoted over a11 "others. " because it is regarded as "natural" for women to bear and raise children. And while two mothers are certainly not the heterosexual dream. two fathers are infinitely more threatening-'

Chosen family plays a significant roIe in Payne's life. as it does for a number of queer people. Monette. for instance. told me how important her chosen family in Toronto was to her.

These are people who are not related by blood, some of whom she works with. Similarly Payne has a circle of five or six friends who are interconnected emotionally and materially. Payne regards these people as "family" because the connection she has to them can be "taken for granted to a certain degree." She goes on to cite examples of the ways in which this group of friends offer support to one another. Payne clarifies that none of them are financially secure, and 249 yet they share what they have." For example. they have a circulating Fund of 5500, possessions such as motorcycles. clothing. and books are lent freely. and apartments exchanged.

Moreover. Payne tells me that she has her own key to a number of her friends' apartments. and is welcoine to sleep over if she gets lonely. (Sometimes she even shares the bed of friends who are coupled.) This is important as Payne did not have a partner or partners at the time of the interview. and Lived on her own. In addition. she has an older queer friend in her life whom she calls her "lesbian mom." According to Payne. "Di gives me all the things that had

I a mother who actually got it, would give me." In this respect she cites understanding around relationships, support for academic work. and an awareness of material needs. In turn. Payne tells me that she is fully prepared to care for Di in her old aze.

Payne obviously values this network of carins relationships with her "family of choice."

She also possesses a highly developed critique of the traditional nuclear family. and has set out to create an alternative structure where her needs can be met. It is obviously important to P?_vne. from what she has told me. that relationships, and the legalities surrounding relationships. be intentional. Furthermore, she offers two thoughts about chosen family which at first glance may seem incompatible. although I do not believe they are. For one. Payne believes that such relationships are always shifting and must remain moveable. On the other hand. Payne believes that there is too much emphasis in queer communities on rights discourse. and not enough attention paid to responsibilities. From her perspective. partners and friends have an ethical imperative to take care of each other.

However, these relationships are not set in stone but are always subject to renesotiation.

(These. of course. are not the type of relationships which Bill 167 would recognize.) To illustrate this point, Payne recounts being "best woman" at a commitment ceremony for two female friends. Although she personally finds the idea of monogamous coupledom problematic. Payne 250 wanted to support this relationship and the choice which her friends had made. (She also

acknowledged that such an arrangement would make life much easier for one of the women.

Helen. who was a lone parent.) But in order to disrupt the nuclear narrative. Payne brought three

dates to the wedding and they all dressed in a similar fashion.

At the time of the interview two of these people. whom she called "my sang." were

estranged. "But as much as I was dismayed and upset by this loss of my family. that's what

families do: any group of people who are close together and share a number of things come into

conflict and sometimes these conflicts are more or less permanent." Although this viewpoint

could be deemed negative. 1 feel that Payne is just being realistic. As a queer. critical feminist.

she does not privilege romantic love or the family based upon the couple. whether heterosexual

or same-sex. As she put it: "...one of the wonderful freeing up things about being queer is that

my life is no longer a linear narrative that involves getting married and buying a kouse and

having children. it's a wide open. make-it-up-as-you-go-along place. and that's kind of

frightening and it's also remarkabty nice."

Payne's dream is to live in a triad, although she complains that it is difficult to find two

other people who share this vision. And. on a practical note. it is difficult to organize such matters as employee benefits outside of the normative notion of "family" as being comprised of two "spouses" and their children. In this regard Payne explained that part of her desire to be a member of a "family." or a voluntary network based on relationships of care. is econornically- driven rather than romantically-based. It is difficult. especially for women. to do it all: have

fulfilling careers. be financially secure. build a home. raise children. etc. The "lesbian U-Haul syndrome." she observed, happens precisely because women in general do not have a lot of mocey ." Finally, Payne acknowledged that pan of what makes her life choices possible is a 25 1 certain amount of privilege. Most of the members of her queer chosen family are. as she put it,

white and over-educated. Moreover. they do not have the responsibility of caring for children.

Like Payne. .M expressed an interest in so-called alternative relationships that decrntre

the couple. He also stressed that "family." for many people of colour. is not restricted to the nuclear model of two (opposite-sex) adults and their children. But economics. M told me. plays a significant role in limiting and structuring such arrangements. In his opinion same-sex spousal rights do nothing to challenge this framework: "So for me BiI1 167 meant I had co have a partner. And if I didn't have a partner I couldn't benefit from w-hat spousal benetits meant because their limited definition of family was one that emulated the white normative definition."

As these narratives indicate, there is a wide spectrum in the way relationships formed as adults are conceived of and lived by queer people. One similarity I noted was that almost everyone I inrerviewed. with the exception of %I. stressed the importance of chosen t'nmily. This makes sense as some queer people are estranged from their families of orisin upon conlins out.

However. this is not the only reason for developing kinship ties which cannot be located on a

"biogenetic grid," as demonstrated by Monette." Although like M she too speaks about the importance of family of origin in non-white communities. she also acknowledges the importance of chosen family in her own life. On the topic of families formed as adults. the options favoured ranged from a more traditional nuclear model (Phibbs and Kemper). to an interest in disrupting the dominant discourse of coupledom and monogamy (M and Payne).

Definitions of Family

When the activists I spoke with defined "family." many of the themes which emerged when they spoke about their own families of origin and/or chosen families became more clear.

For instance, the ideal of the white, middle-class, nuclear family came under further scrutiny. 252 the concept of choice in relation to family formation was expanded upon, and the discussion around the importance of non-formal "kinship" networks evolved. Tension was evident between those activists who believe that queers should be trying to (re)claim the concept of "family" and those who are suspicious of this struggle. There was further disagreement around what shape this effort should take by those who advocate such a direction. I should add that. unlike in the first two categories, 1 asked everyone I interviewed for her or his definition of "family. " Some people answered this question directly. while others chose to discuss "family" more in the context of their own experience or in terms of political organizing. As I have already acknowledged. none of these groupings are rigid or fixed.

I will begin by citing Monette's clear and precise detinition of family: "Family is a group of people who care about each other related by either association or blood. who choose to call themselves a family." Legalistic in tone (Monecte's background is in law). this definition emphasizes choice. Family is not limited to a birth mother, a birth father. and their biological offspring, but embraces a wider rinse of people. This reflects Monette's experience as a Native woman: "We have this large extended family in some communities. every woman in the community is your aunt and every man in the community is your uncle. because that's how the kinship works." The nuclear family is, in her opinion. an idea which is alien to Aboriginal people. So while Monette was supportive of Bill 167. she is critical of same-sex spousal rights which emulate this white heterosexual ideal.

From Monette's perspective. the fact that an elite group of white men can dictate a narrow concept of family is unacceptable. She cites the different ways in which family is taken up in Native communities, as well as in Southeast Asian and Black communities. In these contexts family "is a very fluid thing" that can include all sorts of people such as partners, aunts, uncles, cousins. grandparents, etc. Monette also points out that historically white European 253 families were much more extended than they are today. Thus she would rather put her energy

into fightins to protect human rights. for example access to employment and housing than same-

sex spousal recognition legislation. Monette stresses that the care of all children. not just one's

biological children. is an important function of the family and the community. Indeed. "the

family is the community. "

On the topic of adoption. ~Monettespoke passionately about the legacy of Canadian -government child welfare policy in Native communities: "Aboriginal people are the most abused ethnic group in terms of having their children stolen and adopted by other societies n.ithouc any

value to the culture or what that person's experience was." From her perspective. this horritic

treatment of Native children proves that elite politicians do not have the ability to evaluate good

parenting, but are only concerned with status and wealth. What children really need. Monette

states. is love. Thus there is no good reason why iesbians and gay men should be prevented from

adopting children. Like racism. discrimination based on sexuality must be ended: "It's the same

kind of thing. because you are 'x' you are not as worthy as anybody else. you're not deserving

of respect, you're not deserving of the rights that Canada offers its citizens. "

M's definition of family, like Monette's. is much wider than the nuclear model: "To me

family means community. Family means religion. Family means immediate family. Family

means close friends who are not blood related. And people who share respect. love. take care of, and who I can call upon in time of need, and that's the beauty of the Caribbean." But in contrast to Monette, M does not use the term "extended family." The concept of an "extended"

family, he explained, only makes sense in societies which privilege individualism. According to

M: "[pleople in Nonh America depend on the 'I.' not the 'we.' For me family's about the collective, it's about the 'we'." Thus nuclear arrangements are regarded as the standard in this 253 country. as "the family." while the qualifier "extended" signals a family formation outside of the

norm.

For M. the sharing of resources is a vital component of both "family" and "community."

He cites, by way of example, how when he was growin? up in the Caribbean his neighbour

would readily cgive him sugar if he ran low. Lesbian and gay communities. M asserted. need to

expand the detinition of family so that resources such as benefits can be shared in a similar

fashion. As Monette pointed out. the spousal model of relationships is based upon a white,

middle-class ideal of the nuclear family. Thus if one does not have a partner. or one's partner

aIready has benefits. they cannot be transferred to someone else who may need them? In M's

opinion, the Bill 167 strugsle can be summed up as such: "White heterosexuals have this. we

want it. That's what I saw. I didn't see how do we redefine family? What does the redefinition

of family mean for gays and lesbians in a diverse way that rerlects the rainbow'?" Without such

consultation. the rainbow, a symbol of acceptance and diversity in (predominantly white) queer

communities. "was just a euphemism for continued oppression. "

When I interviewed Warner. he also underscored the fact thar there is not just one model

of family. Speaking on behalf of CLGRO. he told me that "we need to recoznize the diversity

of our communities and our relationships. " His own opinion is that "people's definition of family

should be defined by the people who make up that family." Besides being a part of the lesbian

and gay liberation movement, CLGRO also has a commitment to feminism and is thus critical

of the unequal status of women in the traditional heterosexual nuclear family. Rather than

promoting this model of relationships for same-sex couples. CLGRO wanted an "opting out"

provision. In other words, queers could choose whether or not they wanted to legally register

their relationships. Moreover, in the "Happy Families" brief, CLGRO advocated the distribution of benefits based upon need rather than as a reward for coupledom.'" 255 In many ways then. the manner in which CLGRO sought to (re)define "family" addresses some of the concerns raised by Monette and M. Diversity is highlighted. benetits are redistributed. the nuclear ideal is deconstructed. and choice is central: "Our [CLGROI position was, and still is. that it's a matter of choice. How people live their lives. structure their relationships and their families, is up to them. It's a matter of personal choice. but whatever choice they make should not result in discrimination."" This includes people who choose a traditional model of family which parallels heterosexual relationships. In this case. same-sex couples should be entitled to all the same rights and responsibilities that opposite-sex couples are.

However, as we saw in Chapter Four. this community-based group and its conception of

"family" was virtually ignored by the politicians.

Kernper and Phibbs offered warm, personal definitions of "family. " Like the meanings we have already seen. they highlighted choice and inclusiveness. "I zot a kind of operational view of family." Kemper told me. "I mean family's the people that stumble into my bed and need hugs in the morning and read stories. need someone to feed them and love them. Kinda how it is. It's not very complicated." Compare this to Phibbs' definition: "Family's a group of people where you feel safe and cared for and protected. It doesn't have to be bioiogical, it could be big or small. I don't think it needs to be anything but that."

I was struck by the similarity between these definitions. both during the interviews and later upon rereading and analyzing the transcripts. I had initially thought that these two women in particular would give me long, complex answers to this question about "family." For one,

Phibbs and Kernper are both out lesbian mothers. During the lobby for Bill 167, as I mentioned above, Phibbs and her partner and their child received a lot of media attention. Kemper is the

Executive Director of the 519 Community Centre in the heart of the gay ghetto. and thus serves as a role model for queers in Toronto. Furthermore, after the defeat of the proposed legislation, 256 Kemper and Phibbs and their respective partners were part of a successful court challenge to

heterosexist adoption laws.'s

As I puzzled through the gap between the answers I expected and the answers I received,

it occurred to me that perhaps the responses were shaped in part by the women's involvement

with the legal system. I know from my own struggle with the U.I. Commission that in order to

be effective, arguments have to be tight and clear-cut. Throughout this process my former partner and I were encouraged by our lawyer to avoid complicated responses. Moreover. when the issue is same-sex relationships. "normalization" is the overriding theme. While these strategies may be effective within a legal framework. there are. of course. drawbacks. Much as

in the process of drafting legislation such as Bili 167. complexities are reduced in order to attain a desired goal."

Given this. I perhaps should not have been surprised by the way in which Phibbs and

Kemper defined "family." Moreover, each woman emphasized that political ends were more important to her than what she viewed as abstract theoretical arguments. Kemper was. as I have already mentioned. initially suspicious of my project because of its theoretical bent. Likewise

Phibbs stated that she was more interested in actual lesbian and gay families than academic arguments. although she acknowledged that the latter were interesting. To this end. as previously discussed, Phibbs was part of the effort to convince MPPs that queer families were "just like" heterosexual families.

Gallagher told me that for him families are an ideological construct. which can be detined in a variety of ways depending on social variables. and the term "family" is a signitier for that construct. It is crucial for the left to enter this debate precisely because the right has successhlly laid claim to it: "It is a political construct and it is one that's real dangerous. And the winning over of that construct, the either deconstructing of it or reconstructing of it, is a central political 257 necessity in our time period." And this is what Gallagher set out to do as Co-ordinator of the

CEF. The name of this lobby group. Gallagher told me. was signiticant. In effect. it went "right into the heart of the monster which is the concept of family. "

But like Phibbs. Gallagher (once an academic himself) advocated political action over intellectual work: "Your battle is not in working out the details of that theory and somehow telling the world of it. it's using that understanding to then pick your fights and fighting in the real world. And this [Bill 1671 is picking a tight around the definition of family in Ontario. And it was one that actually got Ontario to start thinking about how limiting famiIy was." In response to his critics. Gallagher denies that the CEF sold-out by accepting a narrow definition of

" family " which paralleled the white heterosexual middle-class nuclear ideal. Rather. the Bill 167 lobby effort signalled that queer communities were finally challenging conservative forces and engaging in the ideological battle tbr "the family."

Gilbert remained unconvinced: "I don't really buy the concept of family." As a self- defined critic of the queer bid for "family status." his analysis stands in opposition to

Gallagher's. According to Gilbert, the term "family" is about imitating the (heterosexual) model.

Thus attempting to reclaim "family" from the right is doomed to failure because queer reiarionships are not comparable to heterosexual families. As he put it: "Personally. yes. I find rhac I have a different kind of family. we all as queer people tend to have different kinds of family.. .but politically I don't think it's our word. I think it belongs to the religious right. " So although Gilbert rejects the notion of "family," he recognizes the importance of caring relationships with other queers. This is especially important because. from his perspective. many lesbians and gay men have been rejected by their families of orisin: "the idea of alternative families is incredibly important and I think that a lot of queers have been valiant and creative about creating their own lives and their own selves." 258 In this section. it is apparent that queers conceive of "family" in a variety of ways. it is important to remember that the people I spoke with were fairly politicized. and thus many of them had thought about these matters extensively. This is especially true of the activists who were involved (or purpose1y not involved) in the struggle for same-sex spousal recopition legislation. Moreover. the responses were gendered. For example. Kemper. Phibbs. and Monette tended. in their detinitions. to focus on love and care of children* By contrast Warner.

Gallasher. and Gilbert generally gave answers which were more abstract and politically focused.

Racial divisions were also obvious in the way in which "family" was defined. Monette and M, for instance. both highlighted the ways in which "family" is inseparable from "community" in

Native and Black communities.

Community as "Family"

Almost everyone I interviewed offered an opinion on the idea that queers form a type of

"family" or "community." It is here above all that "family" is used as a metaphor for a group of people with common needs. concerns. and ties to one another. In this regard the Bill 167 lobby and/or the Toronto Lesbian. Gay. and Bisexual Pride Day celebrations were often referenced. As in the first two sections, I did not specifically ask people to comment on the notion that queers constitute a "family." (Although I did try to get at criticisms of this notion.)

However, like the topic of one's own family of origin or chosen family. this issue came up in the majority of the interviews. This reinforces that the distinctions I posited between the dirferent aspects of "family" are arbitrary. For many queers, it is almost impossible to think about these elements in isolation. For example, a description of one's chosen family can easily lead into/overlap with a discussion of queer community. 259 Kemper stated very clearly that for her the many different types of "family" are related.

"all part of the larger 'we are family'." She cited. by way of example. the euphemistic way of referring to someone as a member of the family to locate them as queer." In response to conservative opponents of Bill 167. these three words signalled that: "in our homes we may have family, but in some way we have common allegiances to each other that are familial. And I never had the sense from anybody ...that they saw the relationships that I live with. my children and my partner. as any threat to their queerness." Same-sex relationships. from Kemper's perspective. are only perceived as a danger by heterosexuals. Lesbian and gay families of choice do not detract from anybody else's queerness. she maintained. even when they resemble a nuclear model.

GalIagher is basically in asreement with Kemper. Post-Bill 167, he stated. the sentiment

"we are family" is more of a reality than ever before. From his perspective. communities which were once comprised almost exclusiveIy of gay men now include lesbians. queer parents with children, and queer youth. Gallagher thus asserted that people who formerly felt alienated have been brought into "the fold" without imposing on others, such as sado-masochists and the artists involved with Buddies in Bad Times Theatre. "I think what we're doins in relationship recognition." he told me." is opening up the definition of gay to being radical. which is communal. So that the concept of gay or lesbian is not just you as an individual and your desire. but you in a network of relations: with your lovers. with your fuck buddies. with your children. and now with your younger generation of gays and lesbians, and now we're going to stan

thinking about seniors. "

Phibbs was also optimistic about the cohesiveness of queer communities after the defeat of the ONDP's same-sex spousal recognition legislation: "I think the most important legacy of

167 is what it did for the gay and lesbian community itself. How it politicized that moment and 260 that many people.. .. " Franco concurred. stating that in his experience. this is a "pretty damned unified community" that has always supported him in times of need. Although he acknowledged that there are tensions. this does not phase him: "we have all sons of fights. but what would a good family be without fights?" When Bill 167 failed. the CEF arranged for a larse pink ribbon to be wrapped around Queen's Park on Pride Day in Toronto. "I think that was." Franco recounted. "the turning point in Pride Day from being a rather small family affair to becoming an enormous demonstration of gay pride. "

Warner also viewed the carnpaip for same-sex spousal rights as initially community- building, but only in Toronto. Smaller communities. in his estimation. were not affected in the same way. However. both Payne and Scarrow talked about the role the proposed legislation had on building queer community in Ottawa and London respectively. Monette was cautiously optimistic in her assessment of queer community post-Bill 167. Although she regards such networks as useful. she is also critical of same-sex spousal benefits which work to the advantage of already economically priviIeged white gay men. Nonetheless. Monette advocates a type of strategic support. In other words. white lesbians and queer people of colour should back up white gay men's demands for such things as benefits and pensions. even if does not have an immediate impact on their lives. Likewise. "when I tell you what my priorities are for my community. I want your support. "

In Payne's experience. this strategy does not always work. She is hence ambivalent about the slogan "we are family." For example, Payne related a story about the 1994 Pride day events.

This was the tirst time. she told me, that a contingent of bisexual women was in attendance.

Upon arriving at the picnic spot on Victoria Island. Payne found a number of display tables set up. including one for the CEF. She approached the table, accompanied by her friend Carrie. a bisexual woman, who was carrying her baby. Noting that the literature was all directed at 26 1 lesbians and gay men. Payne asked why there was nothing about bisexuals. "He said the

Campaign was about families. and that was why." she recounted. "It was one of those moments. he didn't justify it. he didn't explain. he just said 'the Campaign is about families. ' and there's

Carrie standing there with her baby. It was one of those moments when your enerzy just _goes whoosh, and you're just sort of left ashast, and I had no idea of where to go from there.. .. "

One thing that Gilbert and Gallagher seemed to agree on is that the gay ghetto in Toronto has changed in recent years. As Gallagher put it: "Church Street has been transformed since 167.

Before 167 I don't ewr remember seeing a baby carriage on Church Street. I don't ewl- remember children being part of any gay/lesbian functions.. .I saw very few lesbians on Church

Street. It [Bill 1671 profoundly transformed our ghetto." But whereas Gallagher views this as a change for the better. Gilbert expressed concerns. The growing presence of religious organizations and same-sex couples with children ir, the Toronto Lesbian and Gay Pride Day

Parade, in addition to recent uproars about nudity. signals to him that "the parade is losins some of its edge." In this respect Gilbert would seem to rake issue with Kemper's statement that her type of "family" is not perceived by other queers as threatening, as well as Gallagher's perception that no queers were imposed upon by pro-family activism.

Shattering the "one big happy family" image. Gilbert told me that the discussion in his circle of friends is less enthusiastic. "Won't it be great to have a Gay next year when it's a bunch of people with strollers, families with strollers. and let's all watch the families with strollers walk down the middle of Yonge Street. Now what is the point of that. do you understand what I mean'?"" What Gilbert means by "family" in this statement. in my estimation, is same-sex partners with children who resemble the traditional heterosexual family. From his perspective. queers in Ontario are becoming more conservative and rejecting d ifference in order to as~imilate.~' 262 M is also very critical of the "we are family" banner, although for different reasons than

either Giibert or Payne. Neither Church Street. nor the 519 Community Centre. are sites of community for M: "They need to understand that whilst they have created a white gay and

lesbian cornrnunity, it is hostile towards difference. racial and cultural difference." Until white lesbians and gay men begin to analyze race and acknowledge their privilege. he stated. people of colour will feel alienated and unwelcome. For instance. at the marches and demonstrations for Bill 167. M found himself constantly wondering "Where is the colour?" Examining issues such as the different ways in which homophobia is experienced by white people as compared with queers of colour is necessary. This is hard work that requires a certain amount of sacrifice.

M told me that he has nothing in common with white gay men. who are only inrerested in Black men as sexual objects. He was highly critical of the Bill 167 lobby which he deemed a trivial mrhite event which served to accentuate the differences between queer white activists.

When I asked him about divisions within the CEF. he said that "it was nice to watch white folks tight." On a very different note than Gallagher. Franco. Phibbs. or Kemper, M said "I don't think they understood that they had differences among them until Bill 167 came around. I think they thought they were one nice big happy family."" 1 believe he uses "family" here to mean a group of people who work together and are loyal to one another. In this statement M draws attention to the fact that white queer activists do not necessarily share common goals because of their sexual identity.

From M's perspective, the entire campaign was marked by a lack of outreach and alliance-building: "White gays and lesbians cannot expect gays and lesbians of coiour to emulate their style of organizing because we see home and community and family as very much an integral part of how we live, and as much as the Black community is homophobic. the Black community for me is also home, and it's family." Because of his experiences of racism in 263 Canadian society, which also permeate white-dominated queer organizing. M's oppression as a

Black man takes precedence over his marginalization as a member of a sexual minority. Hence

M sees his struggle with other people of colour who are his primary support system: "I have to

calculate what I will lose if I form alliances with you. without consulting my community."

On the topic of queer community, it is evident that the activists whom I interviewed had

strong feelings and opinions. From my viewpoint it is in this final section where differences are accentuated and fleshed out. Why is it that some people effortlessly embrace queer community while others have a much more dificult time'? Who is the "we" in "we are family"'? I would argue that social location. especially race. class. and sexual identification. is very important in this regard. For instance, Kemper, Gallagher, Phibbs, and Franco come across as very optimistic about the cohesiveness of queer community in Ontario post-Bill 167. Warner and Monette are somewhat more cautious. although they definitely hold out hope for such networks. By contrast.

M. Gilbert. and Payne expressed feelings of alienation and marginalization.

Conclusion

In this chapter I examined the grassroots lobby efforts for same-sex spousal recognition legislation in Ontario. My focus was the perspectives of variously-situated queer community activists in regard to the struggle around Bill 167 in particular. and discourses of "family" in general. In the first part of this chapter I highlighted debated themes which arose during the interviews I conducted including assimilationist arguments, "normalizing" strategies, the substance of the ONDP legislation. and the organization of queer lobby efforts. Analyses of race, -gender, class. and sexual identification were significant in this respect. I then proceeded to investigate- the theme of "family" and "families" which was implicit in my oral history project.

By identifying and analyzing four major constellations of meaning and usage for the term 264 "farnily/familiesl' and points of tension and argument between and among my interviewees regarding these four categories, I have demonstrated the fluidity and complexity and the contested nature of this concept for queers. In the following chapter I will provide a brief review of the evolving state of same-sex spousal rights in Ontario and Canada since the defeat of Bill

167. ENDNOTES

1. Refer back to Chapter Two for a fuller discussion of the benefits and limitations of utilizing the experiences of marginalized peoples in academic research.

3. Alessandro Portelli. "The Peculiarities of Oral History," History Workshop Journal 12 (1981). 99.

3. David Ray side, On the Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Politics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998).

4. In the first chapter of this thesis I provided biographical sketches for each of the interviewees. as well as brief descriptions of their activism outside of Bill 167.

5. In the Methodology section of Chapter One. I examined the factors which enable queers to enter, or hold them back from. political activism.

6. With the exception of survivor pensions.

7. See Laurie Bell. On Our Own Terms: A Practical Guide for Lesbian and Gay Relationships (Toronto: The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. 199 1. 3.

8. I analyze this debate in Chapter Three.

9. These landmark cases are examined in the previous chapter.

10. Refer back to Chapter One where I discuss this case.

1 1. See Chapter Four.

13. Alex Munter. Fighting for Our Families: The challenge of mobilizing Ontario's lesbian, gay and bisexual communities. " unpublished paper (April 6. 1994). 3.

13. See also Susan Ursel. "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights." in Katherine Amup. ed.. Lesbian Parenting: Living wirh Pride and Prejudice (Charlottetown : gynergy books). 1995. 331 . Ursel recounts that "CLGRO achieved a remarkable consensus among its members."

14. CLGRO, Co-ordinated by Michael Davenport and Rob Elliot, "Happy Families: The Recognition of Same-Sex Spousal Relationships," April 1992. Munter cites Susan Ursel who says that this brief "helped CLGRO define the debate." Munter. 2. Refer back to Chapter Four for a discussion of "Happy Families. "

15. As I have discussed, Kernper was somewhat reluctant to speak with me after she read the description of my thesis, She was worried that I too was "anti-family."

16. Ruthann Robson. "Resisting the Family: Repositioning Lesbians in Legal Theory. " Signs 19. no. 4 (Summer 1994). 17. See Chapter Three.

18. Rayside, 143.

19. Katherine Arnup cites activist Chris Bearchell as espousing a strong anti-assimilationist stance at the 1989 conference. Arnup. "In the Family Way: Lesbian Mothers in Canada." in Meg Luxton. ed.. Feminism and Families: Cririccrl Policies nrrd Changing Prcrcricrs (Halifax: Fernwood Publishiry, 1997). 9 1.

20. See BeII. 6.

2 1. Rayside, 169. Refer to Chapter Four where I detail CLGRO's position.

22. Rayside, 169.

23. This decision was reaffirmed for the employees of the new "mega city." I will return to this matter in the next chapter.

24. Munter. 2.

25. This is actually a debatable point. As I noted in the previous chapter. there were other activist groups which felt ignored by the ONDP government. Rae himself was openly critical of what he termed "the politics of the single issue." See Bob Rae. From Proresr ro Power: Personal Reflecrions on a Life in Polirics (Toronto: Viking Press, 1996), 280.

26. Munter. 3.

27. See Raysids. 330. note 4. and Xrra! Ne~r~sfaslz(June 10. 1993). 2.

28. This bill. introduced in June 1993. was limited to amending the definition of "marital status" in the Ontario HRC.

29. He was assisted by Tim Gemond. who went on to become the founder of the Youthline. a telephone support line for queer youth.

30. This is an interesting statement in light of the ONDPts last minute proposal to amend Bill 167. which 1 reviewed in Chapter Four. 1 shaH return to this point in the next chapter.

3 1. He later cited Bill Dwyer and lMichael Leshner by way of example.

32. Althoucgh M's point is well taken. immigration falls under federal jurisdiction.

33. While I appreciate LM's analysis of the wage gap between women and men. I am not convinced that because women make less money than men that all women are necessarily more attached to living communally. However, it may very well be the case that women in general are more likely to share space with other people in order to reduce costs.

34. M reminded me that there was probably only one Black politician, namely Alvin Curly, who cast a vote on Bill 167. 35. And yet. CLGRO had already wa~eda successtirI battle around the OHRC.

36. Munter, 1.

37. Rayside, 167.

38. Phibbs and her partner and their son were the unofficial "lesbian poster family" during the campaign for Bill 167. See the cover of Xtra! no. 251 (June 10, 1994).

39. In Chapter Four. at the end of the section on second reading. I cite a survey conducted by the Environics Research Group in March and April of 1994. and an Angus Reid poll released on June 8th. Each of these studies demonstrate that in 1994 about half of Ontarions felt that same-sex partners and their children should have at least some of the rights and responsibilities of heterosexual families. See "The Spousal Collection." 24 and 25.

30. These are Gallagher's words. In the previous chapter, I asserted that the government should have been doing educational work around same-sex spousal rights in the province.

41. And like CLGRO, the CEF was limited by a lack of resources, and poor communication with the government.

43. See Brenda Cossman. "Same-Sex Couples and the Politics of Family Status." in Janine Brod ie. ed.. Wo~uerzand Cnnncliatz Public Pofic~(Toronto: Narcourt Brace and Company. 1996). 249.

33. Cossman. 224.

14. The Campaip for Equal Families. "Fact Sheet: Family." Pamphlet. lMay I994

45. Tom Warner, "Story of a same-sex spousal rights strategy: Bandwagon effect & media attention narrowed the focus of the campaign." Xtra! no. 329 (June 5. 1997), 28.

36. Gary Ki nsrnan. The Regrriafion of Desire: Homo and Hetero Sexnnliries. Second. Revised Edition (Montreal. New York. London: Black Rose Books. 1996). 3 14.

47. Kinsman. 3 13.

48. Rayside. 170.

49. Kinsman. 314. He cites. by way of example, mobilizations in Windsor and organizing in places like Sudbury and North Bay. On this issue see Eleanor Brown. "Lives Are Changing in Small Towns: Lesbians and gay men across Ontario are risking much to come out in support of family rights. " Xtra! no. 252 (June 24, 1994). 18, and Bruce Demara. "Gays come out of the closet in the 'burbs." The Toronto Star (May 11, 1995). OS1 and OS4.

50. Rayside, 168.

5 1. Kinsman, 314. 52. I discuss these proposed amendments in Chapter Four.

53. Mary-Woo Sirnms is currently Chief Human Rights Commissioner in British Columbia.

54. As an artist who has been out since 1980. Gilbert explained. he got "dragged into gay politics." Since that time. his opinion has been sought on a variety of issues affecting queers. In this way. Gilbert said. he somehow became a "political animal. " Last year he wrote a piece for TIis Magazine. where he refers to himself as a "reluctant radical. " In this essay Gilbert discusses: " . . .the irony of that because I'd barely had sex with a man yet and suddenly I just was admitting it more than other people and so I was suddenly an expert. And so I would say that that typifies my experience of being a say activist." See Sky Gilbert. "Diary of a Reluctant Radical," This Magazine 30. no. 6 (MayIJune 1997). 34-37.

55. For example. in 1994 Kathryn was involved. as a member of the Lesbian. Gay. and Bisexual Pride Day Committee. with a Proclamation to declare Lesbian. Gay. and Bisexual Pride Week in Ottawa. Mayor Holsman sent the Proclamation back. with "Bisexual" taken out of both the name of Pride Week and the name of the committee. With tittle support from Ottawa lesbians and gay men, Kathryn launched a Human Rights complaint against the Mayor- Kathryn argued that although bisexuality is about choice. that does not make it a less Iegitirnate identity than lesbian or gay. In the end Holsman's actions were found to be discriminatory, and Kathryn received an apology.

56. Margrit Eichler . Famil! Slzifrs: Families, Policies, and Gender Eqrtali~(Toronto, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). 4.

57. Kath Weston. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship (New York: Columbia University Press. 1991).

5 8. The Vanier Institute of the Family. Profiling C~~narla's Families (Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family. 1994). 10.

59. Thanks to Ruth Roach Pierson for suggesting this idea to me, and helping me to think it through.

60. See Chapter Three for a discussion of homophobia and heterosexism in regard to same-sex families.

61. See the Methodology section in the first chapter where I critically reflect on the process of gathering oral narratives.

62. The day that Bill 167 was defeated. Payne "married" another Lesbian Avenger. in a public ceremony on the Tribute to Human Rights Memorial in Ottawa outside of the Town Hall. Payne told me that what she enjoyed most about this protest was the theatrics and the contradictions. For example, the two women were not lovers, although they made up stories for the media about how they had met (at a vegetarian picnic!), how long they had been together, why they were making this commitment, etc. As she said: "that was fumy and fun because we were pulling off this incredible scam, and making spectacle and creating history.. .. " Payne emphasized, moreover, that for her the element of masquerade was symbolic of the farcical nature of the political struggle. Ultimately. "it was about efficacy. it was about practicality. it was about pragmatic presentation. it wasn't about Dom and 1 loving each other ...." See Brown. 18. This article (which refers to the women as "partners") features a picture of Payne and Dominique Arranz in their wedding clothes.

63. See bell hooks. Ferninis1 Theon: From Margin to Cenrre (Boston: South End Press. 1984i. 37 and 69.

63. See Weston. 35-37.

65. "White skin privilege" is Peggy McIntosh's terms for "an invisible package of unearned assets. " hilcIntosh. "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack. " Independent ScCiool (Winter 1990). 31-36.

66. I discussed this notion in Chapter Three. See Carol-Ann O'Brien and Lorna Weir. "Lesbians and Gay Men Inside and Outside Families," in Nancy Mandell and AM Duff?. eds.. Canadian Families: Divers@. Conflicr. Change (Toronto: Harcoun Brace & Company. 1995). 1 14- 1 15.

67. As we have seen, O'Brien and Weir state that many lesbians and gay men have long-term committed relationships, with a breakup rate similar to heterosexual couples. O'Brien and Weir. 123.

68. Althoush he would support such legislation were it to be introduced.

69. I discuss these myths in Chapter Three. See 0'Brien and Weir. 125- 129.

70. We laughed when Chris added that at least they do not own a car!

71. Refer back to Chapter Three, Family Matters: "Normal to be Queer?"

72. Kathryn commented that because of this communal-type arrangement, where identities have become "intermingled." it would be very difficult to audit any one of them. Besides money and possessions. this group also shares credit cards and student cards.

73. This term is derived from the following joke. Question: What do gay men do on the second date'? Answer: What second date'? Question: What do lesbians do on the second date? Answer: Rent a U-Haul. (I myself have pondered the second dates of bisexuals. transgendered people. queers, etc. So far. I have not come up with any witty answers.)

73. This is Weston's term. See Weston, 213.

75. This is especially important. as M told me, because so many people are out of work because of homophobia and racism.

76. I examined CLGRO's position in the previous chapter.

77. Note, however, that this discourse of "choice" and "rights" is grounded in an ideal of individualism. 78. This challenge will be detailed in Chapter Six.

79. I point to the drawbacks of legal discourse in Chapter Three, In the following chapter I will continue to explore this matter.

SO. I myself have never heard this exact phrase. although I am familiar with referring to a suspected queer as a "sister" or a "brother. "

81. Gilbert has written about the Gay Pride parade. which he refers to as "Let's Show Everyone How Straight We Can be Day." Instead of being a political march for sexual liberation. Gilben feels that the event has been turned into an assimilationist platform for causes like gay parenthood. Sky Gilbert. "Looking Straight: The gay left needs to remember what made its cause so exciting. " Canadian Forum (November 1998). 22-26.

52. Although Gilbert finds this trend disheartening, he clarified that he is not totally pessimistic. The only thing that queer communities had mobilized around in the recent past was AIDS. and although this was an important issue. Gilbert emphasized that it is not the only battle. So it was good. from his perspective. that people had the energy ro take on something eise.

83. At this point M confided in me how much he hates the song "We Are Family" by Sisrer Sledge. I related to him that this was the inspiration for my thesis title. albeit turned into a question. CHAPTER SIX:

Looking Forward:

In The Aftermath of Bill 167

Introduction

Much has happened in regard to same-sex spousal rights since the defeat of Bill 167. the

Eqrcaliry Righrs Srarure Amendmen? Lmv. Indeed. when I bqan this personal and political journey

I could not have envisioned how events would unfold. Five years after legislation was introduced by the governing Ontario New Democratic Party (ONDP) which would have changed the definition of "spouse." the contestation of "family" has shifted from the political arena to the judicial sphere. Significantly. it is now queer activists. supported by the courts. who have taken the Iead on this issue. In this concluding chapter I will provide a brief review of the evolving state of same-sex spousal recognition in Ontario post-Bill 167.

Women and Children First

As we saw in Chapter Four. the bid for same-sex adoption emerged as the most controversial aspect of Bill 167. Hence Attorney General (AG) Marion Boyd proposed, just prior to second reading, to amend the legislation by removing adoption completely. and substituting

"domestic partnership" for "spouse." I have argued that not only was Boyd's last-ditch effort to save Bill 167 unproductive. but the ONDP's willingness to sacrifice adoption rights affected women disproportionately. Moreover, there was some feeling among female queer activists that

bgay and bisexual men did not regard this as a serious matter.'

Susan Ursel. a Toronto lawyer and former member of the steering committee of the

Campaign for Equal Families (CEF), writes that "[ilf the marriase issue began to uncover the

27 I real parameters of the discussion about lesbian and gay rights. adoption ripped the lid off." As

she explains:

From full-fledged, hatehl accusations about the fitness of gay and lesbian parents to raise children, to the questionable assumption that somehow lesbians and gay men will raise their children not to be heterosexual. to the amusing appeal of "some" feminists that allowing gays and lesbians to adopt will somehow further alienate women from their biological capacity to bear children. the discussion of adoption was identitied variously as the point beyond which the heterosexual majority will not go. or the point at which we lesbians and gay men have just gone too far.' L

Ursel, like Carole-AM 0' Brien and Lorna Weir. effectively dispels these destructive myths.'

The "truth of the situation." she counters. is that despite the lack of legal recognition for same- sex families, many lesbians and gay men form partnerships and raise children.

That the topic of adoption was opened up in 1993 was. in Ursel's opinion. "perhaps the -greatest success and the greatest failure of the campaign for Bill 167. "'It was important. she asserts, that queers had the opportunity to publicize this issue. And yet. while numerous people were made aware of the reasons a same-sex co-parent might desire legal rights and responsibilities. the fear remained that lesbians and gay men would want to adopt the children of heterosexuals.' The irony is that. unbeknownst to many Ontarions. individual queers already had the right to apply to adopt these children through the Children's Aid Society or a licensee."

But no legal provisions existed which would allow the partner of a lesbian or gay parent to adopt the child(ren) they were co-parenting-

To clarify. in this province fall into two general categories.' "Stranger adoptions" occur when an individual or a couple adopt a child who is unrelated to them. while

"family adoptions" involve either a blood relationship between the child and the adoptive parent or legal ties between the adoptive parent and the biological parent.' Joint applications for adoption in Ontario. lawyer Kathleen Baker states, have traditionally been difficult for lesbians 273 and gay men to attain. The main problem has been that the Child and Family Services Act

(CFSA) requires joint applicants to be "spouses." In this respect the CFSA referred to the

definition of "spouse" found in the Ontario HRC. namely. "two persons living in a conjugal

fashion. "'Prior to 1995 this legislation was commonly interpreted as referring to a man and a

woman in a committed reiationship. either married or common-law.'"

In the aftermath of Bill 167. queers turned to the courts to settle the question of same-sex joint applications for adoption. Chris Phibbs. one of the activists involved in the suit. described

how she felt at that time: "if our government and our legislators are too cowardl>. to provide the

leadership that we need. than we'll take responsibility for our own rights and we will take them

to court and we will win." On May 9th. 1995, four lesbian couples in Toronto won the right to

apply to adopt the children they were co-parenting." Thus less than one year after the defeat

of same-sex spousal recognition legislation in Ontario. queer activists successfully challsnged the

hettxosesism inherent in the adoption laws.

I recall feeling excited when these cases were reported in the news. and happy that

women were at the forefront of this effort. Alison Kemper, who was another one of the mothers

involved in K. and B.; F. and K.; B. and K.; C.L.P. and C.H., summed up the victory as

follows: "...doing the Iegat action that we did. to say. you didn't get away with it, you know, you were so afraid about adoption but here it is. the first one to fall. The one that was the easiest to take out in the courts. The other ones might be trickier to take out. but this one is open and shut. You lost. And that's the one they found the scariest, that we would have kids. "

The cases were heard by Judge James P. Nevins in Ontario Court (Provincial Division).

Seven children were involved in total, each conceived through artificial/alternative insemination

(a.i.) and birthed by one of the partners in the relationship. In each instance the decision to have and raise children was made jointly by two women.'' Because the "preliminary constitutional 274 question" advanced by the applications of the four couples were identical. Judge Nevins heard

the cases at the same time.'' The first matter to be considered by the coun was whether the

women could be considered "spouses." This was crucial because. according to the 1990 CFSA.

the biological parent has to give up all legal claim to the child except when the adoptive parent

is her or his spouse. The definition of "spouse" in subsection 136(1) of the CFSA. drawn from

Section 10 of the OHRC. is clearly heterosexual. It "provides that 'spouses.' whether married or unmarried, are persons of the opposite sex."" Thus only opposite-sex spouses are eligible to apply for joint adoption without the biological parent relinquishing all legal claims.

In a pathbreaking ruling Judge Nevins declared that "I have no hesitation in findincg as a fact that. in all respects. these relationships might be termed 'conjugal.' in that they all have the characteristics of a relationship formalized by marriage."" He cited the following characteristics by way of example: continuous and exclusive cohabitatior! for lensth>' periods of time. interconnected financial affairs. shared housekeeping tasks. committed sexual relationship. and, most importantly. shared chiId rearing.'" In other words. the four lesbian couples were almost "the same as" married or common-law parents. Although they were queer. they were also

"norrnaI" in that they lived together in a monogamous relationship. ran a household. and raised children.

Judge Nevins went on to state that not only were the couples "spouses." they were also

"parents" as defined in the CFSA and the FLA. In his consideration of standards of child care and the effects of being raised by lesbians. he heard evidence from three experts in the field: Dr.

Rosemary Barnes. Dr. Susan Bradley. and Dr. Margrit Eichler. Judse Nevins concluded that the so-called "traditional family" is no longer the way most Canadians live. and that this trend does not have a negative impact on children. Moreover, he stated his agreement with the latest research which emphasizes that "the most important element in the healthy development of a child is a stable, consistent. warm, and responsive relationship between a child and his or her caregiver. "I7 The quality of the spousal relationship, in his opinion. has more of an impact on children than does the type of relationship.

With this in mind. Judge Nevins went on to examine the constirutional challenp raised by the adoption applications brought forward by the four lesbian couples. The first question was whether section 136 of the CFSA, drawn from section 10 of the OHRC, that spouses be of the opposite sex to apply to adopt a child, infringes upon the rights guaranteed by subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Cfzurrer o,f Righs and Freedoms (CCRF or the Charter).'" The second issue was whether the above infringement- could be justified by section 1 of the Charter. Judge Nevins ruled that the requirement that spouses be of the opposite sex for purposes of joint adoption infringes upon the equality rights guaranteed by the CCRF, and that this infringement cannot be justified.

There is no reason. Judge Nevins concluded. to suggest that "homosexual couples are unable to provide the very type of family environment that the legislation attempts co foster. protect and encourage."" Same-sex parents. in his opinion. can raise children just as well as opposite-sex parents. (At one point hdse Nevins pointed to the fact that "traditional" families are not without their probtems, as witnessed regularly by the court system.):'"

If I accept. as I must from the evidence before me. that a stable. secure and caring family environment is in a child's best interests and is. in fact. the most significant and beneficial component in the healthy deveIopment of a child. and further that the paramount objective of the legislation is to promote the best interests of children primarily within the context of the family, then I must also accept from the evidence before me that there Is no rational connection whatsoever between the goals of this legislation and a provision in that legislation that contains an absolute prohibition against homosexual couples." 276 In the end. he found that all four of the lesbian couples qualified as "spouses" under an expanded definition of the term which allows for same-sex relationships." The ONDP government did not appeal the change to the CFSA?

During this same month Egan v. Canada. which I mentioned in Chapter Four. was being heard in the Supreme Court of Canada. To recap, Jim Esan. who had lived with his male partner

John Nesbit for over fony years, sought to change the heterosexual definition of "spouse" contained in the Old Age Security Act. On May 25. f 995. the Supreme Court of Canada upheld two unfavourable lower court decisions. and Egan lost his bid for pension benetlts. However. the Supreme Court also ruled that "sexual orientation" is a protected analogous ground under section IS of the Charter. and that this protection extends to same-sex partnerships." This judgement is significant. according to lawyer barbara tindlay. because it means that governments will have to justify all legislation which excludes lesbians and gay men and their children.

Although some degree of legal uncertainty still remains:

.. .it is clear. for the first time in Canadian history that lesbians and gay men can call upon constitutional protection against discrimination against them. or against their relationships?

Three months later, on August 17, 1995. a lesbian coupte in London. Ontario. won the right to apply to adopt each other's biological children. who were conceived using the same sperm donor." The women had brought fonh their applications for joint adoption as spouses.

Family Court Judse David Aston endorsed the aforementioned Toronto ruling in Ontario Court

(General Division). The adoption applications in Curherine Elizabeth G. and Linda Karideen G. were granted for the same reasons given in the May hearings. namely that homosexual couples can provide a "family environment" which is in the "best interests of the child." This ruling was precedent setting and binding on all provincial court judges. although both decisions must be referred to in order to get an adoption signed in Ontario involving a same-sex couple." 277 The month following this second. higher coun endorsement of same-sex adoption. another case regarding the definition of "spouse" came before the Ontario Court of Justice (General

Division)." Rather than adoption. the issue in iM. rP. H. centred on same-sex couples and spousal support. The plaintiff ("M") wanted the right to sue her ex-partner ("H")for

"palimony. "" The two women had lived together for almost a decade. and owned property and a business.'" However. the definition of "spouse" found in section 29 of the FLA is decidedly heterosexual. "M." argued that the Iegislation was exclusionary and the definition of spouse unconstitutional. and so she appealed to Section 15 of the Charter."

"M."claimed that the relationship was much like a heterosexual common-law union in that she fulfilled the traditional female responsibilities of homemaking. This division of duties was apparently not deliberate. but occurred gradually as debts accumulated and "M."was unable to find paid employment. "H.. " on the other hand. denied that they embraced such conventimal spousal roles.3' Judse declared that it was somewhat beside the point whether a couple believes they are taking up these positions or not. The crux of the matter. from her perspective. was rather the economic disadvantage which is created after a couple separates."

Judge Epstein further asserted that the right to apply for spousal support does not mean that every couple must exercise this right, nor does it imply entitlement?

In February 1996 Judge Epstein ruled in M. lr. H. that "the effect of the legislati\.e change proposed by the plaintiff would be to further legislative intent. "" Citing the ruling by Judge

Nevins in the 1995 adoption case, Epstein concluded that Section 29 of the FLA violated the

Chaner rights of gays and lesbians, and that this violation was not justifiable. She granted to

"M. " a declaration that section 29 is discriminatory and that a "spouse" should be read as "two persons" rather than a "man and a woman. "'"Thus "M." was permitted to bring fonvard her claim for support, which she subsequently won. Although "H." fought this decision. the Ontario 278 Court of Appeal upheld Judge Epstein's ruling in December 1996.'' In May 1997 the Supreme

Court of Canada agreed to hear M. v. H. '"

Thus a number of legal breakthroughs in the realm of same-sex spousal rights followed

the "rise and fall" of Bill 167.39Queer activists looked to the courts to change the definition of

"spouse." and the judiciary stepped into the void left by elected politicians." In 1995. as

outlined above. two Ontario judges endorsed joint applications for adoption by Iesbian couples.

In addition. a lesbian in this province was granted the legal right to sue her former female

partner for support. All of these cases subsequently went fonvard successfully. and resulted to

changes in the definition of "spouse." Finally, the highest court in this country sent a message

that same-sex partnerships are worthy of protection from discrimination. While these victories

signalred progress for same-sex relationship recognition. it is important to note that the vision

of " family" implicit in these rulings is premised upon a white. middle-class. heterosexual

standard. Like Bill 167. the ensuing court judgements promoted a model of strict formal equality.

The Harris Government

Bob Rae, then ONDP leader and Premier of Ontario. called a provincial election on

April 29. 1995." When he made this announcement, Rae pointed to problems with the federal

Liberal budget. The ONDP government. however. had its own record to account for. During its time in power. the ONDP had alienated many supporters over such matters as auto insurance. welfare reform, the so-called "social contract" and, of course. Bill 167. Although same-sex spousal rights were not a central issue during this election period. Rae did promise that he would introduce another bill were he re-elected." Moreover, the spectre of the failed legislation was certainly in the background. particularly in respect to the Liberal campaign. 279 Grassroots activists used the timing of the provincial election, which occurred almost a

year after the defeat of Bill 167 and in the wake of the first lesbian adoption ruling, to their

advantage. Queers were particularly good at drawing public attention to Lyn iMcLeod's chanfe

in positions on same-sex spousal rights. The Liberal leader was followed around by queers carrying massive "flip-flops. "'3 According to Bob Gallagher. these protests were "one of the key things that made her lose the election. that started her whole spiral down. " ,McLeod's reputation as a weak leader was, in my opinion. not undeserved. However. Kernper is perhaps correct when she states that "the de-bunking of Lyn McLeod may have ended us up with old Mike."

During the course of the election. I campaigned for the openly-gay ONDP c:mdidate

Reverend Brent Hawkes in the riding of St. George-St. David." Despite my misgivings about the way the government had handled Bill 167. I still supported the ONDP. The Liberals or the

Tories, parties which opposed same-sex spousal rights, did not seem like good alternatives.

While few of the queers I canvassed had anything positive to say in regard to McLeud." they also expressed many concerns about the ONDP.'" In the end. the PCs won the majority of the seats in the province. and Hawkes was defeated by the Tory candidate A1 Leach. It is worth noting that not one of the "dirty dozen." that is. the thirteen ONDP Members of Provincial

Parliament (MPPs) who opposed Bill 167, were re-elected. By contrast. strong ONDP advocates of same-sex spousal recognition. such as Boyd. Frances Lankin. and Marilyn Churky. all kept their seats."

After Mike Harris became Premier of Ontario. he sought to reverse the decision in M. v H."The Tories used their intervenor status to oppose this case in the Supreme Court of

Canada." M. v. H. was granted leave to the highest coun in the country on the condition that the appellant. the Government of Ontario. paid the costs. no matter what the outcome. 11: ihe appeal was successful. then "M." would have to look to social assistance. rather than "H.", for 280 support. In other words. the new government was willing to go against its agenda of downloading care onto "the family" (people related biologically and legally) in order to advance its homophobic ide~logy.~"

Hence in addition to the nuisance of having the definition of "spouse" painstakingly dealt with through the court system. queer activists had to deal with the very real prospect of judicial rulings being overturned by politicians. Although "M." and "H." reached an out-of-coun settlement in January 1998. the Harris government continued with the Supreme Court appeal.

M. v. H. was subsequently heard by nine Supreme Coun judges in March 1998.51This hearing received media attention when one of the judges, Mr. Justice . commented at a Phi

Delta Phi party in Toronto that he was glad it was not a "faggoty dress-up parry."5' He subsequently apologized in writing for this remark." Nonetheless. this display of homophobia by a Supreme Court judge sitting on a same-sex spousal rights case was disheartening. to say the least.

British Columbia

In British Columbia. events have unfolded in a very different manner. In JuIy 1997. . legislation was passed (59-9) that changes the definition of "spouse" to include same-sex couples in a number of key areas? With the amendments to the Family Relarions Acr (FR4) (Bill 31) and the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act (FMEA)(Bill 32). which affect approximately five hundred statutes, British Columbia has become the first jurisdiction in the world to offer lesbian and gay couples many of the same spousal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual common- law couple^.^' Lesbian and gay partners are now considered spouses for the purposes of laws

had Cooverning family support, child maintenance, access, and custody.'('%ime-sex couples have 28 1 the right to joint adoption since June 1996 when the Adoption Aa (AA) was amended by Bill

5

The main difterence between the strategies employed by the NDP governments in Ontario

and B.C. (besides that one was successtirl and the other was not) is that the latter chose to

proceed incrementally rather than attempting to pass an omnibus bill. The B.C. NDP has made

a pledge to review all provinciai laws to bring them into line with the new definition of

"spouse." In contrast to Ontario, Premier Glen Clark appeared committed to the issue. the

amendments were introduced early (and quietly) in the term of a re-elected NDP majority -government, adoption (the most controversial issue in Ontario) was dealt with prior to the other amendments. party discipline was maintained. there was little opposition within the legislature

(even from Reform members), and the right wing was relatively q~iet.'~

Even after the amendments became law. there was not nuch public debate." One of the

only critiques I could locate was an article by the conservative journalist David Frum. From his

perspective. the legislative changes in B.C. prove that while Americans govern themselves.

Canadians are ruled.w He writes that the amendments are "only the last step in our long slide

toward the abolition of the natural family. Frum's main concern seems to be that the creation

of a "non-parent parent," namely a legal lesbian co-parent. will usurp the rights of biological

faithers. (There is no mention of responsibilities in this article.) In a disturbing line of reasoning.

Frum cites American intolerance of gay rights as evidence that the U.S. political system is more democratic.

The queers I interviewed in Ontario expressed a range of opinions on the passage of the

B.C. legislationQ Kemper remarked that. in contrast to the ONDP bill: "It just wandered right

through, boom. Even the Reform Party members were people that supported it. It was

astonishing." And that is certainty how it seemed to many activists in Ontario, myself included. 282

There was little news coverase: on July 23. 1997. The Globe and Mail and The Vnnco~r\urSrrrr

ran fairly short stories on the passage of the legislation. emphasizing the lack of controversy in

comparison to Bill 167? When asked to comment on the differences between Ontario and B.C.

in regard to same-sex spousal rights, B.C. NDP Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh said that

although he did not want to sound arrogant. "I think we are quite enlightened as a people- rihi

Tom Warner, a longtime gay rights activist and member of CLGRO. was not quite so

optimistic: "I think that the B.C. strategy is a reaction to what happened in Ontario.. ..the

community itself felt that if they tried to go the same route as Ontario it would be a lot more

difficult, that they should try to do it incrementally, do a certain amount at one point and a

certain amount at another point. And that was the strategy the B.C. _eovemrr.ent has introduced.

So what's happened is there is now recognition in some areas and not others. The danger with that is the other areas may never get dealt with." In regard to the decision of activists in B.C. ro do things dit'ferently than Ontarions. he cited discussions with a person who had been involved in both campaigns.*

Warner went on to explain that the extent of [egislation was a loaded issue within CLGRO when it began talking about retationship recognition in the early 1990s. Like many of the activists I spoke with, he felt that the whole package was the only way to go: ". . .we didn't think that as a community group we could ask certain segments of the community to wait. So. for example, if you deal with employment benefits but not adoption, then you're really saying, to primarily lesbians. your issues have to wait because this is just too controversial. That's very divisive. it wasn't a principled position for us to lake. We thought it would just blow the community wide open with dissent and cater to homophobia and heterosesism." He achowIedged that queer activists in this province were accused of being too intlexible and blamed for the downfall of Bill 167." 283 Warner concluded that it was preferable "to have a big fight once and get it over with."

"I think it remains to be seen in B.C. what's going to happen." he said. "whether the -covernrnent will want to reopen the issue to amend other laws. If the NDP is defeated and another government comes in are they going to go ahead with it. I'm not sure. On the other hand. they're further ahead than we are in some areas so which is the better approach. I don't know, we' 11 have to wait and see-" Kemper concurred, asserting that " .. . it only makes sense legally to do it all at once. and piecemeal changes would just mean that we were tied up in the courts forever. So it's a question of do you want to tight your battles in the Irgislature or in the courts'? And if you get it all done in the legislature then you don't need to bother with the courts-

And if you lose in the legislature then you're stuck in the courts forever."

M, however, disagreed with the above assessments, calling them "sour grapes. " Although

B.C. activists may have had to compromise. he reasoned. at least they have something to show for it: "...I would like to think that what is happening in B.C.. that Ontario could learn from them. Because they didn't go through the whole stupid omnibus bill as we had here. So B.C. probably learned from Ontario. so now Ontario needs to learn from B.C. " It is certainly true that same-sex couples and their children are in a much more secure legal position on the west coast right now than they are in Ontario. However. Warner is correct in stating that further pro,Dress hinges upon the re-election of the Clark government."' If an unsympathetic party were co take power in B. C., further amendments could be shelved and/or same-sex spousal legislation

~hallenged.~

Legal and Political Updates

Internationally. Hungary became the first country to recognize same-sex unions under common-law in May 1996, following an earlier constitutional court ruling." Same-sex couples 284 can appIy to have the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. with the exclusion

of marriage and adoption. In July of the same year Iceland began to provide domestic partnership

registration options, including joint custody of children being co-parented . for same-sex

couples." Other rights such as adoption. access to a.i. and in-vitro fertilization. and marriage

within the church are not covered.

The Netherlands passed similar iegislation which came into effect on January 1. 1998.-!

One month later. the clause prohibiting adoption was removed upon the advice of a Dutch

parliamentary commission. The Czech Republic opened up domestic partnership registration to

same-sex couples in March 1999.z The next month New Zealand amended its Residency Policy

to give same-sex couples the same legal status as heterosexual common-law couple^.^

In Canada. there has been some progress in protecting the rights of' individual queers.

and. to a lesser extent. recognizing same-sex partnerships. Bill C-41. the federal hate crimes

legislation which included "sexual orientation." was passed in the House of Commons (168-5 1)

in June 1995." On May 8. 1996, the Canadian government passed Bill C-33. adding "sexual orientation" to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the federal HRC." follow in^ a ruling by the provincial Supreme Court. "sexual orientation" was read into Newfoundland's

HRC in December 1997?

On ,April 2. 1998. the Supreme Court of Canada ordered Alberta Premier Ralph Klein to include "sexual orientation" in the province's human rights legislation." Klein threatened to use the "notwithstanding clause" (a clause which allows provinces to opt out of laws they do not agree with) but eventually decided to abide by the Supreme Court judgrnent.'Yhe case which precipitated this action involved a college teacher. Delwin Vriend, who was tired in 1991 for being gay. This decision marks one of the most controversial instances of the court amending legislation by reading new rights into law against the wishes of politician^.^ Critics say that the 285 judiciary overstepped its authority. but Mr. Justice maintained that the courts were forced to act when politicians rehsed to do so? Many queer activists applauded this bold move which has implications for Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories. jurisdictions which have yet to include "sexual orientation" as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

In January 1999 the Foundation for Equal Families (FEF). a queer legal organization based in Toronto, launched a suit against the federal government. The FEF is demanding that

Prime lMinister Jean Chretien amend tifty-eight statutes in light of recent judicial decisions in the area of same-sex spousal recognition." Four months later. on May 25. 1999. the kcferal

-oovernrnent passed legislation ( 137-1 18) which allows same-sex spouses of federal employees to collect survivor benefits." However, the same bill also enabled the Liberals to retroactively claim a $30 billion surplus in the public service pension plan. For this reason all opposition MPs, includins out gay politicians Real Menard and Svend Robinson. opposed the legislation."

In Ontario. Toronto City CounciI voted (39-3) in favour of extending same-ses spousal benefits to employees of the newly-formed "mega-city" on February 6. 1998." Two months later the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the heterosexual definition of "spouse" found in the

Income Tax Act was unconstitutional .u The federal government did not appeal this decision, and thus same-sex couples in Ontario are now eligibIe for survivor benefits. In December of that same year another provincial court judgement gave same-sex couples full pension rights."

Finally, on May 20. 1999. the Supreme Court handed down its judgement in M. v. H."

Forward Looking

In a landmark decision. the Supreme Court of Canada ruled (8-1) that Ontario's heterosexual definition of "spouse" violated the Charter." Thus the Ontario government was 286 given six months in which to rewrite the sections of the FLA pertaining to support payments.

Same-sex couples are to be considered the same as opposite-sex common-law couples in this regard. Otherwise, these provisions will be struck down in November 1999.'' This historic judgement also has wider implications for same-sex spousal reco_enition. There is speculation that hundreds of Iaws will have to be rewritten in light of this redefinition of "spouse." In addition to . other areas such as adoption. inheritance, insurance. and pension benetirs are likely to be affected." Moreover. the Supreme Court ruling in M. v. H. will probably impact on other

While the Alberta Premier immediately announced that he is considering invoking the notwithstanding clause. Harris stared that he will abide by the Supreme Court decision." "It's not my definition of family. " he said. "but it is others' and the courts have ruled that, it is c~nstitutional."'~Occurring just prior to the June 3rd election in Ontario. the M. v. H. ruling became an issue in the 1999 campaigns. Prior to this Supreme Court judgement. discussion of same-sex spousal rights was almost non-existent. Howard Hampton, for instance, had promised that he would resurrect Bill 167 when he ran for leadership of the ONDP." And the Lesbian.

Gay, Bisexual Committee (LGBC) of the ONDP had been working to ensure that candidates would adhere to party policy in this regard? Finally Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty told Xrra! that he had changed his mind since 1994, and was now supportive of same-sex spousal rights."

Near the end of the interviews I conducted with community activists, I asked each of them to comment on the political situation in Ontario. Most of the queers whom I spoke with had a bleak outlook. As Don Franco put it: "I think we're in the doldrums or even worse as long as Harris is at the head of the government. It's a dead standstill. " Laverne Monette added that this was a frightening time in Ontario because of the Conservative leadership. "Nothing is going to change." she told me. "I think because we've gone backwards we need to have a government 287 with courage that reintroduces legislation with adoption. "w Phibbs and Warner concurred that all we could do is try to keep circumstances from getting worse and wait for a new government.

Gallagher was certain that gay issues would not play a role in the next election.

But the Supreme Coun ruling pushed same-sex spousal recognition into the spotli_ghr in the spring of 1999. Hence two weeks before the provincial election. the leaders of each of the three major political parties were forced to take a position on this matter. McGuinty and

Harnpton proclaimed their full support of the decision. while Harris reluctantly agreed to go along with it.'"ronically. Ontario's Tory government brought M. L~. H. to the highest court in

Canada in the hopes of overturning the lower court rulings. Now that Harris has been re-ttlrctsd. it has become his responsibility to carry out the redefinition of "spouse" which he so determinedly opposed."

It remains to be seen what this will look like. and what the ramifications of this Supreme

Court decision will be. But no matter how broadly or narrowly the M. v. H. ruling is interpreted. it marks a decisive turning point in the history of same-sex spousal recognition, Unlike adoption rights, which queer couples may or may not apply for. spousal support is not voluntary. Same- sex panners who reside together will soon be legally responsible for each other in many of the ways in which opposite-sex common-law couples are. In effect. a dependency model of relationships has been thrust upon queers. This is reinforced by a Supreme Court decision on

March 25. 1999. in the Bracklow case. All nine justices ruled that a healthy person has an obligation to support an ailing ex-spouse.'" In other words. as Brenda Cossman puts it.

"[elquality might just come to mean: 'In sickness and in health. till death do us part. ' """

Not surprisingly, the ruling of the Supreme Court in M. v. H. signalled to some that the institution of marriage was once again being threatened.'"' The American rizht-wing leader

Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church), for example. planned a religious protest in Ottawa.'"' 288 These fears are not altogether without grounds. While Bill 167 would have entrenched same-sex spousal rights firmly in common-law. the 1999 Supreme COU~judgement has opened the floodgates. According to Bruce Ryder: "[tlhe decision does not require a definition of marriage itself. but it has implications for all laws that deal with the rights of married people."'"

Interestingly then. conservatives intent upon preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriage have, by denying same-sex couples limited rights and responsibilities. pushed the issue to this point.

The FEF suit against federal government is further matter which should be exciting to watch develop over the next while. I also suspect that Alberta and Quebec, provinces which are considering formalizing same-sex relationships. wiil be in the public eye. Immigation is another area worthy of attention. Although immigration laws have not been changed, as of 1994 same- sex partners of Canadians have increasingly been permitted to enter the country on "humanitarian and compassionate" grounds.'" It will be interesting to see what happens in B.C. At the present time the AG is planning to introduce same-sex spousal amendments in respect to survivor benetits. including handling estates and disposing of human remains.'"

Strong in a Family Way?

As I write this conclusion in 1999, victories in same-sex spousal rights cases are a regular topic in the news. Queers are becoming "Strong in a Family Way." as one of the floats in the

1999 Pride Day Parade in Toronto proclaimed.'"' Legal recognition for same-sex couples is moving ahead rapidly in this province. this country. and around the world. In fact. there seems to be no stopping the tide (whether "we" like it or not). With this in mind, I return to my original question. Is it possible. or desirable. to tight for same-sex spousal recognition while simultaneously remaining critical of the goals and conception of "family" operating in this 289 struggle? I beiieve. as I attempted to make clear. such a complex approach to be desirable. even necessary. Queen need to both claim and deconstruct "family." But is this possible'? And if so. how?

The best model of same-sex spousal rights. from my perspective. is a voluntary one.

Queers should be able to opt-in to a system. or not. depending on how they wish to organize their relationships. This, however. is not the route that Ontario has taken. Instead same-sex couples are becoming "normal." just like opposite-sex couples living common-law. In the name of equality. diversity. difference. and choice are being pushed aside. I recently read an article by a self-defined gay rights activist and part-time prostirute. describing how he threw away the

FEF government petition. "Equal families" are not one of his goals.'"

I am also wary, as I have discussed. of the trend to privilege people who emulate the heterosex~laistandard. But at the same time I do not think that opposite-sex couples should be privileged. Finding myself caught in a conundrum. the conundrum of "family." 1 mempt to embrace the complexities and contradictions of this contested site. 1 live with mqr loverimy partner. and I remain critical of coupledom. I fight for same-sex benefits when I feel it is necessary. but I do not want to be a "spouse." I take part in Pride Day. and remain vigilant as to who is part of "the community" and who is excluded, I mail in the FEF postcard demanding equality for same-sex families. while I deconstruct the concepts of "equality" and "family." even sometimes dance around to the song "We Are Family." althoush I prefer to turn the refra into a question. ENDNOTES

1. See Chris Phibbs' remarks in the last chapter regarding the gender divisions around adoption.

2. Susan Ursel, "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights," in Katherine Amup. ed.. Lesbian Parenring: Living with Pride and Prejudice (Charlottetown. P.E. I. : gynerzy books. 1995 and 1997). 349. Unfortunately, Ursel does not reference the "feminists" whom she cites. I would be interested in examining these arguments.

3. See Chapter Three where I cite Carol-AM O'Brien and Lorna Weir. "Lesbians and Gay Men Inside and Outside Families," in Nancy Mandell and Ann Duffy. eds.. Cmzniiinrz Ftrtiliiies: Diversig, Corzflict, Change (Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company. 19%). 1 1 1- 139.

3. Ursel, 350.

5. Ursel, 351.

6. See Kathleen Baker. L.L.B.. T/ze Legal Guide for Gay and Lesbian Couples in Onrario (Toronto: Legalworks Press. 1995). 84. However. Baker warns that it is common practice to include a queer person's sexual orientation with the non-identifying information given to birth parents. This is perhaps a violation of the Onrczrio Hionan Righrs Code (OHRC). she assens. as it allows birth parents to discriminate against lesbians and gay men. Baker concludes that stranscr adoptions are complicated for gay men and lesbians. unless a birth mother can be located through informal charnels. (Which she notes is generally more difficult outside of heterosexual circles.)

7. Baker, 83.

8. Examples of people who could apply for a "family adoption" are step-parents and extended family members. One of the main differences between the two types of adoptions is that "stranger adoptions" require that prospective parents register with either the Children's Aid Society or a private licensee. and undergo a homestudy and background check.

9. As cited by Baker, 85.

10. Baker points out that while the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto stated publicly that it was in support of adoptions by lesbian and gay couples, it was hesitant to follow up this declaration with active measures until the legislation was amended. Baker, 84.

11. See Daniei Girard, "Lesbian couples can adopt: Judge ruiing is called precedent setting. " The Toronro Star (May f 1. 1995). A 1.

12. See Margrit Eichler. Farniiy Sh9s: Families. Policies, and gender Eqrralig7 (Toronto. New York. and Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1997). 56.

13. K. er al. (1995)- in Consolidared Ontario Farnily Law Sfafutesand Regulations (Toronto : Carswell, 1995). 2. 14. K. er al.. 7. As of 1984 joint applicants for adoption do not have to be legally married.

16. Of course, as I pointed out in Chapter Three. not all heterosexual relationships live up lo this ideal.

17. K. et al.. 36.

18. K. er al.. 54.

20. K. et nl.. 93.

22. K. er al.. 113.

23. "The Spousal Coitection, October 1989-May 1999," compiled by C.M. Donald for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. 37.

24. See barbara findlay, Barrister and Solicitor. "All in the Family Values: An examination of the construction of 'family' and the impact of law on the lives of lesbians and gay men." unpublished paper prepared for a course on family law in Vancouver. British Colun~bia(July 1995). 12-13.

25. findlay. "All in the Family Values." 13-14.

26. See "The Spousal Collection," 41.

27. This may change in the near future in light of the M. v. H. Supreme Coun ruling. I will return to this landmark judgement.

28. The M. v. H. same-sex alimony case was previously heard in court in April 1993 and again November 1994. AG Boyd. who had intervenor status. asked that the Ontario FLA be declared unconstitutional. The case was adjourned until the Supreme Coun ruled in Egarz v. Canada. See Kelly Gervais. "Are We Family'?: A House Divided: The 'M v. H' Spousal Support Case. " Siren magazine (June/July 1996). 3-3.

29. The names of the women involved in this dispute have never been revealed. "M. " and "H." are the initials of the lawyers, Martha McCarthy and Julia Holland. who originally represented the ex-partners.

30. Accumulated assets to be divided amounted to 1.4 million dollars. "M." was ori_ginally reported to be seeking support payments in the area of $10.000 per month. See "The Spousal Collection. " 13. 3 1. M. v. H. (1996). in Consolidated Ontario Family Law Srarures and Regrtlutions I996 (Toronto: Carswell. 1995)- 11.

32. A similar legal dispute erupted in 1998 between Canadian skating star Brian Orser and his former partner Craig Leask. Upon the dissolution of their relationship. Orser denied that Leask was his "spouse" according to the terms in the FLA in order to avoid alimony payments. Leask. by contrast. presented himself as a spouse and a traditional homemaker. See Ivan Grabovac. Letter Xrrtr! no. 373 (February 1 1. 1999). 5.

33. 1M. v. H.. 82.

33. M. V. H.. 89-91.

35. M. 11. H.. 119.

37. Margot Gibb-Clark and Thomas Claridge. "Same-sex couples win in appeal court." The Globe and Mail (December 19. 1996). A6. and Karen Hill. "kl Versus H Rulins Released." Xrra! no. 318 (January 2, 1997). 13.

38. "The Spousal Collection." 53.

39. There were. of course. also some setbacks. In July 1997 Margaret Buist was denied any type of custody of the son whom she had raised with her ex-partner for four and a half years. Although birthed by Lorraine Greaves, the two women had jointly planned the conception of the child by a.i. Justice Mary Lou Benotto ruled that because a "mother" is a "female person." a child can only have one mother. Nonetheless. she ordered Buist to pay 5450 per month to Greaves. who took their son and moved from London. Ontario to Vancouver. British Columbia. "The Spousal Collection." 56.

30. See Ijeoma Ross. "Governments leave it to the courts to shape same-sex policy." The Globe and Mail (October 12. 1996). A8.

41. martin Mittelstaedt. "Rae calls June 8 Ontario Election. " The Globe and Mail (April 29, 1995), Al.

42. Kelly Toughhill, "Laws on gay rights inevitabie. Rae says." The Toronto Srar (May 12, 1995), Al.

43. See Jack Lakey, "Liberals kick out ' intolerant' candidate: Bassuny wrote book attacking Jews, the Pope. " The Toronro Star (May 11. 1995). A 10.

44. Hawkes was then, and still is, the minister at the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC). an interdenominational church for lesbian and gays.

45. Although I have little respect for McLeod as a politician. I was disturbed by the sexist attacks on her as a female leader. Many of the people I spoke with commented on such things as her appearance ("too short and too wide"). her shrill voice. her lack of professionalism. and her bland personality.

46. Privileged white gay men seemed most concerned with the growing debt. and the effect of ONDP policies on their personal incomes.

47. See John Barber. "Still feeling the impact of Bill 167. " The Globe and Mail (May 2 1. 1999). A1 1.

48. The PC government also intervened in a same-sex life insurance case. In October 1993 Kelly Kane lost her life partner Robin Black in a bicycle accident. Finding that she could not collect spousal insurance benefits, Kane took the matter to court. In October 1997 Justice Douglas Coo (Ontario Court General Division) ruled that the Insurance Act discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The Tories have appealed this decision pending the outcome of M. v. H. Billie Jo Newman. "Harris government battles community in court." Siren tnngazittc. (AugustfSeptcmber 1998). 5.

49. Gervais, 4. While the previous NDP government had advocated for "M." in her claim for same-sex spousal support. the Conservatives sided with "H." A right wing coalition comprised of REAL Women and various religious groups also supported "H. " by asserting that heterosexual marriage must be protected. The organizations which argued for "M."included the Foundation for Equal Families (FEF). Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere (EGALE). the Ontario Human Rights Commission. and the United Church of Canada.

50. Thanks to Gary Kinsman for clarifying this thought at a public lecture at the University of Toronto (March I I. 1998).

51. I will return to the outcome of this case shortly. Allan Thompson. "Same-sex dispute before the top court." The Toronto Star (iMarch 19. 1998). Al.

52. Eleanor Brown, "Law Ignores Love. says lawyer." Xrra! no. 350 (March 26. 1998). 11.

53. In this statement Justice Bimie explains that a reference in the fraternity ritual book to "wigs and candles" reminded him of a review by The Globe and Mail theatre critic Dennis Braithwaite. According to Justice Binnie. Braithwaite had referred to a production of Macberh at the Stratford Festival as a "faggoty dress-up party."

54. In total. only nine of the seventy-five Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) voted against the amendments (eight Liberals and the Progressive Democratic Alliance leader Gordon Wilson). There were six abstentions and one Reform member voted in favour of the biIl. The new legislation came into effect in February 1998. Jim Beatty. "Family-support laws extended to B.C. gays." The Vancouver Sun (July 23, 1997), A4.

55. Hoddy Allan. "BC Gov't Introduces Spousal Bill." Xrra! no. 330 (June 19. 1997). 41.

56. See barbara findlay. "B.C. includes queers in family law act: Children protected in amendment," Siren magazine (AprillMay 1998). 5. Partners are required to reside together in a "marriage-like" relationship for a minimum of two years to qualify for spousal status. 57. Bill 51 came into effect in November 1996. findlay. "B.C. includes queers in family law act," 5.

58. See findlay, "B.C. includes queers in family law act," 5.

59. However. in April 1997 the Surrey District School Board banned three children's books which featured same-sex parents. Billie Jo Newman. "Surrey school board to take book ban fight ail the way." Siren ~nagazine(ApriVMay 1998). 8. The B.C. Supreme Court overturned this ban on December 16. 1998. See "Book ban overturned." The Toronto Sfar (December 17. 1998). A6.

60. David Frum, "Americans want majority support for their laws." The London Free Press (February 14. 1998). F4. (Note the Valentine's Day publication date.)

61. Frum. F4.

62. Interestingly. the people I spoke with described this province as everything from more "red- neck" than Ontario to more "liberal" than Ontario to more "propressive" than Ontario.

63. See Beatty, "Family-support laws extended to B.C. gays. " A3. and Craig McInnes. "B.C. passes legislation redefining term 'spouse. "' The Globe and Mail (July 23. 1997). A3.

64. Mdmes, " B.C. passes legislation redefining term 'spouse. ' " A3.

65. I assume that Warner is referring to Mary-Woo Sirnms, although he did not use her name. Simms. who is now B.C. 's Chief Human Rights Commissioner. was one of the CEF co-chairs in Ontario. She has been described as "the nightmare of every WASP Conservative who still rues the day when women got the vote: a leather-clad. rat-tail-sporting , motorcycle riding lesbian. " See Ian Mulgrew. "Experience aids 'outsider' rights commissioner: The woman who runs the law pan of B.C. 's human rights has known exclusion. " The VancorrrperSun (March 22. 1997). Al.

66. See comments made by Boyd and Rae in Chapter Four.

67. 1 am also interested in learning more about the pan queer community activists. such as members of the December 9 Coalition, played, and are still playing, in this struggle.

68. Unfortunately, the provincial NDP in B.C. is currently embroiled in scandal and its popularity is Iow.

69. "The Spousal CoIlection," 36.

70. "The Spousal Collection," 50.

7 1. "The Spousal Collection. " 60.

72. "The Spousal Collection," 70.

73. "The Spousal Collection," 70. 74. David Rayside. On the Fringe: Gqs and Lesbians in Poliiics (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998). 1 12- 1 13.

75. Kelly Pollock, "Victory! Bill C-33 amends the Human Rights Code." Siwn nlcrguzine (June/July 1996). 9. See also Rayside, 105-140.

76. "The Spousal Collection. " 59. The decision was handed down in the case of Brian Nolan. who was harassed by the police in 1993.

77. Brian Laghi and Kirk Makin, "Court Protects Gays: Alberta's Klein accepts rights decision. won't use notwithstanding clause." The Globe and M~if(April 3, 1998). Al. and David Vienneau, "Gays win a major victory. " The Toronro Star (April 3. 19%). A 1.

78. The morning that the judgement was handed down. I heard Klein state on the radio (CBC AM) that "homosexuality is unnatural and I won't condone that lifestyle."

79. The Ontario Conservative government supported Klein in opposing the suit brought forward by Vriend.

80. David Viemeau, "Politicians gave judiciary its added power," The Toronto Scar (April I. 1998), A15.

8 1. Brenda Cossman. "Wake up call: Activists light a stick of dynamite." Xrra! no. 371 (January 13. 1999). 1 1. In this suit the FEF will draw upon the "experiences" of lesbians and ?a!: men with children.

82. Daniel LeBlanc. "Pension bill slips through: Benefits for federal employees estended to same-sex couples, " The Globe and Mail (May 26. 1999). A2.

83. Daniel LeBlanc, "Pension bill granting same-sex benefits appears likely to pass. " The Globe and Mail (May 22, 1999). A6.

84. Former ONDP MPP George Mammoliti, now a City Councillor. supported the motion, and apologized for the hateful comments he made in 1994 (see Chapter Four). However. he still does not endorse same-sex spousal recosnition. Eleanor Brown. "Whippins Boy Apologizes: George Mamrnoliti votes for spousal rights--but he has his limits. " Xtra! no. 347 (February 12. 1998). 19. I suspect that Marnmoliti is hoping to get back into provincial politics.

85. The case involved Nancy Rosenberg and Margaret Evans. employees of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). See Laura Eggerston. "Gays, lesbians hail decision on pensions." The Toronto Star (June 23, 1998). A 1.

86. Phinjo Gombu. "Court rules same-sex couples have pension rights." The Toronro Siar (December 10, 1998), A3.

87. Kirk Makin. "Gay couples win rights. " The Globe and Mail (May 21. 1999). A 1.

88. Tonda MacCharles and Tracey Tyler. "Same-sex ruling to rewrite many laws. " The Toronto Star (May 21, 1999). Al. 89. Gail I. Cohen, "The faceless M & H: Still anonymous after all these years." Xfra! no. 381 (June 3. 1999)- 11.

90. This decision should favourably affect Kelly Kane's challenge to the definition of "spouse" found in the Insurance Acr.

91. See Brenda Cossman. "Clean up your Act!: What M versus H says. & what it means." Xra! no. 381 (June 3. 1999). 25.

92. Richard Mackie and Jane Coutts, "Harris quickly vows conformity with law. " T/2e Globe and Mail (May 2 1 , 1999), A9.

93. As quoted by William Walker, Rob Fequson, and Daniel Girard. "Ontario's 3 leaders will honour new ruling ." The Toronro Srar (May 2 1, 1999), A6.

94. See Heather M. Ross. "Hindsight is a beautiful thing." Xrra! no. 380 (May 20. 1999). 20. I was a voting delegate at the leadership convention. and supported Lankin who also said that she was committed to same-sex spousal rights legislation.

95. I was a part of this process as an executive member of the LGBC and a delezcalte to ProvinciaI Council.

96. Rory MacDonald. "PushingCT pot: Grit's brain is stuck on puffing, " Xrra! (May 20. 1999). 20.

97. 1 spoke with Monette just after Me1 Lastman had been elected mayor of the new City of Toronto. Commentins on his politics. Monette asked sarcastically "can you see Me1 Lasunan in the Pride parade'?" In fact, the mayor has taken part in this event for the past two years. and received some very good press for his efforts. This type of public relations becomes increasingly important as the parade swells and corporate sponsorship rises. See Andrew Chung. "750.000 jam streets for annual celebration, " The Toronro Siar (June 28. 1999). A 1. The accompanying front page photograph ("Politicians make a splash at Gay Pride parade") depicted Lastman and City Councillors Pam McConnell and Kyle Rae shooting at each other with water guns.

98. See Walker. Ferguson. and Girard, A6.

99. The 1999 election resulted in another PC majority government in Ontario. This time around, the ONDP only held on to nine of its seats, and thus lost official Status in provincial parliament. Despite the redistribution of ridings. the threshold of twelve seats was not lowered. Marion Boyd was defeated in the newly-created riding of Centre by PC Diane Cunningham. Only one of the original "dirty dozen." Dan Waters. ran for election. He did not win the Parry Sound-Muskoka seat held by PC . ONDP Bill 167 supporters such as Churley and Lankin were re-elected. Theresa Boyle, "Hampton bemoans 'panic' by NDP voters." Tile Toronro Star (June 5, 1999)- A10. Liberal candidate George Smitheman was elected in Rosedale, making him Ontario's first openly-gay MPP.

100. See Brenda Cossman, "The full monty: Spousal rights mean you'll be on the hook for years to come, " Xrra! no. 377 (April 8, 1999). 11. 10 1. Cossman. "The Full Monty. " 11.

102. See "Letters to the Editor." The Globe and Mail (May 26. 1999). AlS. Six of the thirteen letters which were printed condemned the Supreme Court ruling. See also "Letters to the Editor. "

The Tororzto Star (June 18. 1999). A3 1. and Leslie Scrivener. "Spousal rulins hurtins family. " The Toronro Star (May 27. 1999). A2.

103. The hatehl announcement was posted on his website. wwwgodhatesfa,0s-corn.

104. Kirk Makin, "Legal marriages for gays may be next: Line now drawn could be quickly erased," The Globe and Mail (May 21. 1999). A8.

105. Until 1978 lesbians and gay men were not allowed to immigrate to Canada at all. In the U.S. a similar law was in effect until 1991. Stephanie Nolen. "Why say couples must flee to Canada. " The Globe ar~dMail (April 7. 1999). A 1.

106. "The Spousal Collection." 69.

107. This was the float for the 5 19 Community Centre. located in Toronto's "gay ghetto. " Of course, the meaning(s) of this banner sent my thoughts spiralling ....

108. Gerald Hamon. "There's lots of love in my life--but not a mate in sight." Naw (June 20- 24. 1999), 16. APPENDIX A:

Abbreviations

AA Adoption Acr

AG Attorney General

B.C. NDP British Columbia New Democratic Party

CCF Co-operarive Commonwealth Federation

CCRF Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

CEF Campaign for Equal Families

CFSA Child and Farnil! Services Act

CGRO Coalition for Gay Rights in Ontario

CHAT Community Homophile Association of Toronto

CLGRO Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario

CLGSA Canadian Lesbian and Gay Studies Association

ED Executive Director

EGALE Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere

FEF Foundation for Equal Families

FLA Family Lmv Act

FMEA Family Mainrenance Enforcenzenr Acr

FRA Famiiv Relations Acr

GAA Gay Alcoholics Anonymous

GTA Greater Toronto Area

HALO Hornophile Association of London Ontario 299 Hansard The Ontario Legislative Assembly Official Report of Debates

HRC Hrtrnan Righrs Code

LGBC Lesbian. Gay, Bisexual Committee of the ONDP

LGO Lesbians and Gays of Ottawa

LLL La Leche League

LMDF Lesbian Mothers' Defence Fund

LOOT Lesbian Organization of Toronto

LP Liberal Party

MCC Metropolitan Community Church

MLA Member of Legislative Assembly kl P .Member of Parliament

MPP Member of Provincial ParIiament

NDP New Democratic Party of Canada

OLRC Ontario Law Reform Commission

ONDP Ontario New Democratic Party

OPS Ontario Public Service

PCP Progressive Conservative Party

RA Ridintg Association

RC Roman Catholic

RTPC Right to Privacy Committee

TGA Toronto Gay Action Network

U.I. Unemployment Insurance

WGRR Working Group on Relationship Recognition APPENDIX B:

Interviews

Don Franco July 3 1. I997 (Toronto. Ontario)

Kathryn Payne August 18. 1997 (Toronto, Ontario)

Sky Gilbert November 24. 1997 (Toronto. Ontario)

Laverne ,Monerte November 25. 1997 (Toronto. Ontario)

Chris Phibbs November 26. 1997 (Toronto, Ontario)

Bob GaIIagher November 26. 1997 (Toronto, Ontario)

Tom Warner December 2. 1997 (Toronto. Ontario)

Shirley Scarrow December 4. 1997 (London. Ontario)

Alison Kernper December 5. 1997 (Toronto. Ontario)

" *M " February 16. 1998 (Toronto. Ontario) BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cases Cited

Afldrews v. Ontario (Ministry of Health) (1988), 64 O.R. (2d) 258 (Ont. H. Ct.)

Brown v. B.C. (Ministry of Health) (1990). 42 BCLR (2d) 294 (BCSC)

Re: Carherine Elizabeth G. and Linda Kathleen G. (No. 1).

Egan v. Canada (1991). 37 FTR (FCTD): aff'd. (FCA) (1993). 103 DLR (4th) 336

Hclig v. Canada (Ministry of frrsrice) (1 992), 9 OR (3d) 495 (Ont. CA)

Re: K. (1995), i5 R.F.L. (4th) 129

Lesher v. Otzmrio (1992). 16 CHRR D/ 184 (Ont. Bd. Inq.)

Mossop v. Dept. of Sec. Stare (1989). 89 CLLC 16.041 (CHRT): rev'd. (1990). 71 DLR (4th) 661 (FCA): aff'd (1993). [I9931 1 SRC 554 (SCC)

Statutes Cited

Canadian Cirnrrer of Riglzrs and Ft-eedonw . 1982

Ccrr~nclianHrunan Rights Acr . 1985

Ccrnczdian Hrrrnnn Riglzrs Code. 1986

Canadian Income Tax Act

Child and Family Services Act, 1990.

Consrircrrion Acr. 1982.

Family Law Acr, 1990.

Incorne Tar Act. 199 1.

Ontario Human Righrs Code, 1 986 302 Government Documents

"Bill 167: An Act to amend Ontario Statutes to provide for the equal treatment of persons in spousal relationships. " 3rd Session. 35th Le~islature.Ontario. 1993.

"The Ontario Legislative Assembly Debates (Hansard)," 1994.

Unpublished Materials

The Campaign for Equal Families. "Fact Sheet: Family" (May 1994).

Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights Ontario. Co-ordinated by Michael Davenport and Roy Elliot. "Happy FamiIies: The Recognition of Same-Sex Spousal Relationships" (April 1992).

. "Relationship Recognition Lobby ins Kit. " Toronto: CLGRO, 1993.

Cossrnan, Professor Brenda and Professor Bruce Ryder. "Gay. Lesbian and Unmarried Heterosexual Couples and the Family Law Act: Accommodating A Diversity of Family Forms." Research Paper prepared for the Ontario taw Reform Commission. Osgoode Hal1 Law School. York University. June 1993.

Feinberg, Leslie. "Jail House Rocks! Matthew S hepard Lives! " Electronic Public Correspondence (October 22. 1998). findlay, barbara. "All in the FamiIy Values: An Examination of the Construction of 'Family' and the Impact of Law on the Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. " Paper prepared for the CLE course on family law (July 1995).

"Michigan Womyn's Music Festival Brochure" (1997).

Munter, Alex. "Fighting For Our Families: The challenge of mobil izins Ontario's lesbian. gay and bisexual communities. " (April 6. 1994).

Owen. Michelle K. "Simone De Beauvoir and the Radicalization of 'Woman' : Identity Politics and Collective Action. " M. A. Thesis. The Centre for the Study of Theory and Criticism. The University of Western Ontario, 1993.

Ross. Secki L. "Methodological Questions. " In "The House that Jill Built: Reconstructing the Lesbian Organization of Toronto. " 1976-1980. Ph. D . Thesis. University of Toronto, 1992, 59-79.

"The Spousal Collection: October 1989-May 1999" Compiled by C.1M. Donald for the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. Toronto. Newspaper and Magazine Articles

Allan, Hoddy. "BC Gov't Introduces Spousal Bill." Xrra! no. 330 (June 19, 1997). 41.

Barber. John. "Still feeling the impact of Bill 167. " The Globe and Mail (May 21. 1999). A1 1.

Beatty . Jim. " Family-support iaws extended to B.C. gays. " The Vancorwrr Srtn (July 23. 1997). A4.

Blackford. Karen A. "A Different Parent." HeaMzsharing (Summer 1990). 20-25.

Blackwell. Tom. "Ail roads lead to spousal benefits. says attorney-general. " The Ortmn Citizen (August 5. 1993). A3.

"Book ban overturned. " The Toronto Star (December 17. 1998). A6.

Boy le. Theresa. "Hampton bemoans 'panic' by NDP voters. " Tlzr Toranto Srclr (June 5. 1999). A 10.

Braun, Liz. "Canada'? Gimme a Break." The Tororzro Srtrz (June 12. 1994). 5.

Breman. Richard. "Bill to give same-sex benefits." The Ortarw Citizen (March 1. 1994). A3.

Brown, Eleanor. "Law Ignore Love, says lawyer." Xrra! no. 350 (March 26. 1998), 11.

- "Whipping Boy Apologizes: George Mammoliti votes for spousal rights--but he has limits. " Xmz! no. 347 (February 12. 1998). 19.

. "UI Spousal Benefits Won." Xrra! no. 279 (July 7, 1995). 1.

. "Lives Are Changing in Small Towns: Lesbians and gay men across Ontario are risking much to come out in support of family rights." Xrra! no. 252 (June 21. 1994). 18.

. "Whose side are you on: Tories and Liberals mouth restrictive family values." Xwa! no. 251 (June 10. 1994). 12.

. "These Two Women Are Spouses: Appeals board acknowledges lesbian moved to 'maintain committed relationship. " Xrra! no. 210 (January 7, 1994). I.

Chris Hodgson Campaign. " Same-Sex Benefits. " Lindsay Post (March 11. 1994). A5.

Chung, Andrew. "75O.OOO jam streets for annual celebration." The Toronto Star (June 28. 1999). Al. Cohen. Gail J. "The faceless M & H: Still anonymous after all these years. " Xtra! no. 38 1 (June 3, 1999). 11.

Cossman. Brenda. "Clean up your Act!: What M versus H says. 8r what it means. '' Xtriz! no. 381 (June 3. 1999). 25.

. "The full monty: Spousal rights mean you'll be on the hook for years to come." Xrra! no. 377 (April 8. 1999)- 11.

. "Wake up calb Activists light a stick of dynamite. " Xrra! no. 371 (January 14. 1999). 11.

. "A Marriage of Convenience. " Xrra! no. 320 (January 30. 1997). p. 2 1.

Couture, Joseph. " Attorney-General Appeals to Armchair Activists. " Xtra! (May 27. 1991). 1 1.

Crone, Greg, Richard Bremm. and Elizabeth Payne. "Gay Activists Clash After Vote: MPPs defeat same-sex bill. " The Ottawa Cirizen (June 10, 1994)- Al.

Darke, Leah. "Same-Sex Spousal Rights Are Special Rights." Siren magazine (December 1997/January 1998). 13.

Demara. Bruce. "Gays come out of the closet in the 'burbs. " The Toronto Srtrr (May 1 1. 1995). OS 1 and OS4.

"Drug Cards and Welfare." Xtra! no. 251 (June 10. 1994). 12.

Edwards. Peter. "Spousal benetits ruled a 'must' for gay couples." Tire Toronro Star (August 4, 1993)- AI.

Eggerston. Laura. "Gays. lesbians hail decision on pensions. " The Toronro Srar (June 23. 1998). AI. tlndlay. barbara. "BC includes queers in family law act: Children protected in amendment. " Siren magn:ine (April/May 1998). 5.

Frum. David. "Americans want majority suppon for their laws. " Tire London Free Press (February 14. 1998), F4.

Gervais. Kelly. "Are We Family?: A House Divided: The 'M v. H' Spousal Support Case." Siren magazine (June/Ju ly l996), 3-4.

Gibb-Clark. Margot. and Thomas Claridge. "Same-sm couples win in appeal court. " The Globe and Mail (December 19, 1996), A6. Gilbert, Sky. "Looking Straight: The gay left needs to remember what made its cause so exciting, " Canadian Forum (November 19%). 22-26.

- "Diary of a Reluctant Radical. " This Magazine 30, no. 6 (May/June 1997). 34-37.

Girard. Daniel. "Lesbian couples can adopt: Jud_ee ruling is called precedent setting." The Toronro Srar (May 1 1. 1995). A 1.

Gombu, Phinjo. "Court rules same-sex couples have pension rights. " The Toronto Srnr (december 10, 1998). A3.

Grabovac. Ivan. Letter to the Editor: "Bad Examples. " Xrra! no. 373 (February 1 1. 1999). 5.

Hannan, Philip. "Broken Promises: Robinson slams Rae government for ignoring queers." Capital Xtra! (February 25. l99$), 1.

Hannon. Gerald. "There's lots of love in my life--but not a mate in sight." ~Voitf(June 20-24. 1999). 16.

Hill. Karen. "M versus H Ruling Released. " Xfra! no. 3 18 (January 2. 1997). 13.

"How They Voted. " Xfra! News Flash (June 10. 1994). 2.

The Independent. "Lesbians Make Better Parents" (February 15, 1999).

Lashi. Brian, and Kirk Makin. "Court Protects Gays:A1bertats Klein accepts rights decision. won't use notwithstanding clause. " The Globe and Mail (April 3. 1998). A1 .

Lakey, Jack. "Liberals kick out ' intolerant' candidate: Bassuny wrote book attacking Jews. the Pope. " The Toronro Star (May 1 1. l995), A 10.

"Leader." The Economist (January 6. 1996). 14.

LeBlanc, Daniel. "Pension bill slips through: Benefits for federal employees extended to same- sex couples. " The Globe and Mail (May 26. l999). A2.

. "Pension bill granting same-sex benefits appears likely to pass. " The Globe and Mail (May 22. !999). A6.

"Legal Highlights: A Look Back at Pink Postcards and Blue Cross. " Xtra! !Vrws Flrrsll (June 10. 1994), 3.

"Letters to the Editor. " The Globe and Mail ((May 26, 1999), A15.

"Letters to the Editor. " The Toronro Srar (June 18, 1999), A3 1. " Lyn McLeod's Letter to Nick Mule (CLGRO). " Reprinted in Xra! Nar7.s Flash (June 10. 1994), 2.

MacCharIes, Tonda. and Tracey Tyler. "Same-sex ruling to rewrite many laws." The Toronro Star (May 21. 1999). Al.

MacDonald. Rory. "Pushing pot: Grit's brain is stuck on puffing." Xrm! (May 20. 1999). 20.

Mackie. Richard. and Jane Courts. "Harris quickly vows conformity with law. " The Globe and Mail (May 21, 1999), A9.

&Makin,Kirk. "Gay couples win rishts. " The Globe and Mail (May 2 1. 1999). A 1.

- "Legal marriages for gays may be next: Line now drawn could be quickly erased.'' The Globe and Mail (May 2 1. 1999). A8.

McInnes, Craig, and James Rusk. "Gay-couples bill survives vote." The Globe and Muil (May 20, 1994), AI and A9.

McInnes, Craig- "B.C. passes legislation redefining term 'spouse.'" The Globe and Mail (July 23, 1997), A3.

. "To Homosexual Parents. A Family is a Family. " The Globe at~dMail (June 10. 1994). A3.

. "Boyd Backs Off on Gay Spouses. " The Globe and Mail (June 9. 1994). A 1.

Mirtelstaedt, Martin, and James Rusk. "Ontario Bill on Gay Rights Defeated." Tile Globe and Mail (June 10, 1994). Al.

~Mittslstaedt,Martin. "Rae calls June 8 Ontario Election. " TIre Globe and Mail (April 29, 1995), A1 .

. "Same-sex benefits package would require changes to 56 laws." The Globe and Mail (May 20, 1994). A9.

"Moreover, " The Economist (January 6. 1996). 68-69.

Mulgrew, Ian. "Experience aids 'outsider' rights commissioner: The woman who runs the law pan of B.C.'s human rights has known exclusion." me Vancouver Sun (March 22. 1997). Al.

"NDP Caves on Gay Bill: Adoption Rights. Spouse Definition Dropped in Desperate Bid to Save Law. " The Toronto Sun (June 9. 1994). Headline.

"Near Riot After Gay Bili Killed. " The Toronto Sun (June 10, 1994). Headline. Newman. Billie Jo. "Harris government battles community in court." Siren ntaga,-ine (August/September 1998). 5.

. "Surrey school board to take book ban fight all the way. " Siren magazine (April/May 1998), 8.

Nolen. Stephanie. "Why gay couples must flee to Canada. " The Gfobeand Mail (April 7. 1999). Al.

Phillips. Maureen. "Real or Not. the lesbian baby boom births books: -Motherhood gains new respectability and profits in the lesbian mainstream. " Bra! no. 279 (July 7. 1995). 35.

Pollock, Kelly. "Victory! Bill C-33 amends the Human Rights Code." Siren magazine (June/JuIy 1996), 9.

Rae. Bob. Letter to the Editor: "Gays not blamed for bill's defeat. " The Toronto Srar (March 17. 1995). A18.

Ross. Heather M. "Hindsight is a beautiful thing: Give us another shot. begs NDP leader." Xtm! no. 380 (May 20. 1999). 20.

Ross. Ijeoma. "Governments leave it to the courts to shape same-sex policy." The Globe and Mail (October 12, 1996), A8.

Rusk, James. "Drafters of same-sex bill had to watch their words. " The Globe and Mail (June 7. 1994). All.

Scrivener, Leslie. "Spousal ruling hurting family. " The Toronto Srar (May 27. 1999). A2.

Smith. Julie. "Archbishop Assails Same-Sex Benefits. " The Globe and Mail (June 7. 1994). A 1 and All.

Thompson. Ailan. "Same-sex dispute before the top court. " The Toronto Srar (March 19. 1998). Al.

Toughill. Kelly. "Laws on gay rights inevitable. Rae says. " The Toronto Smr (May 12. 1995). Al.

. "Rae blames gays for same-sex rights bill loss. " Tize Toranto Star (March 14, 1995). A14.

Ursel, Susan. "What Does it Mean'? How Bill 167 could change our lives-" Xtra! no. 25 1 (June 10. 1994). 12.

Viemeau, David. "Politicians gave judiciary its added power. " The Toronto Star (April 4, 1998). A15. . "Gays win a major victory. " The Toronro Star (April 3. 1998). A 1.

William Walker and Leslie Papp. "NDP Alters Same-Sex Bill: Last-ditch bid made to save it. " The Toronto Srar (June 9, 1994). A 1.

. "NDP Drops Adoption to Save Same-Sex Bill. " The Ottawa Cirizen (June 9. 1991). Al.

William Walker. Rob Ferguson, and Daniel Girard. "Ontario's 3 leaders will honour new ruling. " The Toronro Star (May 2 1. 1999). A6.

Walker. William. "Which Way Will Chretien Turn'?" The Torotrro Srar (.March 13. 1999). El and E4.

. "MPPs Crush Same-Sex Bill." The Torotzro Srar (June 10. 1993). A 1.

. "Arguments For and Against Gay and Lesbian Rights Bill: Bill 167 would ensure benefits for same-sex couples." The Toronto Srar (June 9, 1994), A27.

Walkom. Thomas. "Ontario Parties Clothed in Shame: Politics runs roughshod over real people. " The Toronto Srar (June 10. 1994). Al.

Walsh, Brian J. Letter to the Editor. "Queers Must Be Monogamous." Fhe Varsin no. 32 (January 26. 1999). 1.

Warner. Tom. "Story of a Same-Sex Spousal Rights Strategy: Bandwagon effect and media attention narrowed the focus of the campaign." Xtra! no. 329 (June 5. 1997). 18.

Books and Journals

Adam, Barry D. The Rise of a Guy and Lesbian Molternenr. Boston: Twayne Publishers. 1987.

Addelson, Kathryn Pyne. "Words and Lives." Viewpoint: "On 'Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence': Defining the Issues." Signs 7. no. 1 (Autumn 1981). 187-199.

Allen, Carole. "Who Gets to be Family'?" In Linda Carty, ed. And Srill We Rise: Fminisr Political Mobilizing in Conremporary Canada. Toronto: Women's Press, 1993.

Anderson, Kathryn and Dana C. Jack. "Learning to Listen: Interview Techniques and Analyses." In Gluck and Patai. eds. Women's Words. 11-26.

Andreski, Iris. Oid Wives T2.tles: Life-Stories of African Women. New York: Schoc ken Books. 1970. Andrews. Karen. "Ancient Affections: Gays. Lesbians. and Family Status. " In Amup. ed. Lesbian Parenting, 358-377.

. "We Are Family. " Hea[thsharing (Fall 1989).

AnzaIdua, Gloria. ed. Making Face, Making Soul/HACIENLlO CARAS: Creative and Criricai Perspectives by Wornen of Coforrr. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Foundation Books. 1990.

Arnup, Katherine, ed. Lesbian Parenting: Living with Pride and Prejudice Charlottetown:

kgynergy books. 1995.

Arnup. Katherine. "In the Family Way: Lesbian Mothers in Canada. " In Luxton. ed. Frrninisnl and Families. 80-97.

. "Introduction. " In Amup. ed. Lesbian Parenting, vii-xii.

. "Living in the Margins: Lesbian Families and the Law." In Amup. ed. Lesbian Parenring. 378-398.

. " ' We Are Famil y ! ' : Lesbian Mothers in Canada. " Resortrces for Fwinisr Resecrrch 20. no. 3/4 (FaIUWinter 1991). 101-107.

. "'Mothers Just Like Others' : Lesbians. Divorce. and Child Custody in Canada." Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 3, no. 1 ( 1989). 18-32.

Baker. Kathleen. LL-B. The Legal Guide for Gay & Lesbian Couples in Onfario. First Edition. Toronto: Legalworks Press. 1995.

Bannerj i , Himani, ed . Retltrning rhe Gaze: Racism, Fenzinism and Polirics. Toronto: S ister Vision. 1993.

Bannerji. Himani. "But Who Speaks for Us'? Experience and Asency in Conventional Feminist Paradigms." In Himani Bannerji. Linda Cany, Kari Delhi. Susan Heald and Kate McKema, eds. Unsettling Relations: The University as a Site of Feminist Struggles. Toronto: Women's Press. 1991. 67- 108.

Barret. Robert. and Bryan Robinson. Gay Fathers. Lexington: Lexington Books. 1990.

Barrett. Michele and Mary McIntosh. The Anri-Sociui Family. London: Verso. 1982.

Barry, KathIeen. Female Se.xrta[ Slavery. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1979.

Basen. Gwym. Margrit Eichler, and Abby Lippman, eds . Misconcepfions: The Sociul Consfruction of Choice and the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies. Volumes One and Two. Hull. Quebec: Voyageur Publishing. 1993 and 1994. de Beauvoir, Sirnone. The Second Sex. 1949. Trans. H.M.Parshley . Introd. D. Bair. New York: Vintage Books. 1989.

Belenky, Mary Field. Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger. and Jill Mattuck Tarule. Women's Ways of Knowing: The Developmenr of Se[f. Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic. 1986.

Bell. Laurie. On Our OIvn Terms: A Practical Guide for Lesbian and Gay Relationships. Toronto: The Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario. 1991.

Bsnkov. Laura. Reinventing [he Family: Lesbian and Gw Parenrs. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks. 1994.

Bornstein. Kate. Gender O~ttlaw:On men. Ivornerz and the rest of rts. New York and London: Routledge. 1994.

Bozett. Frederick. ed. Guy and Lesbian Pnrenrs. New York: Praeger. L 987.

Brand. Diome. No Burden to Carry: Narratives of Black Working Women in Ontario. 1920s- 1950s. Toronto: Women's Educational Press. 1991.

Bristow. Joseph and Angelia R. Wilson. eds. Activaring Theom: Lesbian. Gq.Rises-rml Polirics. London: Lawrence and Wishart. 1993.

Bristow. Peggy (Coordinator). Diome Brand. Linda Carty. Afua P. Cooper. Sylvia Hamilton. and Adrienne Shadd. "We're Roofed Here and They Can't Pull Us Up ":Essaj*s in -4fricnn Canadian Women's History. Toronto. Buffalo. London: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 1993.

Brophy . Julia. "New Families. Judicial Decision-Making. and Children's Welfare. " Canadian Journal of Wotnen and the Law 5 ( l992), 484497.

Bulkin. Elly. "Racism and Writing: Some Implications tbr White Lesbian Critics." Sitzisrer Wisdorrz 13 (Sprine 1980), 3-22.

Bulkin, Elly, Minnie Bruce Pratt, and Barbara Christian. Yaws In Smcggle: Three Fminisr Perspecrives on Anri-Sernitism and Racism. New York: Fire brand Books. 1984.

Bunch. Charlotte. "Not For Lesbians OnIy " (1975). In Passionate Politics: Feminist Theory in Acrion, Essays 1968-1986. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1987, 172-18 1.

. "Lesbians in Revolt" (1975). In Alison M. Jagger and Paula S. Rothenberg, eds. Fetninisr Frantervorks: Alrernntive Theoretical Accorrnrs of rlte Relarions Benveen Women and Men. Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1984. 144-148. Butler, Judith. and Joan Wallach Scott. eds. Feminists Theorize tfze Political. New York and London: Routledge. 1992.

Butler. Judith. Bodies That Mutter: On the Discursive Limifs of "Sex". New York: Routledge. 1993.

. "Contingent Foundat ions. " In Butler and Scott. eds. Feminists Theorize rhe Political. 3-2 1.

- Gender Trorible: Feminism and tfze Subversion of kierzrin-. New York: Rourledss. 1990.

. "Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist theory. " In Sue-Ellen Case. ed. Perfomzing Feminisms: Feminist Critical Theory and Theatre. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1988.

. "Variations on Sex and Gender: Beauvoir. Wittig. and Foucault." In Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell. eds. Ferrlinisnz us Critique. London: Basil Blackwell. 1987. 35-50.

. "Sex and Gender in Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex. " Yule Frerzch Srrtdies. Sirnone de Bearwoir: Witness to a Centun 72 (Winter 1986). 35-50.

Canning, Kathleen. "Feminist History After the Linguistic Turn: Historicizing Discourse and Experience-" Signs 19. no. 2 (Winter 1994). 368404.

(Charles). Helen. "'Queer Niger': Theorizing 'White' Activism." In Bristow and Wilson. eds. Acii\?aring Theon*.97- 106.

Childers, Mary, and bell hooks. "A Conversation About Race and Class." In Hirsch and Fox Keller, eds. Conflicts in Feminism. 60-8 1.

Chodorow, Nancy. The Reprodrrction of Motfzet-ing. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1978.

Christian, Barbara. AM du Cille. Sharon Markus, Elaine Marks, Nancy K. Miller, Sylvia Schafer. and Joan W. Scott. "Conference CalI." dtferences 2, no. 3 (1990), 52-108.

Clunis, D. Merilee. and G. Dorsey Green. Lesbian Cortpks. Seattle: Seal Press. 1988.

Code, Lorraine. What Can She Know?: Feminist T1zeor-y and the Consrrrrction 01-Knor tkige. New York: Cornell University Press. 199 1.

Cohen, Marjorie Griffin. "Paid Work." In Pierson and Cohen. Canadian Women's Issues, Volume 11. 83-161. Co 11 ins, Patricia H il I. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge. Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowemzent. London. Routledge. 1990.

Comparative Studies in Society and History 35, no. 2 (April 1993). 41445 1.

The Concise O.r$iord Dictionary . Eighth Edition. R. E. Allen, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1990.

Consolidated Ontario Family Law Statutes and Regulations 1996. Toronto: Carswet I. 1995.

Cossman. Brenda. "Family Inside/Out. " In Luxton. ed. Feminism and Families. 124- 141.

. "Same-Sex Coupies and the Politics of Family Status." In Janine Brodie. ed. Wornen and Canadian P~tblicPolin,. Toronto: Harcoun Brace and Company. 1996. 223- 278.

Daly , Mary. Gyn/Ecology: The Meruethics of Radical Feminism. Boston: Beacon. 1978.

Das Gupta, Tania. "Families of Native Peoples, Immigrants, and People of Colour. " In Mandell and Duffy , eds. Canadian Families, 141- 174.

Davies, Bronwyn. "Women's Subjectivity and Feminist Stories." In Carolyn Ellis and Michael G . FIahert y . eds . Invesfigating Sltb~e~tiviQJ:Research on Lived Erperience . Ne wberry Paile: Sage, 1992. 53-76.

Day. Dian. "Le~bian./~Mother." In Stone. ed. Lesbians in Canada. 35-47.

Dehli, Kari. "Leavins the Comfort of Home: Working Through Feminisms." In Himani Bannerji, Linda Carty, Kari Dehli. Susan Heald. Kate McKe~a.eds. Unsettling Relations: The Universiry as a Site of Feminist Struggles. Toronto: Women's Press, 1991, 45-65.

Delphy. Christine. "For a Materialist Feminism." Feminist Issues 1. no. 2 (Winter 1981). 69-76.

Diamond. Irene and Lee Quinby. eds. Fenrinisnz and Folrcartfr: Rejlecrions on Resisral?ce. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 1988. d18erence.s 3. no. 2 (Summer 1991). "Special Issue on Queer Theory. Lesbian and Gay Sexualities. "

Dinnerstein, Dorothy- The Mermaid and the Minotaur: Sexual Arrangements and the Human Malaise. New York: Harper Colophon Books. 1977.

Doan. Laura. ed. The Lesbian Posrrnoderrt. New York: Columbia University Press. 1994. Downs, Laura Lee. "If 'Woman' Is Just An Empty Category. Then Why Am I Afraid To Walk Alone at Night'? Identity Politics Meets the Postmodern Subject. " Conlpararir*eStudies in Society and History 35, no. 2 (April 1993). 414-437.

. "Reply to Joan Scott. " Cornpararive Studies in Society and History 35. no. 2 (April 1993). 445-45 1.

The Econornisr. "The Disappearing Family" Issue (September 9. 1995).

. "Let Them Wed" Issue (January 6. 1996)

Ehrenreich, Barbara. and Deirde English. For Her Own Good: 1.50 Years of-rht. E~prrrs' Advice to Women. New York: Anchor Books. 1979.

Eichler. Marcgrit. Family SIZIPS.Toronto: Oxford University Press. 1997.

Elshtain. Jean Bethke, ed. The Family in Political Ti~ortght. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press. 1982.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Public Man, Private Woman: Women it1 Social attd Poliricul Tlzu~tgIz~. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1981.

Evans. David T. Se-rual Citizenship: The d4arerial Consrrrtction of Sewaliries. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.

Faderman. Lillian. Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers: A History of Lesbian Life in Twentierfr- Cenrrtn Anzer-ica. New York: Penguin Books. 198 1.

Fausto-Sterling. Anne. Myfzs of Gender: Biological Theories Aborrr Mm und Women. Second Edition. New York: Basic Books. 1992.

Feinberg. Leslie. Transgender Warrior: Making Hisroty from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rociman. Boston: Beacon Press. 1996.

Ferguson. Ann. "Patriarchy, Sexual Identity, and the Sexual Revolution. " Viewpoint : "On 'Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence': Defining the Issues." Signs 7. no. 1 (1981). 158-172.

Fineman, Martha Albertson. The Neutered Mother. The Se.rrral Family and Orlzer Twmierh Cenrug Tragedies. New York and London: Routledge, 1995.

Flax. Jane. "The End of Innocence. " In Butler and Scott, eds. Ferninisfs Theorize rhe Polirical. 435-463.

. "Postmodernism and Gender Relations in Feminist Theory." Signs 12, no. 4 (Summer 1987). Foucault. Michel . The Foucault Reader. New York: Vintage Books. 1984.

. The History of Semaliy, Volrone I: An Inrrod~tction.Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Vintage Books. 1980.

Fox. Bonnie. "Another View of Sociology of the Family in Canada: A Comment on Nett ( 1996). " The Canadian Revinv of Sociology and An rltropology 31. no. 1 ( February 1 997). 93-99.

Frankenburg, Ruth. Wire Women, Race Matters: The Social Consrrztcrion of Whireness. Mimeapoiis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Fraser. Nancy and Linda J. Nicholson. "Social Criticism without Philosophy: An Encounter between Feminism and Postmodernism. In Nicholson. ed. Feminisrn/Posti?zodernistn.19- 38.

Freud. Sigmund. On Se-rrmlip.- Three Esxys on the Theon: of Se.rrmlifiv and Other Works. Volume 7. London: Penguin Books. 1977.

Friedan, Betty. The Feminine Mgiqrre. 1963. Twentieth Anniversary Edition. New York: Dell Publishing Co.. 1984.

Fuss. Diana. ed . insicie/orrt: Lesbian Theoriex. G*, Theories. New York : Routledge. 199 1.

Fuss. Diana. Essenriall~~Speaking: Fenlinisrn. lVatirre and D[fj.erence. New k'ork and London: Routledge, 1989.

Gairdner, William D. The War Against the Far~zily:A Parem Speaks Ow on Poliricai. Economic, and Social Policies That Threaren Us All. Toronto: Stoddan Publishing Company, 1992.

Garber, Marjorie. Vice Versa: Biserrrali~and the Eroticism of Eveqday Life. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1995.

Gavigan, Shelley A.M. "Feminism. Familial Ideology and Family Law." In Luxton. ed. Feniitzism and Fcrtuiiies . 98- 123 .

Gee, Ellen M. "Contemporary Diversities." In Mandell and Duffy. eds. Canadian Families. 79- 109.

Geiger, Susan. "What's So Feminist About Women's Oral History'?" Journal of Women's Hisroqy 2, no. 1 (Spring 1990). 169-182.

- "Women's Life Histories: Method and Content." Signs 11. no. 2 (1986). 335-35 1.

Gill igan. Carol. In a Dtrerenr Voice: P~chologicul Theory and Women's Developtnenr . Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. 1982. Gluck. Sherna Berger and Daphne Patai. "Introduction. " In Gluck and Patai. eds. Women's Words. 11-26.

Gluck. Sherna Berger. and Daphne Patai, eds. Women's Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. New York and London: Routledge, 1991.

Gordon. Linda. "Response to Scott." Signs 15. no. 1 (1990). 852-853.

. Review of Gender and tire Polirics of Hisrory by Joan Wallach Scott. Signs 15. no. 4 (1990), 853-858.

Goss. Robert E.. and Amy Adarns Squire Strongheart. eds. Ortr Fmnilies. Orrr Values: Stzapshors of Queer Kinship. New York: The Haworth Press. Inc., 1997.

Grant, Judith. "I Feel Therefore I Am: A Critique of Female Experience as the Basis for a Feminist Epistemolo~y." Wonzen and Politics 7. no. 3 (1987). 122-127.

Grosz. Elizabeth. Volatile Bodies: Tolvurdu Corporeal Fetninisrn. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1994.

Hall Carpenter Archives Lesbian Oral History Group. Inventing Ortrselves: Lesbian Life Stories. London and New York: Routledge. 1989.

Haraway , Donna. Simians. Cyborgs, and Wornen: The Reinvention of Natrtre. New York : Routledge. 1991.

. "Reading Buchi Emecheta: Contests for 'Women's Experience' in Women's Studies . " In Sitnians. Cyborgs. and Wonren . I 09- 1 26.

. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." Feminist S~rrdies14. no. 3 (Fall 1988). 575-599.

Harding. Sandra. The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell University Press. 1986.

Harman, Lesley D. "Family Poverty and Economic Strug_gles." In Mandell and Duffy. eds. Canadian Families, 236-240.

Hartsock. Nancy. "Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women:'" In Nicholson. ed. Fetni~~isrn/Postmodernisrn.157- 175 .

Herman, Didi. Rights of Passage: Str-rrgglesfor Lesbian and Gay Equalin Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1994.

. "Are We Family'?: Lesbian Rights and Women's Liberation." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 28 (Winter 1990), 789-8 15. Herskovits. Melville. Dahomey. Two Volumes. Illinois: Northwestern University Press. 1967.

Hirsch. Marianne, and Evelyn Fox Keller. eds. Conflicts in Fe~ninisnl.New York: Routled_ge. 1990.

H ite, Shere. The Hire Repon on the Family: Growing Up Under Patriarchy. New York: Grove Press. 1994. hooks. bell, Gloria Steinem. Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf. "Let's Get Real About Feminism: The Backlash. the Myths, the Movement." MS. (September/October 1993). 3433. hooks. be1 1. Teaching to Transgress: Editcarion as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge. 19%.

. "The Politics of Black Subjectivity. " In Yearning. 15-22.

. Yeartring: Race, Getlder and Crtltrtral Politics. Toronto: Between the Lines. 1990.

. Talking Back: Thinking Feminisr, Thinking Black. Boston: South End Press, 1989.

+ Feminisr Theop: From Margin to Cenrre. Boston: South End Press. 1984.

Hutcheon. Linda. A Poetics o_f'Posrt~lodet-nisn~:Histor?. Tlreoq., Fic-[ion.New York and London: Routledge. 1988.

Iacovetta. Franca and Marians Valverde, eds. Gender Conflicts: New Essays irz Wonten 's Hisrot?.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1992.

If's Pat: The Movie. Directed by Adam Bernstein. California: Touchstone Pictures. 78 min.

Jaggar, Alison M. and Paula S . Rothenburg, eds. Feminist Frameworks: Alternurive Theorerical Accortnrs of the Relations benveen Wornen and Men. Third Edition. U.S. A. : McGraw- Hill. Inc.. 1993.

Jaggar. M. Ferninist Polirics and Hrrnzm hrcltrrre. Brighton: Rowan & Little tield Publishers. Inc.. 1988.

Johnson. Susan E. For Love and Lve: Inrinzare Porrrairs of Lesbian Couples. Tallahassee: The Naiad Press, 1995.

. Staying Parver: Long Tern Lesbian Couples. Tal tahassee: The Naiad Press, 1990.

Katz. Jonathan Ned. "The Invention of Heterosexuality ." Socialist Revierv 1990. 7-34.

Kaufman. Miriam. and Susan Dundas. "Directions for Research About Lesbian Families." In Amup, ed . Lesbian Parenting , f 66- 175. Kaufmam, Walter. ed. The Portable Niet~che.New York: Viking. 1968.

Kiernan, James G. "Responsibility in Sexual Perversion. " Chicago Medical Recorder 3 (May 1892), 185-210.

Kinsman, Gary. The Regitlarion of Desire: Homo and Herero Sewalifies. Second Ed ition. Montreal. New York. and London: Black Rose Books. 1996.

Kirby. Sandra and Kate McKema. Erperience. Research. Social Change: Mrfllods From rhr Margins. Toronto: Garamond Press. 1989.

Koontz, Claudia. Review of Gender and the Politics af' Histon. by Joan W. Scott. Wonren 's Review of Books 6, no. 4 (1989), 19-20.

vo n Kra ft- Eb incc. . Psy choparhia Sewalis, with Especial Reference ro Contrary Se-rual Instinct A Medico-Legal Study. Trans. Charles Gilben Chaddock. Philadelphia: E .A Davis, 1892.

La Leche League. The Wonzanly Anof Brensgeeding. Sixth Revised Edition. I linois: La Leche League International, 1997.

Lano, Kevin. and Claire Parry, eds. Breaking the Barriers ro Desire: Pol~amonPol~fldeli~ and Non-monogamy - new clpproaches to mrtlriple relationships. Notringham: Five Leaves Publications. 1995.

Laqueur. Thomas. Making Ses: Burly and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. 1990.

Lardinois, Andre. "Lesbian Sappho and Sappho of Lesbos." In Jan Bremmer. ed. From S~rpptzo ro de Sade: Monzenrs in rlze Hisron of Sexrcali~..London and New York: 1989. 15-35.

Larson. Lyle E.. J. Walter Goltz and Charles W. Hobart. Families irz Cutzada: Socicrl Conrexr, Conrinrtiries. and Changes. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Canada Inc.. 1994. de Lauret is, Teresa. The Practice of love: Lesbian Sexualiry and Perverse Desire. Bloomington and IndianapoIis: Indiana University Press, 1994.

. "Queer Theory: Lesbian and Gay Sexualities. An Introduction. " digerences 3. no. 2 (Summer 1991).

. Alice Doesn 'r: Fminisrn, Serniorics, Cinerna. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1985.

Lerner, Gerda. The Majoriy Finds Irs Past: Placing Women in History. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. Lesbian History Group. Nor a Passing Phase: Reclaiming Lesbians in Hisrory 1840-1985. London: The Women's Press Ltd.. 1989.

LeSueur, Meridel. The Girl. Cambridge: West End Press. 1978.

Lewin, Ellen. Lesbian Mothers: Accounts of Gender in American Culrure. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Lorde, Audre. "I Am Your Sister: Black Women Organizing Across Sexualities" (1988). In Anzaldua, ed. Making Face. Making Soul/HACIENDO CARAS, 32 1-325.

. "Scratching the Surface: Some Notes on the Barriers co Women and Loving." In Sisrer Ortrsider. 45-52.

. Sisrer Oirrsidet-: Essays and Speeches by Airdre Lor&. Freedom. CA:The Crossing Press, 1984.

. "An Open Letter to Mary Daly . " In Moraga and Anzaldua, eds. This Bridge Caiied My Back, 94-97.

Luxton. Meg . ed . Ferninistn and Families: Critical Policies and Changing Practices. Halifax: Fernwood PubIishin,o. 1997.

Luxton, Meg. "Feminism and Families. " In Luxton. ed. Fetrrinism and Fcmzilies. 162- 18 1.

. More Than A Laboitr of love: Three Genrrafions of Wonrrn 's Work in rile Hotne. Toronto: Women's Press. 1980.

Lynn, Marion, and Eimear O'Neill. "Families. Power. and Violence." In Mandell and Duffy, eds . Canadian Families, 27 1-305.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Posrrnodertz Condirion: A Repon on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian ~Massumi.Minneapolis: University of Mi~esoraPress. 1981.

Mac Kimon. Catherine. Serrtal Hurassrnenr of Working Wotlzen: A Case of Discriminariott . New York: Yale University Press. 1979.

MandeiI. Nancy and Ann Duffy. eds. Canadian Families: Diversi~,ConfIicr and Change. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995.

Marks. Elaine. and Isabelle Counivron, eds. New French Feminisms. Boston: Schocken. 198 1.

Martin. April. The Lesbian and Guy Parenring Handbook: Crearing Raising Our Families. New York: HarperCollins. 1993. Martin, Biddy and Chandra Taipade Mohanty. "Feminist Politics: What's Home Got to Do With It0?."In Teresa de Laureris. ed. Feminist Sl~[dies/CriricaiSfrcdies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1986, 19 1-2 12.

~Vartin,Biddy. "Feminism. Criticism. and Foucault. " In Diamond and Quinby. eds. Feminism and Fotccaulr . 3 -20.

Manindale. Kathleen. "What Makes Lesbianism Thinkable'?: Theorizing Lesbianism From Adrienne Rich to Queer Theory. " In Nancy .Mandell. ed. Ferrlinist Issues: Rmx, Class and St?-walih:.Scarborough: Prentice-Hall Inc.. 1995. 67-91.

martin, Del, and Phyllis Lyon. Lesbian/Won~arz.New York: Bantam. 1973,

McIntosh. Mary. "Queer Theory and the War of the Sexes." In Bristow and Wilson. eds. Acrivating Theory. 30-52.

.McIntosh. Pesgy. "White Privilese: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack." Independent School (Winter 1990). 3 1-36.

~Mies,Maria. "Feminist Research: Science. Violence and Responsibility. " In Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva. Ecofenrinism. Halifax: Fernwood and London: Zed Books. 1993. 36-54.

- "Women's Research or Feminist Research'? The Debate Surrounding Feminist Science and Methodology." In Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A. Cook, eds. Beyond Mer/zodoiogy: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1991. 37-71.

Miller. Jean Baker. Towmi a Nelv Psyholog~of Wometz. Boston: Beacon Press. 1976. ibliller, Naomi. Single Pnrc.nrs bj Choice: A Groltfng Trend ill Fanzily Lge. New York and London: Plenum Press. 1992.

Modleski, Tania. Feminism wirlzorrt Women: crilrrire and criricisrn in a 'Poss$enzinisr' age. New York: Routledge, 1991.

Mohanty , Chandra Tal pade. " Under Western Eyes : Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. " In Chandra Talpade Mohanty, AM Russo. and Lourdes Torres. eds. Third WorM Women and rlle Politics of Frnzinisnz. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 1991. 5 1-80.

. "Feminist Encounters: Locating the Politics of Experience. " Copj~r-ight1. no. 1 (1984).

Monture. Patricia A. "A Vicious Circle: Child Welfare and the First Nations. " Canadian Jormai of Women and rhe Law 3, no. 1 (1989), 1-17. Moraga. Cherrie and Gloria Anzaldua. eds. This Bridge Called My Back: Wrirings By Radical Wotnen of Color. New York: Kitchen Table. Women of Color Press. 1983.

Morgan. Michael. ed. Classics of Moral and Political Theon-. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.

-Morgan, Robin, ed. Sisrerhood is Porvet$tl: An Anrhology of Writings from rhr Women's Liberarion Movemenr. New York: Vintage Books. 1970.

Morrison. Toni. Snla. New York: Bantam. 1973.

Nelson. Fiona . Lesbian Morherhood: An Erplorarion of Canadian Lesbian Farnilies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1996.

Nett, Emily N. "Response to Bonnie Fox's Comment "Another View of Sociology of the Family in Canada. " The Canadian Review of Sociolagy and Anthropology 31. no. I (February 1997). 100-104.

. Canadian Families: Past and Present. Second Edition. Toronto: Butterworths, 1993.

Sicholson. Linda J.. ed. Fet~rinisr?1/Postt?lodernism.New York: Routledge. 1990.

Oakley, Ann. "Interviewing- Women: A Contradiction in Terms. " In H. Robarts. ed. Doing Fetrzinisr Research. London: Routledge and Ksgan Paul. 30-6 1.

0'Brien. Carol-Arne and Lorna Weir. "Lesbians and Gay Men Inside and Outside Families. " In Mandell and Duffy. eds. Canadian Farnilies, 11 1- 139.

0'Higgins. James. "Sexual Choice, Sexual Act: An Interview with Michel Foucault. " Sal~nagrmdi58-59 (Fall 1982-Winter 1983): 10-24.

Okin. Susan Moller. LVonletz irz Western Political Thottghr. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 1979.

Owen, Michelle K. "All in the Family: The Struggle for Same-Sex Spousal Recognition in the Courts and the Legis lacure. " In Proceedings of "lnter/National Infersecrions: Law 's

Changing Terririories " Conference (Vancouver: University of British Columbia. 1998j. 328-337.

. "Beyond the Second Sex: Theorizing the Body. " rrans/fornzs 3/4 (199711998). 73- 83.

Palmer, Bryan. "The Scott Files." Descent Itrro Discortrse: The Rerpcarion of Langrruge cmcl [he Writing of Sock1 History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1990. 172- 153. Patai, Daphne. "U.S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible?" In Gluck and Patai. eds. Wotnen's Words. 137-153.

Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Confracr. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1988.

Peiss. Kathy and Christina Simmons. eds. Passion and Power Sexuali~in Histop. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1989.

Pierson, Ruth Roach. and Marjorie Griffin Cohen. Canadian Wornen's Issues, Voirrme (I: Bold Visions. Twen~-Fi\vYears of Women 's Acriwinl in English Canada. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company Ltd.. 1995.

Pierson. Ruth Roach. Marjorie Griffin Cohen, Paula Borne. and Phiiinda Masters. Canadian Wotnen's Issues: Volwne 1: Strong Voices. Tweny-Five Years of Women's Acrivisrn in English Canada. Toronto: lames Lorimer & Company Ltd.. 1993.

Pierson. Ruth Roach. "The Politics of the Domestic Sphere. " In Pierson and Cohen. Canadian Wornen's Issrres, Volutne I!, 1-82.

. "International Trends in Women's History and Feminism: Colonization and Canadian Women's History." Journal of Wornen's History 4. no. 2 (Fall 1992). 135-156.

. "Experience, Difference. Dominance and Voice in the Writing of Canadian Women's History. " In Karen Offen, Ruth Roach Pierson, and Jane Randall, ed. Wt-ifing Worne~'s Histoy- International Perspectives. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. 199 1. 79- 106.

Pollack. Sandra, and Jeanne Vaughn. eds. Polirics of the Heart: A Lesbian Parenring Anrho[ogy New York: Firebrand Books. 1987.

Poovey. Mary. "Feminism and Deconstruction. " Feminist Srrtdies 14. no. I (Spring 1988). 5 1- 65.

Popenoe. David. "The Family Condition of America: Cultural Change and Public Policy. " In Henry J. Aaron. Thomas E. Mann and Timothy Taylor, eds. Valrres and Prdblic Policy. Washington. D.C. : Brookings Institution. 1994. 8 1- 112.

PortelIi. Alessandro. "The Peculiarities of OraI History. " ffistoc9Worksltop Jorrrnd 12 ( 198 1 ). 96- 107.

Pratt, Minnie Bruce. SME. New York: Firebrand Books, 1995.

. "The Maps in My Bible. " In Rebellions, 191-226.

. Rebellions: Essays N8O-IWI. New York: Firebrand Books, 1991. . Crime Against Nature. New York: Firebrand Books. 1990.

. "Identity: Skin Blood Heart." In Elly Bulkin. Minnie Bruce Pratt. and Barbara Smith. Yours In Smtggle. 11-63.

Rae. Bob. From Prorest to Power: Personal Reflections on a Life in Politics. Toronto: Viking Press, 1996.

Rayside, David. On rhe Fringe: Gays and Lesbians in Polirics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1998.

Razack. Shzrene. "Storytelling for SociaI Change. " Gender and Edrlcation 5. no. 1 ( 1993). 55- 70.

Reagon, Bernice Johnson. "Coalition Politics: Turning the Century. " In Barbara Smith. ed. Honzegirls: A Black Feminist Anrhology . New York: Kitchen Table Press. 1984. 357-368.

Reinharz, S hularnit. Ferninisz Methods in Social Research. New York and Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1992.

Reisman, Judith A.. and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsq, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Louisiana: Huntington House Pub1ishers. 1990.

Review of Virrrtally Nonrzal: Atz Argrment Aborrr Homose-rrtafin:. 1 st Edition. BJ. Andrew SuIIivan. The Ecor~ot~zisr(January 6. 1996). 7 1 .

Rich. Adrienne. Blood, Bread, and Poern.: Setecred Prose 1979- 1985. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986.

. "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence " ( 1980). In Blood, Bread, and Poetry. 23-75.

. " 'It Is the Lesbian in Us.. .' " ( 1976). In On Lies, Stwers, citrd Silerrcti. 199-202.

. "The tVeanin2 of Our Love for Women Is What We Have Constantly to Espand" ( 1977). In On Lies, Secrets, and Silence. 223-230.

- On Lies, Secrets, and Silence: Selected Prose 1966-I978. New York: W.W. Norton. 1979.

. "Women and Honor: Some Notes on Lying" (1975). In On Lies. Secrers, and Silence. 185-194.

. Of Wonzan Born: Morher-hood as Erperierzce alzd Institrrfion. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. 1976. Rid ington, J. The Only Parent in the Neighbourhood: Mothering and Worner: with Disabilities. Vancouver: Disabled Women's Network, 1989.

Riley. Denise. "A Short History of Some Preoccupations." In Butler and Scott. eds. Feminists Theorize the Political. 12 1- 129.

. 'Arn I Tlrar Narnr?' Fenzinisrn and the Caregon of ' LVotnen' in Hisron. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. 1988.

Ristock, Janet. "Beyond Ideologies: Understanding Violence in Lesbian Relationships. " Cmadinn Women 's Studies 12. no. 1 (Fall 199 1 ), 74-79.

Robson, Ruthann. "Resisting the Family: Repositioning Lesbians in Legal Theory. " Signs 19. no. 4 (1994). 975-996.

Rockhill. Kathleen. "And Still I Fight." In Shelley Tremain. ed. Pushing the Limits: disabled djkes prodzrce crtltrrre. (Toronto: Women's Press. 1996). 172- 187.

Roman. Leslie G. "White is a Color! White Defensiveness. Postmodernism. and Anti-racist Pedagogy. " In Cameron McCarthy and Warren Crichlow. eds. Rrrce. Idemin, atzd Representation in Ed~ication. New York: Routledge. 1993, 7 1-88.

Rose, Jacqueline. Review of 'Am I That Name?' Feminism and the Category of ' Wonien ' in History, by Denise Riley. Hisrory Workshop Journal. no. 29 (Spring 1990). 159- 162.

Rose. Sonya 0. "Women's HistoryIGender History: Is Feminist Scholarship Losing Its Critical Edge'?" Jortrnnl of Wotnen 's Hisron 5 ( 1993).

Ross, Becki L. The Home That Jill Brrilt: A Lesbian Narion in Fomntion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 1995.

. "Sexual DisIOrientation or Playing House: To Be or Not to be Coded Human." In Stone, ed. Lesbians in Canada, 133-145.

Ryder. Bruce. "Equality Rights and Sexual Orientation: Confronting Heterosexual Family Privilege." Canadian Journal of Family Law 4 (1990), 39-97.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nu~hingness:A Phenotnenological Essq on Ontology. 1943. Trans. Hazel E. Barnes. New York: Washington Square Press. 1966.

Scott, Joan Wallach. "The Tip of the Volcano." Comparative Studies in Society and Hisroy 35. no. 2 (April 1993)- 438-443.

. "Experience. " In Butler and Scott, eds. Feminists Theorize the Political, 22-40.

"Response to Gordon." Signs 15, no. 4 (1990), 859-60. . Review of Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Politics and History of Family Violence by Linda Gordon. Signs 15. no. 4 (1990). 548-52.

- Gender and rhe Polirics of Histon. New York: Columbia University Press. 1988.

Sedgewick, Eve. Episremology of the Closer. Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press. 1990.

Silvera. Makeda. "Man Royales and Sodomites. Some Thoughts on the Invisibility of Afro- Caribbean Lesbians." In Stone. ed. Lesbians in Canada. Toronto: Between the Lines, 1990. 48-60.

Simon. Roger. Teaching Againsr the Grain: Terts for a ficiagog?. of Possibiiin. Toronto: OISE Press. 1992.

Smith, Dorothy. Tile Eveqda_r: World as Problematic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987.

Smith, Sidonie. "Who's Talking/WhofsTalking Back? The Subject of Personal Narrative." Signs 18. no. 2 (Winter 1993). 392-407.

SpeIman. El iza beth. lnessenrial Wonran: Problems of Erclusion in Feminisr Thought. Boston: Beacon Press. 1988.

Spender, Dale. Feminist Tfzeov: Three Crnrr~riesof Cl/or?ren'shrellectitul Trmiitians. London: The Women's Press. 1983.

. Women of Ideas and Wzar Men Have Done ro Them: Fronl Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich. London, Boston. Melbourne and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravony . In Other Worlds: Essays in Cultural Politics. New York: Routledge, 1988.

Stacry, Judith. "Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography'?." In Gluck and Patai. eds. Women's Words. 11 1-1 19.

Steinbere.- David M. Family Law in the Farnily Co~rrs.Third Edition. Toronto: Carswell. 1986.

Stone. Sharon Dale. ed. Lesbians in Canada. Toronto: Between the Lines, 1990.

Stone, Sharon. "Lesbians Against the Right." In Jeri Dawn Wine and Janice Risrock, eds. Women and Social Change: Feminist Activism in Canada. Toronto: Lorimer. 199 1. 236- 251.

. "Introduction: Defining the Context." In Stone. ed. Lesbians in Canada. 9-22. . "Lesbian Mothers Organizing. " In Stone. ed. Lesbians in Canada. 198-208.

Stychin, Carl F. Law's Desire: Serualizy and the Limits of /usrice. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.

Sullivan. Andrew. WmaQNonnal: An Argument About Homoserualir).. 1st Edition-New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1995. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1995.

A Srtpplemenr ro the 0-xford English Dicrionan, Vol. I/. Oxford, 1976. 645.

Tataryn. Joy. Tim Tirnberg. and N. Colin Desjariais. Same Ser. Same Laws: Lesbians, Gay !Men, and rhe Law in B.C. Vancouver: Legal Services Society, 1996.

Thurer, Shari L. The Myths of Motherhood: How Culture Reinvents the Good Morher. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 1994.

Tong, Rosemarie. Fernitzist T/tought: A Conrprehensirpe Introdrtcrion. Boulder: Westview Press. 19239.

Ursel, Jane. Private Lives. Public Po lie: ZOO Years of Stare Inren.enriolz ill rhe Fnnlii?.. Toronto: Women's Press, 1992.

Ursel. Susan. "Bill 167 and Full Human Rights. " In Amup. ed. Lesbian Parenting, 341-35 1.

Vaid. Urvashi. Virtual Equality: The Mainsfreaming of Gq and Lesbian Liberation. New York and London: Anchor Books. 1995,

Valverde. Mariana. "Poststructuralist Gender Historians: Are We Those Names'?" LcrbortrXe Travail: Journal of Ccz~zadianLabour Studies 25 (Spring 1990). 227-236.

The Vanier Institute of the Family. ProJling Canada's Fanrilies. Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family. 1993.

. Canadian Far~rifies.Ottawa: Vanier Institute of the Family. undated.

Walkom, Thomas. Rae Days: The Rise and Follies of rhe NDP. Toronto: Key Porter Books Limited . 1994.

Weed. Elizabeth, ed. Coming fo Tertns: Fenrinistn, Tlleop, Poiirics. New York and London: Routledge, 1989.

Weeks, Jeffrey. "Movements of Affirmation: Sexual Meanings and Homosexual Identities. " In Kathy Peiss and Christina Simmons. eds. With Robert A. Padgug. Passion and Power: Saualify in History. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989, 70-86. . Sex. Polirics and Sociee: The Regulation of Sewliry Since 1800. London and New York: Longman, 1981.

Weise, Elizabeth Reba. ed . Closer ro Home: Bise.waliry and Feminism. Seattle: The Seal Press. 1992.

Wesron. Kath. Families We Choose: Lesbians. Gays. Kinship. New York: Columbia University Press. 1991.

W illhoite. Michael. Daddy's Roommate. Boston: Alyson Publications. Inc., 1990.

Witrig. Monique. "The Category of Sex. " Feminisr /ssrres 2. no. 2 (Fall 1982). 63-68.

. "One is Not Born a Woman." Feminist Issues 1. no. 2 (Winter 1981). 47-53.

. "The Straight Mind." Feminist Issues 1. no. 1 (Summer 1980). 103-112.

Whitman, Wait. Leaves of Grass, Facsimile Edition of the 1860 Tar. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961).

Y alnizyan, Armine. The Growing Gap: A Report on Growing Ineqrrality Benveen rhe Rich and Poor in Cmnda. Toronto: Centre for Social Justice. October 1998.

Yee. May. "Finding the Way Home Throush Issues of Gender. Race. and Class." In Himani Bamerji . ed. Rerrrrnitzg the Gaze: Essays on Racism, Feminism ctnd Pulirics. Toronto: Sister Vision Press. 1993. 3-37.

Young. Iris Marion. Throwing Like a Girl and Orher Essays in Feminist Philosuptzy md Social Theoty. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Zita. Jacquelyn. "Historical Amnesia and the Lesbian Continuum. " Viewpoint: "On 'Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence' : Defining the Issues. " Signs 7, no. 1 (Autumn 1981). 172-187.