Drawing on biographical narratives of two gay men in mixed-orientation marriage who have later gone on to establish re-partnership with another gay man, this paper seeks to critique the inherent heteronormativity in the discussion around re-partnership. It examines the consequential kinship dynamics among concerned social actors such as gay men, straight women, and their biological children, and their ongoing negotiations with the social institutions of marriage and family. Further, the discussion around re-partnership between two gay men in a Western context does not necessarily consider the alternative negotiations that characterize South Asian queer experiences. Borrowing from De Villiers’ concept of queer opacity (2012) and Jingshu Zhu’s (2017) ambivalence, the paper demonstrates that the kinning process of gay men in mixed-orientation marriage forging partnership with other gay men exists in a continuum. The boundary between what needs to be undone and what needs to be redone is porous, ambiguous, and interpenetrative. In that case, this paper suggests a non-Western framework to understand re-partnership in non-normative conjugality.
AltmanD. (1996a).
On global queering. Australian Humanities Review,
2(2), 1–8.
2.
AltmanD. (1996b).
Rupture or continuity? The internationalization of gay identities. Social Text,
14(3), 77–94. [10.2307/466787]
3.
AltmanD. (1997).
Global gaze/global gays. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,
3(4), 417–436.
4.
AltmanD. (2001). Global sex.
University of Chicago Press.
5.
BarrettM.McIntoshM. (2015). The anti-social family.
Verso.
6.
BhaskaranS. (2002). The politics of penetration: Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. In R. Vanita (Ed.), Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture and society (pp. 15–29). Routledge.
7.
BornemanJ. (1996).
Until death does us part: marriage/death in anthropological discourse. American Ethnologist,
23(2), 215–235.
8.
BoyceP.KhannaA. (2011).
Right and representations: Querying the male-to-male sexual subject in India. Culture Health and Sexuality,
13(1), 89–100.
9.
BrowneK. (2005).
Snowball sampling: Using social networks to research non‐heterosexual women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
8(1), 47–60.
10.
ChowdhryP. (2007). Contentious marriages, eloping couples.
Oxford University Press.
11.
De VilliersN. (2012). Opacity and the closet: Queer tactics in Foucault, Barthes, and Warhol.
University of Minnesota Press.
12.
Foucault, M (1997) For an ethics of discomfort. In Lotringer, S, Hochroth, L (eds) The Politics of Truth (pp. 135–146). New York: Seminotext(e).
13.
GoldmanE. (1911). Marriage and love.
Mother Earth Publishing Association.
14.
GroverS. (2011).
“Purani aur nai shaadi:” Separation, divorce, and remarriage in the lives of the urban poor in New Delhi. Asian Journal of Women's Studies,
17(1), 67–99.
15.
HortonB. A. (2018).
What’s so “queer” about coming out? Silent queers and theorizing kinship agonistically in Mumbai. Sexualities,
21 (7), 1059–1074.
16.
KaurR.PalriwalaR. (Eds.) (2014). Marrying in South Asia: Shifting concepts, changing practices in a globalising world. Orient Blackswan.
17.
KoleS. K. (2007).
Globalizing queer? AIDS, homophobia and the politics of sexual identity in India. Globalization and health,
3(1), 8.
18.
KollontaĭA. (1920). Communism and the family.
Contemporary Publishing Association.
19.
LoveH. (2007).
Compulsory happiness and queer existence. New Formations,
63(1), 52–64.
20.
LuxemburgR. (1971). Women’s suffrage and class struggle. In R. Luxemberg (Author) & D. Howard (Ed.), Selected political writings of Rosa Luxemburg (pp. 216–222). Monthly Review Press.
ModyP. (2008). The intimate state: Love-marriage and the law in Delhi.
Routledge.
23.
MuraleedharanT. (2002). Queer bonds: Male friendships in contemporary Malayalam cinema. In R. Vanita (Ed.), Queering India: Same-sex love and eroticism in Indian culture and society (pp. 181–192). Routledge.
24.
Plummer, K. (Ed.). (1992). Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experience.
Routledge
25.
RambergL. (2014). Given to the goddess: South Indian devadasis and the sexuality of religion.
Duke University Press.
26.
RaoR. R.SarmaD. (2009). Whistling in the dark: Twenty-one queer interviews.
SAGE Publications.
27.
ReddyG. (2005). With respect to sex.
University of Chicago Press.
28.
SarangiC. (2015), Samalingi samparka.
The Prameya.
29.
SedgwickE. K. (1993).
Queer performativity: Henry James’s The Art of the Novel. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,
1, 1–16.
30.
SenS.BiswasR.DhawanN. (Eds.). (2011). Intimate others: Marriage & sexualities in India.
Stree.
31.
SinghB. (2011).
Agonistic intimacy and moral aspiration in popular Hinduism: A study in the political theology of the neighbor. American Ethnologist,
38(3), 430–450.
32.
SinghP. (2015).
Staging sexuality through the familial, the performative and the activist: Bollywood’s queer repertoire in the twenty-first century. South Asian Popular Culture,
13(2), 125–139.
33.
SinghP. (2017).
At home with their queerness: Same-sex relationality and the Indian family in advertising media. Feminist Media Studies,
17(5), 721–736.
34.
TangS. (2017). Postcolonial lesbian identities in Singapore: Re-thinking global sexualities.
Routledge.
35.
TellisA. (Ed.). (2014). Multiple ironies: Notes on same-sex marriage for South Asians at home and abroad. In R. Kaur & R. Palriwala (Eds.), Marrying in South Asia: Shifting concepts, changing practices in a globalising world (pp. 333–350). Orient Blackswan.
36.
ThadaniG. (2016). Sakhiyani: Lesbian desire in ancient and modern India.
Bloomsbury.
37.
VanitaR. (2002). Queering India.
Routledge.
38.
VanitaR. (2005). Love’s rite: Same-sex marriage in India and the West.
Palgrave Macmillan.
39.
Vanita, R., & Kidwai, S. (Eds.). (2008). Same-sex love in India: A literary history.
Penguin Books.
40.
WestonK. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship.
Columbia University Press.
41.
ZhuJ. (2017).
“Unqueer” kinship? Critical reflections on “marriage fraud” in mainland China. Sexualities,
21(7), 1075–1091.
42.
ZimmerM. (2010).
“But the data is already public:” on the ethics of research on Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology,
12(4), 313–325.
