Family Scholars Blogger Tom Sylvester (who is pro-SSM) has posted a two-part series, “Whose Insight Is This?” (Part 1 and Part 2). Here’s a sample:
Same-sex-marriage advocates have argued that marriage is nothing more than a personal choice, that what gay people were denied is the “freedom to marry.” But marriage — or any legal or social contact — never concerns only one or two people. It concerns the entire fabric of the society in which they live.
Maggie Gallagher? Stanley Kurtz? Some other opponent of “marriage equality”? Nope, it’s queer theorist Michael Bronksi, questioning the campaign for same-sex marriage in the Boston Phoenix. So the next time someone asks, “Why would allowing two gay men to marry affect anything else?” quote Bronski.
Anyone quoting Bronski to make that point would be misunderstanding Bronski rather badly. To quote Bronski, from two paragraphs before the bit quoted above:
Galligher and Kurtz are arguing that same-sex marriage will change too much; straights will stop marrying, illegitimate children will overwhelm society, the words “father” and “mother” will be wiped from the dictionaries, etc.. Bronski, in contrast, is arguing that same-sex marriage won’t change society nearly enough. The out-of-context quote Tom uses is funny, but the truth is that Bronski’s view could not be more opposite Galligher’s and Kurtz’s, and Tom’s post (unintentionally, I’m sure) obscures that fact.
* * *
More generally, Tom seems to be arguing that certain views – that same-sex marriage might make monogamy less a part of marriage, for example – aren’t necessarily homophobic, because if you look you can find gay people saying more-or-less the same thing.
There are vital differences between the gay scholars Tom quotes and anti-SSM folks; most importantly, neither Bronski nor Jonathan Katz (the other gay scholar Tom quotes) advocate unequal laws for straights and gays (Bronski questions whether SSM should be the movement’s highest priority, but he doesn’t question whether or not equal treatment is worth seeking at all).
So an idea like “the inclusion of lesbian and gay same-sex marriage may, in fact, sort of de-center the notion of monogamy and allow the prospect that marriage need not be an exclusive sexual relationship among people…” is not, in and of itself, bigoted or homophobic. However, using that idea as a pretext to advocate that lesbians and gays be second-class citizens is bigoted, in my view (regardless of whether or not the person making the argument personally has any animus against lesbians and gays).
However, if I were criticizing the homophobia of the anti-SSM position, that’s not the main criticism I’d make. I’d focus instead on how most anti-SSM arguments seem to share an unstated assumption that the needs of same-sex couples and their children simply aren’t important, while the needs of heterosexual couples – however far-fetched or theoretical – are of overriding importance. Johnathan Rauch put it well (emphasis added):
…Notice how the terms of the discussion have shifted. Now the anticipated problem is not sudden, catastrophic social harm but subtle, slow damage. Well, there might be subtle and slow social benefits, too. But more important, there would be one large and immediate benefit: the benefit for gay people of being able to get married. If we are going to exclude a segment of the population from arguably the most important of all civic institutions, we need to be certain that the group’s participation would cause severe disruptions. If we are going to put the burden on gay people to prove that same-sex marriage would never cause even any minor difficulty, then we are assuming that any cost to heterosexuals, however small, outweighs every benefit to homosexuals, however large. That gay people’s welfare counts should, of course, be obvious and inarguable; but to some it is not.
Tom is well aware of this, of course – he made a similar criticism of Maggie Galligher only last week.
That said, I should clarify that it doesn’t matter to me if SSM opponents are homophobic or not. Even if every SSM opponent in the world is a saint with absolutely no animus in their heart, the policy they support is still a policy of legal inequality between gays and straights, and that would still be wrong.
In the end, this issue isn’t about if SSM opponents are homophobic in their hearts, or if (as prominent SSM opponents often imply) SSM advocates have selfish hearts and don’t give a damn what happens to children. It’s not about what’s in people’s hearts; it’s about what’s in the law. The bottom line is, regardless of hearts, it’s unfair to use the law to discriminate against same-sex couples and their children..
I think that SSM can be viewed as a political red herring in regards to the core gay/lesbian politics (or what used to be the core politics: non-discrimination in housing, jobs, health care, etc.) SSM does not create a large ground swell of political change; but it does assuage liberal guilt over inclusivity.
Although I am not in a camp to deny SSM, I am bothered by the apparent assimilationist stance into which it puts gay politics. Why is it even a debate over whether of not SSM will influence monogamy? or child rearing? Why are heterosexist norms that hurt not only gays/lesbians but the majority of heterosexual women seen as the foundation for a good society, be it liberal or conservative? Why is it that an institution that was established primarily as a means to establish a clear and definable link to male paternity even a goal for same-sex couples? Nothing really changes in mimicry or assimilation. We do not progress society if we aren’t challenging the more base notions of social justice that are denied to all un-married couples, be they gay or straight.
Why is marriage the bar? Who benefits when benefits (tax, health, legal) are doled out to small, isolated units and the greater populace is told to pull itself up by its own bootstraps: or worse yet, seen as defective and deficient in contributing to the greater societal good because they just can’t seem to land a husband/wife? Why is it that the politically hip queer is now pictured with his or her respective partner, baby in arm, and an SUV in the drive? Is this what we really want?
Is this the equality for which I knocked down my closet door? I think not.
S. Ellett
Well, S. Ellert, maybe family and chldren aren’t to everyone’s taste. As far as I know, no one is proposing compulsory marriage for gays. Speaking, however, as a gay man who has been in a committed, monogamous relationship for 14 years, and who is raising kids with his partner, I want–I insist upon–the same legal rights as everyone else in a committed, monogamous relationship who is raising kids.
Now, if you want to change society so that monogamy and childrearing are no longer valued so highly–well, go for it, you certainly have the right to try. I do not, however, understand why your position should be regarded as a particularly “gay” one–plenty of straights don’t think much of monogamy or childrearing, either, at least if their actions are any guide.
Marriage may have been created “primarily as a means to establish a clear and definable link to male paternity” (and it most definitely was) but these days there’s much more to it. These days a host of legal rights and privileges are attached to that institution of marriage. And who benefits? All of us, really, when we can get health care for our children, when our inheritances don’t go to the “closest kin” and exlude our children and partners, when we can get the same child tax credits as anybody else — and here, because our marriages are not recognised, we don’t even get the same benefits as an unmarried heterosexual couple. In an unmarried heterosexual couple, by way of example, a father who no longer lives with the family but pays child support gets a tax break, but the working partner of a lesbian or gay couple — in which the non-working partner is the biological parent of children — doesn’t.
That said, the idea of restructuring society into a non-marriage type framework is an entirely different issue. Some may see that as an important one to work toward, some may see that the current framework is workable by making changes, such as making SSM legal, in the same manner that other changes — like allowing women to inherit — have already changed the framework.
And some may find that the two are not mutually exclusive, working to make changes now that can be made while simultaneously planning the next, or even more sweeping, changes.
Marriage becomes compulsory exactly at that point where unmarried individuals are denied social benefits and civil rights because of their unmarried status. So yes, arguing for SSM as the *primary* focus of gay politics is endorsing a compulsory avenue to civil rights.
Why is it that “committed” and “monogamous” are important ideals? To whom and why? I still think they primarily bolster male heterocentric hegemony and do not benefit the majority of gays or women.