ARE MIXED MARRIAGES IMMORAL AND DEVIANT? Maggie v. Ben

I guess Ben the answer to my question, "could you for one second, imagine that unisex marriage IS a radical transformation that WOULD have serious consequences for marriage?" is no, thank-you. But even if you refuse resolutely to even entertain this idea for a second, you know Ben it could still be true. If it is true, I am not a cultural hegemon, but an advocate for a common good that both you and I need.

I do not think the fact that gay and lesbians people CAN and DO marry is an answer to Jonathan's query about how to bring the goods of commitment more broadly to gay men. I am not trying to trivialize your question about how to bring the good of love to gay men. But it is an answer (secular and logical) to the charge that the normal definition of marriage is the legal equivalent of anti-miscegenation laws.

Technically speaking if you want to make that argument, you have to (like the Hawaii court) conclude that cross-gender marriage is gender discrimination, not sexual orientation discrimination. This argument is (lawyers welcome to affirm or contradict) more or less dying out in these cases because it satisfies neither opponents of SSM, nor most proponents, who are primarily interested in gay marriage because in the words of former Lambda president, Thomas Stoddard, "marriage is. . .the political issue that most fully tests the dedication of people who are not gay to full equality for gay people. . ."

No-one one really believes it is gender discrimination.
posted by maggie at 11:25 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home