GAY MARRIAGE OR NO MARRIAGE?: Jonathan responds to Eve

Warm welcome to Eve Tushnet. She edited me in a forum once. Impeccably fair and competent. And what a refreshing voice.

Two things in generalized response to Eve.

I grant that many--no, make that a few--heterosexual marriage-defenders are willing to support measures that inconvenience heterosexuals. I also grant that heterosexuals face various marriage-related burdens and tragedies. But homosexuals are asking to bear all those same burdens and tragedies. However, no heterosexual faces anything like a prohibition on marriage
altogether, or a requirement that marriage be detached from love. Only homosexuals are asked to grow up without the single most essential element of the pursuit of happiness.

If conservative opponents of SSM were saying, "OK, let homosexuals marry, but with certain conditions attached," that would be one thing. They would be taking gay welfare into account. Or even if they said, as some do, "OK, give homosexuals the appurtenances of marriage, just don't call it marriage." Then they'd be balancing costs and benefits. The moral blind spot is when they just say, "No matter how much harm alienation from marriage does to gay lives, that's not our problem. All that matters is not to risk making anything any worse the people who have marriage already."

So there's really a double burden on homosexuals. One is the burden of growing up without any hope of ever marrying anyone you love (and believe me, this is not good). The second is the burden of having to prove that same-sex marriage will never hurt any heterosexual ever, regardless of how many homosexuals it helps. The first is destructive, the second unfair.

And all of the above assumes that same-sex marriage will indeed be bad for America's families or children or marriage itself. Eve seems to take that for granted, as many people do. At some point we should hit this topic head on. My thesis is that same-sex marriage is good for heterosexual marriage and thus good for children, especially compared with the alternatives. By throwing their bodies on the tracks in front of SSM, conservatives are taking a terrible risk with marriage. They assure the proliferation of legally and socially recognized alternatives to marriage, which will be open to heterosexuals and which will win gradual acceptance. Then children will come along in domestic-partner households and--guess what?--their parents will not be married. And to the extent that conservatives just say, "Then let homosexual couples just shack up," they will turn homosexual couples into poster children for cohabitation.

The best thing for marriage is to preserve the two rules it depends on for its essential uniqueness and universality. No, not "male-female." 1: "If you want the benefits of marriage, you have to get married." 2: "Marriage is for everyone. One person, one spouse, no exceptions." By contrast, insisting that marriage be tied to procreation-potential for homosexuals but not for heterosexuals just undermines the institution's legitimacy, by building it on a double-standard whose unfairness will only become more apparent with time.

What I am saying is that there has been a bend in the river of history. Conservatives can defend either marriage's exclusivity or its status as a norm, but they have to choose. Get this right, guys!
posted by maggie at 11:51 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home