REPLY TO ANDREW SULLIVAN: Eve Tushnet

In the Wall Street Journal, Sullivan asks, "What exactly is the post-Lawrence conservative social policy toward homosexuals? ...Can you think of any other legal, noncriminal minority in society toward which social conservatives have nothing but a negative social policy?"

Three things strike me as weird about Sullivan's underlying assumptions.

First, there's the point made earlier on this site: "Does it ever strike you that this question: 'What should I do with gay people?' is deeply condescending and offensive?" If "social conservatives" did have a big powwow and come up with Guidelines for Same-Sex Canoodling and Commitment... would anyone listen?

Secondly, and more importantly, Sullivan is asking for one of two things here. He's either asking for the smorgasbord of governmentally- and societally-sanctioned relationship options that David Frum argues against here and I argue against here; or he's asking the government and society to set up one model, one ideal, for his romantic relationships.

Maybe it's just my lurking libertarian tendencies, but I find it almost eerie to have the government tell me how to run my relationships. When it comes to heterosexual sex I definitely see the need for government and society to promote one ideal structure, because the third party benefits of marriage and harms of unmarriage are so great. These third party concerns are mostly but not entirely to do with children.

I won't rehash the arguments that these third party concerns exist much more strongly for opposite-sex couples than for same-sex ones, but you can find posts to that effect here, or by scrolling about on this site. And in the absence of these strong third party effects (I emphasize "strong" because obviously all of our relationships, from friendship to coworkership, affect third parties and serve to strengthen or weaken society to some degree), where does the government get off telling me how to run my life? Why should government structure my sex life?

And finally, Sullivan's piece, I think, assumes that sexual relationships earn privileges that other close and/or committed relationships do not. Why? Why is it an injustice when a sexual partner can't get health benefits, but not when a beloved friend can't? People whose closest, most committed chosen relationship is non-sexual can pose Sullivan's questions back at him: What are we to do? Why is your relationship a civil-rights issue, but ours are merely philia, nothing to get excited over?

EDITED TO ADD: I think this post was a bit unclear. What I am trying to say can be boiled down to: When it comes to sexual relationships between men and women, I don't think we can sustain society with an ad-hoc, Chinese-menu approach. The third party benefits of one particular relationship structure (marriage) and the harms of all the others are too great. So we do need a governmentally- and societally-sanctioned ideal. When it comes to other relationships, whether sexual or not (same-sex couples, friendships, mentorships, etc.), the third party benefits and harms are much less, and so we can sustain society without the government telling us what the structure of our relationships should be. Seeking governmental sanction and guidance for your relationship when you don't have to strikes me as pretty strange (especially for a libertarian-leaning type like Sullivan).
posted by maggie at 9:59 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home