IS THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY? Matt Taylor replies to Eve

Eve writes: "...some SSM opponents (like Elizabeth Marquardt) support civil unions. Others, like me, support expanding and strengthening freedom of contract ... At any rate, supporters of SSM have rejected these alternatives for the perfectly valid reason that... they're not marriage. That's fine--it's pretty much the definition of 'supporter of SSM'! But it does leave me a bit in the dark about what kind of 'positive policy' SSM supporters are asking opponents to offer."

Matt replies: For me at least, either civil unions or Eve's "freedom of contract" concept would be a sensible and positive policy. It's not vital that a same-sex relationship be called "marriage", or even that it be legally identical to marriage, so long as the law delivers two things 1) a practical vehicle for same-sex couples to manage their affairs jointly, and 2) acknowledgement of the existence and value of same-sex relationships.

Of the two, the second goal (acknowledging same-sex relationships) is likely to be the more controversial. It is reasonable to argue that the government is not well suited to judging personal relationships, but the legal status quo does just that. Today's law bends over backward to ignore homosexual relationships, even where common sense suggests same-sex couples should be recognized (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.) Even collecting data on same-sex households for the census was criticized by some conservatives for "condoning homosexuality." Same-sex couples needn't be held any higher than other close relations, such as siblings or best friends as Eve suggests; the government just needs to stop pretending we aren't here.
posted by Eve at 10:13 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home