WHAT'S SEX GOT TO DO WITH IT?: Jonathan Rauch

Eve, thanks for the kind words. Excellent summary of the whole event.

A clarifying note: my argument isn't that straights will imitate cohabiting or domestic-partnering gays. I wish gay influence were that strong. Here's what I do think will happen--and is already happening:

First, regarding domestic-partner programs: in about two-thirds of cases, hetero couples are given access to domestic-partner programs that are set up with homosexual couples in mind. That's just a fact of majoritarian political life. (And in some jurisdictions it's the law: you can't "discriminate" against heteros by denying them benefits that gays get.) The way to slow or (if we're lucky) even reverse the process is to render domestic-partner programs unnecessary. Go back to a clear, unitary standard: marriage!

Second, as regards cohabitation: obviously, lots of straights do this already. Cohabitation is rapidly on the increase. I don't think straights will imitate gay cohabitants, per se (they hardly need to); but I do think that when society says that cohabiting is better than marrying for gays it perforce legitimizes cohabitation as a marriage equivalent. It's hard to insist that marriage is the best thing for serious couples when you're denying marriage to a whole class of serious couples. You wind up saying, "If two people really love each other, they should marry or live together--as the case may be." What Robert Knight misses is that his attempt to marginalize gays by excluding them from marriage will end up marginalizing marriage instead.

Same-sex marriage is a big opportunity to renormalize marriage itself. It's a chance to say, "Marriage is the gold standard for committed relationships--everyone should do it, no exceptions. Accept no substitutes." What a pity conservatives misperceive this opportunity as a threat.




posted by maggie at 7:13 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home