"WHAT TO DO WITH GAYS": Mike Pignatello vs. Eve

"What do we do with gay people?"

Why does society need to answer this question? Because most gay people have societal needs that are not being met: for example, non-discrimination in employment and housing, as well as the need to protect and support gay families with children (from arbitrary and discriminatory laws that make family life difficult or, in some U.S. states, impossible). Gay people want and need to construct the frameworks that support their relationships, and we need the State, as guarantor of civil rights and economic privileges, to participate in that process.

I mention this because Eve, in the prior posting, says that it is undesirable to have government "tell me how to run my relationships." Well, like it or not, government does have some impact in running heterosexual relationships. It provides marriage licenses, it recognizes common law marriages in states where a marriage license is not required, and it provides arbitration in divorce disputes, among other things. It also provides benefits to heterosexual couples. Government has also been in the business of managing homosexual relationships (even without the prospect of same-sex marriage on the horizon). So government has a role in marriage, and we probably agree that the legal and economic benefits conferred upon married heterosexuals would not exist without government regulation of the institution.

But to support conferring rights only on heterosexuals because "third party concerns exist much more strongly" for them, and because those concerns relate to children, seems to forget that plenty of gay people have kids, too, and that this is a driving reason that many gays want SSM in the first place. Gays are not simply asking for marriage regulation for the sake of regulation, nor for the sake of elevating gay people to some special status.

For example, children of gay parents across the U.S. are at risk in their families because the government, while recognizing adoptions, does not often recognize second parent adoptions and does not have laws that will provide for the security of a child should the single adopting parent no longer be around. Laws change state to state, and states are not required to recognize adoption laws in other states. Can a heterosexual parent imagine not having her parenthood recognized in the state of Florida? I think it's a useful exercise for readers to imagine what it must be like to be raising a family in a state of legal nebulousness, ready to have your life changed at the drop of a hat.

Finally, I notice a change in language when the topic switches to gay relationships. Somehow, gay relationships are often viewed as mostly "sexual" in this blog while straight relationships are something else. For gay people, relationships contain both emotional and sexual components, just like heterosexual relationships. To compare the healthcare needs of lifelong gay partners with the needs of lifelong friends is therefore like comparing apples and oranges. Gay spouses are not simply "interchangeable" with friends. They maintain an intimate, emotional role just like a heterosexual spouse would. Can a straight woman trade in a husband for a dog?

Yet interestingly, I find in Eve's argument a rationale in favor of the greater menu of marriage options that she doesn't agree with -- heck, why shouldn't the friend get benefits, too?!
posted by maggie at 4:45 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home