THREE STRIPES OF GAY OPINION ON MARRIAGE: David Blankenhorn

...It should hardly come as a surprise that G/L opinion on this issue is not monolithic. At the same time, if your only source of information was the mainstream press (especially the New York Times) you could certainly be forgiven for believing that almost every G/L person in the country is a strong proponent not just of SSM, but in particular a vocal proponent of what Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, and other mainstream-press spokespersons on this issue often call the "conservative" case for SSM. In brief, that case is: We respect and revere traditional marriage as a social institution; we only want that institution broadened in a way that would permit us to be a part of it. I'm not sure what label to give this POV -- for the moment, let's call it "assimilationist," in the sense of, we are normal people who want to be a part of the normal mainstream.

A second position is the one spelled out very eloquently by Rinnert. In brief, that case is: We are different and proud of it, and while we demand equal rights, we see no need to mimic or assimilate ourselves into conservatizing, heterosexual institutions such as marriage; we can and should create our own institutions and ways of living.

A third position is one put forward very strongly by people such as Nancy Polikoff and William Eskridge. Their position is: achieving SSM is one important step toward the larger goal of "denormalizing" marriage (Eskridge) and/or eliminating marriage altogether as a category in law and public policy (Polikoff). Let's call this position "deconstructionist."

Here's my own take on these three positions. I respect and can identify with the assimilationists and have no real quarrel with the counterculturalists. It's the deconstructionists that I view as a clear and present danger.

more
posted by Eve at 5:30 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home