IS THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY? Mark Barton replies to Eve, part one: alternatives to SSM

[Eve's in bold, Mark in plain text.]

Eve: I admit I'm unsure of what SSM opponents are being asked to provide.

Mark B.: It's simple enough: to the extent that SSM opponents are "liberals" or arguing from a "liberal" perspective (i.e., one that doesn't assume that gay relationships are intrinsically immoral or defective), we're hoping for some display of comprehension of the needs and aspirations of gay and lesbian couples (or at least of those who want to marry), and either some realistic proposal for addressing them, or some pretty good reason why they can't be.

Eve: [...] but, just for a couple examples, some SSM opponents (like Elizabeth Marquardt) support civil unions.

Mark B.: Indeed, Elizabeth Marquardt is quite "liberal" for an anti-SSM campaigner, and she takes the needs and aspirations of gay and lesbian people more seriously than most, for which I'm genuinely appreciative.

Mind you, I still find it hard to regard her as a true "liberal"--she's more "social conservative"-lite. Although she's a tenderhearted soul who can't bring herself to say it outright, she does devalue gay relationships, because they're not her precious "norm," and "civil union" is the ever so tiny badge of shame that she wants to pin on them to
make that clear.

Now as repellent as I find the idea of wearing a pink "civil union" triangle, I'd at least consider it if I thought it was in a good cause. After all, it's not as if I don't sympathize with some of Elizabeth's goals. I agree that one should not lightly depart from the ideal of children being raised by their biological parents. I would not personally, for example, father a child for a lesbian couple unless, at least, it were an open-adoption arrangement.

The trouble is that I don't find Elizabeth any more coherent than other anti-SSM campaigners as to how precisely my wearing a pink triangle is supposed to further such a goal. She says transparently false things
like, "Massachusetts last week redefined marriage in a way that makes you unable to say that children need mothers and fathers." What I take her to mean is, "Massachusetts made it impossible for me to make that point by mindlessly recycling old sermons about 'marriage,'" an attitude for which I have zero sympathy.

Eve: Others, like me, support expanding and strengthening freedom of contract to allow homosexual couples--and single people--to allocate certain benefits and responsibilities to people they trust, on a case-by-
case basis. (SSM supporters have achieved a lot of success convincing people that the denial of these rights and responsibilities is wrong--the most popular example here is hospital visitation--but the arguments in
favor of letting a homosexual partner make medical decisions for an incapacitated beloved apply just as well to a sister or a best friend.)

Mark B.: By contrast, this, no matter how well-intentioned, is a slap in the face. Mentioning my sister in the same breath as my partner--how breathtakingly gauche! If my sister becomes ill and I'm in a position
to help, I'll try to look after her. But if my partner becomes ill, then I will nurse him--end of story. If I can't manage both, my partner is, hands-down, my first priority. My degree of emotional, legal and financial entanglement with my partner is in a whole different ballpark from that any other person in my life. In particular, it's squarely in the "marriage" ballpark.
posted by Eve at 10:25 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home