WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE: Gabriel Rosenberg to Eve

At MarriageDebate, Eve Tushnet writes that the same-sex marriage debate should be viewed as (or through the matrix of) a clash of worldviews on what marriage is for. I agree with that, but I don't agree with how she framed the two worldviews. ...

There are at least three distinctions here that Eve blurs into one. On the one hand she argues that the difference in worldviews has to do with the importance of gender. I agree with this for the most part, except that I'd say the second view holds not that the sex difference doesn't matter, but rather that it's up to the individual and not society to decide how it matters. Another distinction that Eve discusses is that the first worldview holds marriage as an honor and the second as a right. I'll leave it to Eve to describe her own worldview, but I believe SSM should be honored as well for the same need of people to do their duty. SSM is about responsibility as well. It just recognizes that you have the same responsibility to a spouse regardless of her gender. You have the same responsibility to a child regardless of how he was born. With regards to rights, the main shift in worldview I see is that whereas historically parents, family, and/or the town may have chosen one's spouse, in the new worldview the individual has a right to choose his own spouse.

One of the largest distinctions Eve draws between the two worldviews is that the first centers on children, and the latter centers on the couple. My strongest objection to her framing is reserved for this aspect. Yes most SSM advocates recognize that there is more to marriage than just the children, but there is nothing new in this view [nor is this view necessary for SSM]. Marriage has traditionally been about more than just children. Hence marriages have not automatically disolved after the last child is raised. [The longer life expectancy, though, is something that has gradually changed]. Hence marriages that ended--through death or divorce--have still been considered marriages in the eyes of the law. This has been important for allocating property, another traditional purpose of marriage.

More importantly the childrearing aspect is still critical in the pro-SSM worldview. This worldview does not want to strip marriage of its reference to and orientation around childrearing. Rather it recognizes that with regards to children, it is the childrearing aspects of marriage that are vital and not the capacity for child producing. Again I don't see a focus on childrearing as being very new [although the role of the parents in raising the child has I believed gradually changed]. Hence it has been desirable for single parents to marry (or remarry) even when the children's other genetic parent was no longer around (either because of death or abandonment).

more
posted by Eve at 1:52 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home