IMPERFECT UNIONS: Eve replies to Jonathan Rauch and Chris Crain

I think both Rauch and Crain are reading way too much into The James McGreevey Story. If McGreevey's story is really about the lack of same-sex marriage, what is the explanation for the dishonor roll of married politicians who ended up in very similar sex-lies-and-influence scandals with women? We can start with the presidents and work our way down to school board members if you want; but I doubt you've got the time, because there are a lot of 'em.

Presenting McGreevey's story as essentially a gay story seems reductionist and psychoanalyzing-from-afar to me. This approach also emphasizes what separates "gays" from "straights" rather than the (to me) more obvious notes of common humanity and common weakness in this story. It's an odd idealization of both marriage and heterosexuality to write as if McGreevey's failures and lies would not have been committed by someone attracted to women rather than men.

But Rauch, especially, gets at a larger question: What do people who oppose same-sex marriage suggest as an alternative? The answer to that question varies a lot among opponents of SSM; I expect Elizabeth Marquardt and I would have very different answers. My answer strays from the public-policy arena, which is why I posted it at my personal website rather than here on MD.com, where I tend to keep a tighter focus on policy questions like the state's interest in marriage or the proper role of the courts. However, for those who want it, here's my response to the question implicit in Rauch's piece.

posted by Eve at 9:44 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home