And Now For Something Completely Same-Sex
Well,
as
promised, Eve Tushnet has organized her thoughts on same-sex
marriage into a more readable form on her blog, so I suppose I'd better
keep
my
promise and address her arguments. First, here are links
to her blog entries on same-sex marriage in order:
I'm not sure I'll address all of Eve's points. In fact, given how
much she's written on this topic, there's no way I can cover her entire
output in one entry. But I will try to hit on
what I consider the major features (and major flaws) of her
position. And even if I don't fully do justice to Eve's thoughts
on this issue, I hope that responding to her writings will at least
allow me to set out my position on SSM, something I haven't tried to do
in writing for quite some time. (Or in other words: Thanks,
Eve: Your blogging serves as motivation to articulate my
own position!)
I suppose I'll start out where Eve ends -- by laying out my own
background and/or biases. Eve, responding to emails asking why
she spends so much time thinking and writing about SSM, reveals that
one reason is because she's
queer
(bisexual) so perhaps people who would otherwise dismiss an opponent of
same-sex marriage will listen to her. Eve also reveals in the
queer
link that she's Catholic and chaste. So going by labels at least,
Eve and I differ on pretty much every score: I'm a straight,
married atheist (although I was raised Catholic, including eleven years
of Catholic school and several years of service as an altar boy).
I'll let the reader decide if these identifications render my position
overly partial.
With that out of the way, I'll turn my attention to Eve's actual
arguments. One of the first things that struck me about Eve's
arguments is that they rely very heavily on what I'd consider
macro-level considerations: How would SSM affect the societal
institution of marriage? Would SSM weaken any of the state's
interests in promoting marriage? Would marriage become a less
effective method for raising children? On the one hand, I can
certainly understand why one would want to focus on the larger societal
ramifications of a change in public policy. On the other hand, it
seems strange that so little attention is given to micro-level
considerations: What about individuals' rights to
self-determination, personal autonomy, and the pursuit of life,
liberty, and happiness? Eve appears to brush aside such concerns
in her post on her basic position: "Americans still think the
debate over same-sex marriage is about gay
people. We still think it's about your best friend who's just
said
she's a lesbian, or your son who's just come out. We still think it's
about whether homosexual acts are sinful. It's not. The
same-sex marriage debate is about
marriage, above all
else." I agree that the SSM debate requires that we spell out
just what it is that we mean by marriage. And I'll gladly agree
that we should be at the point by now where we can assume homosexuality
is not sinful. But I also think the SSM debate is about equal
rights, above all else. True, as Eve states, marriage is itself a
kind of
"special right": Something that, as Eve puts it, "a relationship
earns because of what it gives society." But access to that right
should be granted equally, and denying same-sex couples the right to
marry violates that principle.
The debate over same-sex marriage is about equal rights.
So what is it about marriage that confers special societal status on
that arrangement above all others? My take on the matter is that
marriage is privileged because it's seen as providing stability, which
in turn benefits the state. The types of stability are varied,
but certain ones stand out in my mind: Married couples are able
to support each other in times of financial difficulty or
hardship. Marriage stabilizes a man's sexual drive by focusing
his efforts and energy on one partner. Finally, for those couples
who chose to start a family, marriage provides a stable framework in
which to raise children.
Eve answers the question a bit differently, but I think there are some
similarities in our approach. Here's Eve's take:
Why do we give marriage more societal honor than we give
these other,
often deeply important, relationships [best friends (which many
women will recognize as the closest relationship they've ever had);
mentors; grandmothers; beloved teachers]? Because we recognize that
marriage has evolved to do more than these other
relationships do for society. These relationships do less (not
nothing, just less) to nurture children; to bind the young to the old;
to corral the often destructive forces of desire into productive and
loving channels; to bring people from youth to adulthood; and to align
the interests of parents and children, rather than forcing tragic
choices between the two. Marriage gets "props" from society because it
does all these things more than any other institution does, or could.
Marriage developed over centuries to meet several specific, fundamental
needs: children's need for a father. A couple's need for a promise of
fidelity (and consequences for breaking that promise). Young people's
need for a transition to manhood or womanhood. And men's (and women's,
but mostly men's) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel
for sexual desire--a way of uniting eros and responsibility. In other
words, marriage developed to meet the needs of opposite-sex couples.
Why would same-sex couples expect that this institution would meet
their very different needs?
In Eve's view, same-sex marriages would fall short in meeting these
specific, fundamental
needs:
At best, marriage only addresses one need of homosexual couples: sexual
fidelity. Even there, it should be obvious that same-sex couples will
be less likely to insist on physical fidelity than heterosexual
couples. If your man might make babies with someone else, you're more
likely to see the point of restrictions on male sexuality. If you can
get pregnant, you're more likely to see the problems that might result
if the father isn't legally tied to you. So the connection between
sexual fidelity and the institution of marriage is a basic consequence
of the fact that when men and women--but not same-sex couples--have
sex, babies often result. When the institution is no longer responding
to opposite-sex couples' needs, we can expect the emphasis on sexual
fidelity to weaken.
I think one of the reasons SSM scores so low on Eve's scale is because
of the way in which she weights the original measurements.
Because she builds the premise as "children's need for a father" of
course same-sex couples (particularly lesbian ones) will fall
short. But what if the salient detail in marriage isn't
children's need for a father but children's need for two supportive
parents? Just as couples support one another during times of
financial strain, married couples can balance and support each other in
parenting: When one parent is too lenient, the other can be more
of a disciplinarian, regardless of each parent's sex. Simply to
assume that children need a father
seems to beg the question at hand. (To be fair, Eve does return
to the point of children needing fathers later in the section titled "
Heather
Has No Daddy" but I fail to see the force of her position.
Again, she simply seems to posit that children need daddies without
really arguing for it. I suspect that much of her position has to
do with her more general point about humans seeking to be defined in
terms of gender, something I'll try to address later.)
Next on Eve's list is marriage's role in fulfilling a couple's need for
a
promise of
fidelity. Eve grants that same-sex marriage would satisfy this
need for same-sex couples, but, at the same time, she assumes that
same-sex couples will be less likely to insist on physical fidelity
than opposite-sex couples, mainly because pregnancy is not a
possibility when same-sex couples have sex. Although I understand
how pregnancy can play a part in expectations of sexual fidelity, I
fail to see how this neatly resolves the matter. Yes, women have
reasons for wanting to be
married when they are pregnant. But this doesn't mean that
pregnancy will always result in increased demands for physical
fidelity, or that pregnancy is the only factor which can influence
desire for monogamous arrangements. A woman may have gotten
pregnant by
one man but have no desire to marry him; she may chose a spouse other
than the biological father. In fact, legally a woman could
conceive a child with a man other than her husband, but her husband
would still be the presumptive father. In both cases, the woman
may want marriage and the support/stability it brings, but she may not
want to marry the biological father of her child. Further, once
married, a woman may not require physical fidelity from her spouse, so
long as she has the stability provided by marriage. (I'm not
making any claims about the relative likelihood of such scenarios, only
pointing out the logical possibility of divorcing the benefits of
marriage from the act of procreation.)
Coming at the matter from another perspective, I can imagine same-sex
couples insisting on physical fidelity just as strongly as the most
devoted opposite-sex couples. As I see it, the degree to which
any couple demands (and honors) fidelity depends on the beliefs of the
individuals in the relationship. I can imagine same-sex couples
who remain faithful to each other just as much as I can imagine
opposite-sex couples who are lenient on this matter, so long as the
marriage is preserved. But these thought experiments all revolve
around the character of my hypothetical couples. Aren't there any
"real" reasons for homosexual couples to remain faithful? I think
one of the most obvious reasons a same-sex couple (or an opposite-sex
couple, for that matter) would have to insist on martial fidelity would
be the threat of sexually-transmitted diseases. And I'm not
trying
to insinuate that AIDS is a "gay disease" or anything like that.
I just think that this is a factor that would encourage monogamous
couples to remain faithful.
Another important function that marriage serves for Eve is acting as a
marker for a young person's "transition to manhood or womanhood."
Eve doesn't seem to think that same-sex marriages would fulfill this
role, but it's not clear why: Couldn't marriage serve
as a rite of passage into adulthood regardless of one's sexual
orientation? Wouldn't straights and gays alike start assuming all
of those adult responsibilities traditionally (but not essentially)
tied to marriage, such as paying the mortgage, opening shared financial
accounts, and arguing over whose family to visit for the
holidays? I'm guessing that Eve wouldn't dispute these
points. Instead, she would worry that allowing same-sex marriage
would weaken the gender-specific concepts of manhood and
womanhood. But this takes us into Eve's views on gender identity,
and I'd like to postpone that discussion until later.
The final point in marriage's favor according to Eve is "men's (and
women's,
but mostly men's) need for a fruitful rather than destructive channel
for sexual desire--a way of uniting eros and responsibility." By
this I assume she means a way of channeling (mostly) male sexual drive
into a more stable framework than simply having sex with as many
partners as possible. I think similar points can be made here as
made above in the "fidelity" section: Yes, women have reason to
want their mates to stay with them and devote their resources toward
raising their offspring, rather than siring more offspring with other
women. And presumably society breathes a collective sigh of
relief whenever an individual man outgrows his wild "sowing oats" days
and decides to settle down to mow the lawn and fix the faucet.
But wouldn't society also benefit from this "calming" influence of
marriage on its homosexuals?
Well, one of Eve's worries appears to be that the flow of influence
will backfire and non-monogamous (but married) gays will weaken not
only the institution of marriage but straight men's confidence in their
masculinity as well. Let's consider these in order.
First, how would the existence of same-sex marriages where the spouses
sleep around weaken the institution of marriage?
Eve's
answer: "SSM will change the cultural ideals
of what it means to be a good husband. If you tell men that husbands
who sleep around with other men are a-okay, you lose an important
self-image tool (
I won't do this because I want to be a good husband)
that societies have used for centuries to rein in tempted men."
This answer bothers me for several reasons. One, I don't think
straight guys need to see gay guys engaging in adultery to get the idea
about cheating on their wives. I think straight guys have pretty
much figured out the concept of cheating, even without gay guys to show
them how. In fact, married men cheating on their wives is a
fairly constant staple not only in fact but in fiction as well. I
still remember being introduced to the concept of unhappy marriages by
watching old Hitchcock films, and there cheating wasn't even the worst
that could happen when a husband lost interest in his wife.
Two, I'm not sure why Eve seems to presume that SSM will tell men that
it's OK to sleep around. Although the same-sex marriage debate is
a topic that interests me, I'll admit that lately I haven't been
following
it that closely. Perhaps I missed the part where gays stated they
want the right to marriage "but without all that stuff about
monogamy and fidelity." Perhaps I'm reading Eve uncharitably
here, but her arguments seem to paint
same-sex couples in a bad light while opposite-sex couples come across
as as basically good but struggling to resist the evil forces
threatening to tear them
apart. I think the truth of the matter would be considerably
more complicated than that. I think both types of couples would
end up representing the range from wonderful relationships to horrible
failures, with all the messed-up but sticking-at-it marriages in
between.
I think Eve may be worrying that more radical camps within the GLBT
community may push for more expansive definitions of what marriage
is. Perhaps there are activists arguing that gays should not wed
themselves to a "straight" concept like monogamous marriages.
Even if this were true, so what? Heterosexual couples went
through periods of sexual experimentation in the Sixties and Seventies
(key parties, wife swapping, "open" marriages, etc.) but marriage as an
institution survived these "threats."
As
Eve notes, monogamy and fidelity are becoming "hip" again. I
think marriage would be able to withstand the challenges its new
members might bring to the concept.
Moving on to Eve's concern that seeing homosexuals marry will queer
straight men on the whole concept of marriage, we finally begin to
touch on Eve's theories of gender identity.
As
Eve sees it, the problem is that "[s]ame-sex marriage is
unisex" so "[m]arrying a woman is significantly less proof of one's
manhood
when a woman can do it!" How exactly this would work is
unclear. Reading it, I pictured grade-school children on the
playground squealing in disgust, "Ewww! I'm not marrying a girl
if
a girl can do it! That's so
gay!!" And perhaps
young children would react in such a manner to news that
same-sex couples could marry, but hopefully the passage of time might
allow for the eventual maturation of such an opinion.
Actually, I'm probably being unfair. I think I can see what Eve
is trying to get at; it's just that it strikes me as so crude that I
have a hard time holding it my mind in order to respond to it
seriously. I'll attempt to set out why Eve's position (as I
understand it, which may be part of the problem right there) rubs me
the wrong way:
- It's patronizing to men. Men need to have their
narrow concepts of masculinity protected from outside
threats/influences? Please. If anything, men need help in
expanding their concepts of masculinity so they're not so rigid.
(Not to be flippant, but it actually occurs to me that "Gay Culture" is
doing a lot on this front. For all its possible faults, Queer
Eye for the Straight Guy at least seems to be teaching straight
guys that it's okay to know something about fashion, cuisine, and
culture.)
- It assumes that men get married as a mark of manhood.
I understand that the concepts Eve is discussing are probably meant to
work on a somewhat subconscious level, but even when I plum the depths
of my psyche I find no evidence to support this claim. I can
honestly say that when I thought about getting married, proving my
manhood never entered into it. (That came on the wedding night. [Sorry,
couldn't resist -- bad joke, I know.]) And in all the talks
I've had with other male friends who have contemplated marriage, I've
never heard them indicate anything that sounded anywhere close to a
desire to achieve manhood. Adulthood, yes, but nothing specific
to their concepts of themselves as men.
- It assumes that men avoid activities open to women.
If this were true, men would have abandoned the professions of law and
medicine once they were opened to women. But those professions
still maintain their prestige, even though they're no longer "male
only." If men were only attracted to marriage because it was a
symbol of something exclusively male (which I don't see how it could
have ever been, since most men would probably view the relevant act as
"marrying" not "marrying a woman"), then they probably weren't very
good candidates for marriage in the first place.
- It assumes that gender identity is something that should take
precedence over couples' happiness and self-determination.
Even if we granted that allowing SSM might weaken traditional markers
of
manhood/masculinity to some unknown degree, I don't think this would be
a strong argument against same-sex marriage. I think couples'
right to determine their future together would trump such a
vague, nebulous concern. To argue otherwise seems reminiscent of
opposition to interracial marriage: "It will dilute racial
identity!" Sure, one's sense of racial and gender identity are
important, but they are also adaptive and flexible. I don't think
either type of identity needs to be frozen in order to have
value. In fact, stagnation is probably the opposite course one
would want to take in order to promote healthy concepts of gender and
racial identity.
Honestly, I find it a bit surprising that someone like Eve -- whose
identity as a gay, chaste Catholic opposed to SSM is pretty
non-traditional -- seems to favor such rigid, standardized concepts of
identity. I would think she'd have an appreciation for the
endlessly possible permutations of identity. And I'm not sure
how advocating greater flexibility in identities equates to "
fewer
role models and ideals." Wouldn't such an advocate be
offering
more role models, not fewer? Eve seems to think
that
more possibilities will lead to
more confusion
on the part of married couples looking for guidance on how they're
supposed to act. See
this
entry, for example, where she rails against Michael Kinsley for
suggesting that married people "set their own rules" regarding children
and finances: "How could anyone look at marriage in America today
and think it needs to become
more ad hoc,
more centered
on the individual contracting adults and not on the children and the
wider society,
more do-it-yourself?" I can sympathize
with the concern to an extent: Even something as mundane as
choosing a digital camera can feel overwhelming when presented with a
multitude of options. But I guess that if I had to choose, I
think it's better if people are able to pick the marital methods and
models that work for them rather than forcing everyone into the same
"one size fits all" structure, ignoring individual needs or
preferences. I know married couples who have individual financial
accounts (checking, savings, credit cards, etc.) and while it may seem
strange to
me, if it works for them...
Oh, god -- there's so much more: So much more to address; so much
more to write. But this is already getting so long that I fear no
one will read through it all. I'll end by tossing out a couple
points I wanted to make but didn't get to yet:
- I'm not sure why Eve seems to assume that same-sex couples who
want to
get married know in advance that they're not going to be faithful to
each other. I mean, it's not like gays are pressured into
marriage or do it because "I dunno, it seems like the right thing to
do, like something I have to do if I want to be a grown-up."
Sure, I can imagine some couples agreeing to do it primarily for the
benefits. But opposite-sex couples abuse marriage for benefits
(such as green cards, to name one example) and I don't see efforts to
close off heterosexual marriage. If we only focused on the
absolute worst-case scenarios, I think any form of marriage
would come
out looking pretty bad. But I think we have to have to assume
that most people will go into marriage at least intending to make an
honest go of it.
- I don't think same-sex parenting would be as deleterious toward
child-rearing as Eve seems to think it would be. I think it's
more important that children have two loving parents to support each
other as they raise the kids; I don't think it's crucial to ensure that
the parents represent both sexes. But even if studies were to
show that children did better with opposite-sex parents, I don't think
this would decide the matter against SSM. Imagine if studies were
to show that children do better when one parent stays home
full-time. Perhaps there are even historical studies showing that
children's development was negatively impacted when women began to
enter the workplace in full force. If this were true (and I'm
sure there are already studies out there making such claims), should
wives be expected to stay home as full-time mothers? I don't
think an entire group or class can be punished for such social
developments. (And, yes, I view the withholding of life options
such as a career or marriage as a form of punishment.) If
anything, society has to work together to solve the problem (children
doing poorly according to certain measures) without reversing any civil
rights advancements made.
- Regarding the taming of the male (or female) sexual drive:
I think this only ever works if the individual in question choses and
commits to it. In general, I dislike the
question/concept of "But if I get married, how do I know I'll stay in
love with that person forever?" Because you don't know
-- that's
looking at it all wrong, in my opinion. Loving someone for the
rest of your life isn't some passive thing that happens to you --
something you can seek out and find if you only look hard enough.
It's something you actively work at -- something you decide to do and
follow through on. Or at least that's my take on it. (And
this might be an area where Eve and I agree, assuming I'm reading her
comments on the
transformative power of promise-making in marriage correctly.
I just
think (unlike Eve) that society should extend the opportunity to engage
in this transformative power to same-sex couples.)
In closing, I think that Eve is right to wonder about the difficulties
extending marriage to same-sex couples might raise for society.
It's certainly wise when changing public policy to think about the
impact to society at large. I just happen to think that none of
the difficulties Eve raises are insurmountable deal-breakers. I
understand that the uncertainty surrounding such changes can be
unsettling. I don't think we should be blind to
such complexities, but I don't think we should let our worries blind us
either.
