Over at the liberal New Republic's "The Plank" blog, IGF contributing author James Kirchick cast a critical eye at Liberal Silliness on Gay Marriage, which includes those progressives who don't understand why gays want to get married because, in their enlightened view, marriage remains a sexist, racist, oppressive institution. Example: Courtney E. Martin, author of Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body, acknowledging that gay couples should have the same legal rights endowed by marriage, yet can't help but wonder:
But do these rights really trump the woman-as-property history and discriminatory present (on a state by state basis, of course)? Why do so many of my gay friends have such faith that they can transform the institution when I'm still so unsure?
Replies Jamie:
I answer a resounding 'Yes' to the first question and don't much care about the second because I don't see how marriage needs to be 'transformed' other than that it should be opened to homosexuals.
Of course, his post elicits some typical responses from offended liberals, including this gem: "Fire Jamie Kirchick. Nobody likes him."
6 Comments for “Marriage Fretting on the Left”
posted by Elboe on
In the UK we have full civil partnerships. It is identical in every respect to marriage save for it’s title. It is a genuine, secular civil partnership and it is available for same-sex couples only.
Most gay people in the UK consider this to be equal to marriage. It is not a marriage insofar as marriage is seen as a religious institution. Also, the word marriage or “husband” and/or “wife” is seen as limiting, heterosexual and implies a slight inequality between the parties.
The terms “civil partnership” and “civil partner” imply equality within the relationship and liberal secularity. The common law interprets the words “husband” and/or “wife” to include “civil partner”. Similarly with “marriage” and “civil partnership”.
Perhaps it is time to consider both marriage and civil partnerships as co-equal, parallel streams available to all those who reside of each side of its respective river-bank.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Elboe, if the two were truly considered equal people wouldn’t have a problem calling them the same thing. Seperate but “equal” is not equal.
posted by another steve on
Actually, I give some slack to those who challenge existing institutions rather than taking the conservative view that if it’s been a bedrock of society for so long, it must continue to be so. But I also empathize with those who point to lots of fuzzy thinking among liberal idealist who don’t get how fragile societies are and how easy it is to undercut the networks and institutions that keep them coherent.
I have no problem with the liberals questioning marriage, and no problem with Kirchick expressing his exasperation at them.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t mean any disrespect, Elboe, but, yuck!
I will be the first to agree with any long laundry list of -isms inherant in our most enduring social traditions. But we have some fine things, too, like a respect for liberty, a respect for the rights, the potential, the choices of the individual. When I was young I learned that traditionally men and women are not equal in marriage, but that’s not right, and it’s my job to make sure my marriage is an equal one. (Then I turned out gay.) An egalitarian marriage is a very beautiful thing because it has love and cooperation and gets rid of the poison of patriarchy, so it’s the best marriage that ever was. That’s what I’m going to teach my kids.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Perhaps it is time to consider both marriage and civil partnerships as co-equal, parallel streams available to all those who reside of each side of its respective river-bank.
Oh, stop being so reasonable about it, Elboe!
Here in the States, the received wisdom among members of the Gay Community is that “SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL! SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL! I AM A PRETTY PRETTY BIRD! SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL!”
Never mind that “separate is not equal” is a slogan that came from the fight over racial segregation of schools, and that school funding is a finite resource summing to zero, so that MORE dollars for white schools meant FEWER dollars for black schools.
In contrast, MORE inheritance rights and hospital-visitation rights and sponsoring-a-foreign-spouse rights for “married” heteros would not mean FEWER inheritance rights and hospital-visitation rights and sponsoring-a-foreign-spouse rights for “civil-unioned” homos.
This point seems as obvious as a pimple on the nose, yet still the chorus of “separate is not equal!” drones on…
posted by Richard on
There are a lot of things that liberals and conservatives say that I find to be stupid or silly. Thats probably why I am an Independent.
It is possible that a same-sex couple MIGHT share household duties more equitable and raise children who are a bit LESS prejudiced. But this is only speculation.