A couple of days ago, Freddie advanced his arguments around the struggle to legalize same-sex marriage saying,
[T]hey (ed. John Schwenkler and Helen Rittelmeyer) believe that there is a difference between a union between two people of the same sex, and two people of different sexes. I can only say that, of course, there are some differences in those unions, some obvious, some not, but that those differences don’t need to be recognized by government in a way that changes our nomenclature for permanent romantic pairing.
I think Freddie has a good point here. I find John’s arguments around needing to create distinctive linguistic set for gay relationships and marriage as a means of sincerely recognizing their dignity to be philosophically intriguing. But practically speaking, I’m not sure how you go about ensuring that said nomenclature doesn’t become immediately devalued given the predominance towards viewing same-sex couples as less than, in some fashion, heterosexual couples.
However, I think John accurately points out one of the short comings in Freddie’s analysis, that is in fact implied in the above agreement, when he says,
I think it’s clear that one of the chief disagreements between me and Freddie concerns the question of what exactly is at stake in the drive for legal recognition of same-sex marriage. By my lights, the goals are primarily cultural: a particular sort of social recognition is (rightly, I think!) sought, and entry into the institution of civil marriage provides a natural vehicle for achieving that. Freddie, however, views it as a struggle for a strictly legal sort of equality, and so is insistent that no sort of “separateness” should be tolerated.
Of course, the struggle for marriage equality isn’t an either or affair: it is a struggle for both legal and social equality in the respect afforded same-sex couples. By my lights, Freddie gives the cultural challenges short shrift by focusing exclusively on the legal battles. Certainly I would argue that the first step in achieving some kind of all-around equality lies in securing legal equality of same-sex marriages, but I can’t imagine that anyone who has experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation would suggest that being recognized in law will eradicate the day-to-day symptoms of inequality they encounter.
Equality in the eyes of the state may represent a certain element of equality, but how is one to be satisfaction with equality in one arena that doesn’t translate into another? While a prisoner might live in a free and democratic society, being imprisoned would he or she consider themselves to truly be free? The circumstances faced by same-sex couples are not so different from such a scenario insofar as legal equality doesn’t confer the kind of day-to-day equality that those who seek to demonstrate the dignity of gay love via marriage equality are really after.
In this regard, I think it absolutely vital for proponents of marriage equality to factor cultural arguments into their broad strategy when dealing with the issue. At the heart of such arguments is a commitment to avoiding the temptation to stereotype one’s opposition and an enduring willingness to engage those that stand most vehemently opposed to the equality that one seeks to realize. Time, no doubt, will play a significant factor in shifting opinions and perceptions around same-sex relationships, but there is an active role for marriage equality proponents to play beyond seeking constitutional or judicial remediation in terms of the slow and steady march of building relationships with those whose opposition is rooted in a feeling of foreignness.
All of which is cultural work that can’t begin in any meaningful sense until legal equality is achieved, but forms the foundation of an indisputable equality that takes into account both legal and cultural considerations.
It might be pointed out that the culturally based discrimination faced by same sex couples isn’t something that is amenable to complete eradication, that there will always be those who feel uncomfortable with homosexuality and to believe that those dynamics will eventually disappear is to harbor a naivety tat belies an accurate understanding of the issue. I wouldn’t disagree that such discrimination may well find an endless supply or cultural nooks and crannies from which to exert its influence.
The same, of course, can be said of racially motivated discrimination, and yet America just elected its first African-American president in no small part due to the consistent work of minority rights activists’ in pushing beyond just legal recognition and placing cultural signifiers in their sights. While it may be true that the cultural work of minority rights activists hasn’t completely eliminated culturally based discrimination, that work has succeeded in shifting cultural mores and norms significantly enough that outright discrimination is now frowned upon publicly.
Admittedly, it is not currently de rigueur to gay bash, but voting in an openly gay president still seems almost unfathomable. If such progress can be achieved for a minority with as tempestuous a history with America as African-Americans, surely it is worth attempting for homosexual individuals and couples. But such progress will never come to pass if we seek only to engage people on a legal basis.
Burt Likko 
Mary 
James K 
Jaybird 
Tod Kelly 
Katherine 
Will Truman 
Kyle Cupp 
Borat: “I do a picture, only small, of the Tishnik Masacre. Where many Uzbeks…crushed!”
Kindly Gray Hippie: “How did you feel when you drew this?”
Borat: “Very proud!”.
KGH: “I am just listening with sadness…sadness for your people…?”
Borat: “Yes…no, it is not sad. It is us who do the kill!”
When in doubt,
{ 9 comments }
I agree wholeheartedly, which is precisely why I relentlessly engage in that time-honored cultural tradition of shaming-and-shunning (i.e, by calling out the opponents of full equality for gays as the vile, vulgar bigots that they are).
Mightn’t you get a better effect from pointing out where and how those beliefs are erroneous without calling people vile, vulgar bigots? Simple shaming and name-calling rarely actually overcome prejudice, but merely buries it into more nuanced and in some senses insidious manifestations. If the prejudice is less public but continues to exert a strong influence have you really achieved anything?
I often feel like those who argue that the only way to deal with same-sex marriage opponents is call them bigots and morally reprehensible do so for their own sense of satisfaction than any strategic reasons.
Eh, I don’t know. I realize it’s thoroughly unfashionable these days, especially in the blogosphere, to discount a line of argument as not worth pursuing. But while you can argue your way into legal equality, I’m not sure how much you can argue your way into cultural equality. A new entrant to a culture—whether an individual or an institution—doesn’t argue their way into unquestioned acceptance as a member; they just get there and stay there until they’re part and parcel of the group as a whole. Cultural equality follows—slowly, maybe, but still—from legal equality.
And during the 1984 election, I remember my mom or dad telling me that, no, unfortunately, it didn’t seem like we’d ever have a black president. So I have no problem fathoming a gay president within my lifetime. (Gosh, that sounds naughty.)
I’m with Josh on this. It’s what used to be called assimilation. Hell, assimilation still sounds right,
Josh and Bob,
Mulling over your good counter points. Would be helpful to hear some argumentation around why you can’t “argue your way into cultural equality.” Which is not exactly what I’m suggesting, I don’t think. Rather that there needs to be a focus on cultural elements to achieve some sense of full equality. Some notion that time will work it all out just doesn’t strike me as true to form, the efforts of those pushing the process along with the passage of time seems to be the necessary dialectic.
But would love to hear more from both of you.
Scott, I guess I see the word assimilation being used in it’s most expansive meaning. I have absolutely no argument against any means, short of violent, to advance equality. And arguing “your way to cultural equality” falls within that type of nonviolent action. Since Stone Wall gays have been willing to be more public and vocal, arguing, for equality. The fairly recent drive for marriage equality is something of a change. I think some one mentioned that in years passed marriage for homosexual couples was looked down on, sort of bourgeoisie. Not an issue generally pursued by those seeking gay rights. But I am getting a bit off topic here.
If Freddie is largely advancing a legal framework, and you are advancing a cultural framework I support both arguments. I don’t see the two arguments as separate. Forgive me, but it seems to be the chicken and egg question.
But here is where I will come down. If it is a question of a legal remedy or a cultural remedy I will pick cultural. Because a changed culture is less subject to political whims of an electorate. Most polls find a generational divide on gay issues. Younger people are more supportive on gay rights than their parents or grandparents, and this certainly fall within your cultural position.
But again, I don’t see a lot of light between you a Freddie. And my use of assimilation may have been a clumsy construction.
I obviously think that both of you are on the correct side of the issue.
Look forward to reading more on this site. And will add my two cents even when not appropriate. (Love a good argument, but best had over a cold beer.) Good luck.
Scott, maybe I’m misunderstanding, and I’m not turning the question around to avoid answering, but can you give me a more concrete example of “focus[ing] on cultural elements to achieve some sense of full equality”?
Josh, that’s not only a fair question, but a damn good one that is causing me to think more deeply about what I mean in this regard. Unfortunately I’m not going to have time to respond today, but look for a post in response tomorrow.
Bob, will also look your comment over and respond tomorrow.
Thanks for the great conversation, gents!
If Freddie is largely advancing a legal framework, and you are advancing a cultural framework I support both arguments.
I agree with Bob here. Some people have the skill set to strive for cultural acceptance; others have the skill set to wage legal battles. It’s not a zero-sum game where emphasizing the legality approach saps an equal amount of energy from the cultural approach, and I think success on either front has a positive feedback affect on both fronts.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 2 trackbacks }