Necessary, But Not Sufficient

Since quoting animated characters seems to be the order of the day, let me playfully respond to Freddie’s latest on same-sex marriage with a line from one of my favourites, “suffering succotash!” Freddie is quite correct when he says,

To some degree this is a debate in search of a problem because legal and social acceptance will inevitably be deeply linked.

John Schwenkler and E.D. Kain aside, I think this especially true of Freddie’s take on the issue of marriage equality as compared to mine. While I acknowledge that the whole idea of developing distinctive nomenclature for same-sex marriage tugs at my philosophical ear, I have acknowledged that practically speaking it seems like a doomed project, at least in the short term. And I don’t differ with Freddie in believing that the current focus and primary focus in terms of marriage equality must be legal.

Look, to some degree this dichotomy of the “cultural work” and the “legal work” is just false. The work of legalizing same-sex marriages happens on the legal and cultural fronts simultaneously. And so E.D. is right when he notes that there are some cultural shifts necessary before we might expect to realize a legal victory for marriage equality. But the reason I identify legal victory as “the first step” is that I think its realization marks, in some senses, the beginning of a renewed and focused push for cultural equality. It strikes me that truly uncovering and addressing some of the more buried cultural elements of discrimination against same-sex couples is next to impossible so long as opponents have a legal basis to fall back on.

And this is where I tend to get pensive around Freddie’s arguments. On the whole I think we are on the same page, but statements like, “I do think, though, that the history of various civil rights struggles suggests that a passionate minority fights for and wins legal rights, and then, over time, social acceptance grows[,]” leave me feeling like part of the picture is being left out. What I mean is to say that, to my mind, legal equality is necessary but not sufficient for broad cultural equality. This notion that over time people will just come around doesn’t strike me as realistic. Rather, with legal rights secured, same-sex couples and their allies are enabled to take their cause beyond the realm of just the legal and push into some of the more embedded and, frankly, more difficult elements of realizing a robust equality that embodies both legal underpinnings and the respect and dignity that ought to be available to any loving relationship.

I recognize at this point that we are tangling the weeds of marriage equality and gay rights generally speaking, but as with cultural an legal work, I’m no sure to what degree the two aren’t inherently intertwined to begin with.

In response to my earlier post o the subject, commenter Josh pushed me on what exactly I meant by focusing on cultural elements to achieve some sense of full equality. It’s a good question and one that caused me to think more deeply about what exactly I meant by the statement.

Of course, a large part of this involves identifying and addressing the sterotypes that exist about same-sex couples and homosexual individuals broadly. Freddie himself pointed out in the coversation between he, Schwenkler, and I to which he originally referred, that it is perhaps surprising to marriage equality advocates how many people are still uncomfortable with homosexuality itself. That kind of discomfort is not legal in nature, though those experiencing it might use legal means of justifying said discomfort. Some times that discomfort will be born of religious convictions, other times it will be born of ignorance (and I mean that in a non-pejorative fashion) and misperceptions about who homosexual people are. Whatever the roots of that discomfort, I think it is imperative to address them.

Of course, such engagement has to be done very carefully lest it spill into the kind of coersion of which Freddie warns. But that is precisely why I’m so adamant that there be some kind of focused effort to address the cultural elements of discrimination, left to chance it is entirey possible that such engagement will happen in the kind of haphazard way that ignites the concerns of the Rod Dreher’s of the world. At least if there is some thought placed into cultural engagement, then attempts at identifying best practices and potential drawbacks can be made. Such a discussion strikes me as eminently useful, particularly given that when the rubber hits the road, cultural engagement primarily happens in a hit and miss fashion.

But if I drill down into what I’m really thinking here, what I come up with is this: there needs to be some effort put into articulating for opponents to marriage equality what the benefits of overcoming that opposition actually are for both the opposing individuals and society writ large.

Now, I recognize that for some/many that will ring like the bells of appeasement. All I can say is that choosing to demonize those who stand opposed to marriage equality rather than engage them is to deny a facet of the overall victory you’re looking to realize. Part of securing equality means overcoming prejudices and for those engaged in the overcoming it often seems self-evident why such prejudices should be set aside, but for those holding the prejudices things aren’t so clear (or rather they’re clear in the opposite fashion). It strikes me as relatively uncontroversial to say that people don’t generally and sincerely overcome their prejudices by being bludgeoned with criticism and guilt for holding the prejudices they do. In most cases, rhetorically pistol whipping people into submission merely buries those prejudices further from sight, but forces their manifestation in equally powerful and often times more systemic ways. So like it or not, at some point you have to engage those who stand opposed to you and I would argue that doing so by identifying prejudices and proposing alternate ways of seeing the issue leads to the most fruitful outcome.

How all of that takes place is myriad in form and beyond my ability to effectively sum up. It happens on an individual level with face-to-face discussions. It happens via awareness campaigns. It happens through better media (broadly speaking) representation. It happens through parenting. And it happens in a million other ways that escape me right now. But it doesn’t ever really happen if its not an important part of how you define equality.

And that’s why I have such a hard time getting off of this hobbyhorse.

Tagged as: cultural discrimination, engagement, marriage equality, positive alternatives, same-sex couples, sterotypes