I am a rather opinionated
person, especially when it comes to issues of politics, science, philosophy,
and food (which is basically everything that I ever talk about). I graduated
from the Berkeley political science department last May with high honors. I
have spent a fair amount of time and effort studying politics and loud opinions
(especially where I am concerned) kind of come with the territory. So,
occasionally I feel bad for the family and friends that sit across dinner
tables from me with indulgent smiles as I prattle boldly (more boldly after a
few manhattans) on about one of my pet issues. I spend a lot of time beating
dead horses.
I am a gay male. No one is
surprised that same sex marriage, and more generally, the politics of sex and
sexuality are very near and dear to my heart. So here I am again beating what
to my mind should be a very dead horse. I am starting to think there maybe a
necromancer around or a looming zombie apocalypse. No matter what gauge shotgun
I use, the dead horse still seems to be running around: civil marriage, as
defined by the United States Supreme Court (most notably in Loving v. Virginia,
the case that struck down laws banning interracial marriage), is a fundamental right.
Unless the government extends that right to gay couples with all the same
freedoms and latitudes with which it extends it to straight couples, it is
committing a grave act of discrimination and ultimately an act of
dehumanization.
It seems to me that very
few understand the full scope of that simple statement, even people who should
know better. This morning a friend sent me an LA Times article, “He wasn’t the Marrying Kind” by Neal Broverman who is the managing editor for the Advocate
Magazine. The article is basically a cute little short story about the author’s
date with a gay man who, horror of all horrors, doesn’t “necessarily believe in
same-sex marriage.”
The narrative drivels on
for approximately 934 words. I say drivel, because though we hear all about
Yelp recommended Argentinean restaurants, delicate shrimp eating, and an
uncomfortable time spent watching an evening movie in the park, Broverman
systematically waists every teachable moment for both his date and his readers.
The thrust of narrative
turns on the assertion by Mr. Broverman’s date, Dylan, that he "does not necessarily
believe in gay marriage." Dylan’s lack of belief seems to center on his layman’s
observation that “The gay relationships [he] see[s] are not what [he] would
consider marriage. They are not monogamous.” Dylan defends his views by saying
that he “would never vote against [gay marriage]. And [he] support[s] equal
rights.” Dylan then goes on to further defend that “people can think different
things. We don’t all have to like color purple.”
Now if you are like me,
when I hear nonsense like this spew out of a date’s mouth as if their mouth
were an open sewage pipe, you get ready to have a teachable moment (though
perhaps first you change the subject so you can calm down enough to avoid yelling). In all fairness, Broverman does make his dismay clear to his
date. However, his counter arguments are weak and lack the nuance necessary to
get at the heart Dylan’s misguided beliefs.
Broverman, points out that
you cannot equate marriage rights to color preferences (thank god). Boverman
then acknowledges that there is a lot of promiscuity in the gay communities. In
an aside to the reader Broverman reports that the last man that he dated, asked,
after three months, if he could have sex with his old ex-boyfriend. Broverman
tells the reader that since his last committed relationship all the men that he
has dated have viewed monogamy as a punishment. In response to Dylan, Broverman
goes on to argue a self fulfilling prophecy, that “by refusing to grant gay
people the privilege of marriage, many believe that they are not capable or
worthy of a monogamous relationship.”
I am happy that Broverman
was able to call his date out on the foolish color preference analogy. But I
have a real problem with the stuff he says about the self-fulfilling prophecy
of marriage, monogamy, and promiscuity. First of all, I think that it is
sad to say that gay men think that they are not worthy of a monogamous
relationship unless they can put their names on a piece of paper. Personally, I
like to think that gay people have higher self-esteem. Being able to put your
name on a marriage license is not what makes you worthy of marriage.
But I also have a problem
with the fact that both Dylan and Broverman seem to be using the same faulty
logic. Dylan says that he does not believe in same sex marriage because gay
relationships tend not to be monogamous and Broverman says that marriage will
make more LGBT relationships monogamous. It may just be me, but I am having
trouble seeing what the connection is between having your name on a marriage
license and being monogamous with your partner.
Marriage licenses are not
magic monogamy makers. There are plenty of straight couples that still manage
to cheat even though their names are on one. There are straight couples that also
have more or less consensually open relationships. Though admittedly, the
“marriage culture” in straight society does seem to encourage an ideal of long-term
monogamous relationships, there is nothing that says it must or that it will
encourage the same things for gay people. More to the point, married couples
have always been more or less free to define the terms of their own
relationship, undoubtedly same-sex married couples will do the same.
Gay people are not
fighting for marriage (or at least I am not) so that they can be more like straight
people. Rather, marriage has been defined as a fundamental civil right. The
government recognizes the commitment that straight people make to one another,
whatever the terms of the commitment may be (excluding polygamy and pederasty,
etc). It is discrimination if the government then turns around to same-sex
couples and says that it will not recognize the commitments that they make to
those they love, in the same manner, with the same freedom that straight
couples have to define their own relationship.
I think that it is
perfectly acceptable to have a conversation about monogamy and marriage. But
lets not confound the issues. Whether or not any particular gay relationship is
or is not monogamous has nothing to do with the question of whether or not gay
couples should have access to the institution of marriage under the same terms
that straight people have access to it. As much as we might like to think it,
as much as we think it should be, monogamy has never been a mandatory component
of a marriage.
It is an open question whether
or not gay people and their relationships really are more promiscuous, less
monogamous than straight couples. It’s an empirical question. You could design
a study, operationalize your variables and go out and take a representative
sample. In fact, some academic has probably already done it. But that is all
beside the point. It is easy to demonstrate (in the text above I just
demonstrated) that at least with regard to marriage rights the supposed
promiscuity of gay people and the alleged monogamy of straight people is a
difference without distinction. It should have no bearing on the question of
same-sex marriage.
I am more than willing to acknowledge
that Broverman’s article was obviously not meant to be a serious discussion of
policy and law. But because he is the managing editor of the Advocate people
will listen to what he says about same-sex issues, the LA times did, and
I certainly did. I am disturbed by the pattern of the arguments in his story.
The pattern smells suspiciously of same sort of arguments that come out the
mouths of the far right, and people opposed to same-sex rights.
The form of the argument
is pretty simple. People who oppose same-sex rights bring up some sort of
difference that they perceive between same-sex and opposite sex couples, some
sort of difference between gay people and straight people. Then they say, well,
that is why, that difference is why, gay people should not be allowed to marry,
should be excluded from public institutions, ostracized, feared, etc. Gay people are
promiscuous, gay couples can't have kids, there is a higher risk of HIV
infection in gay communities, gay people dress differently, gay people don’t
fit the normal gender roles, and the list can go on and on.
It is true that gay people
are different. But gay people are no more different from straight people than
straight people are different from each other. The reverse is true as well.
Straight people are no more different from gay people, than gay people are
different from each other. More to
the point, especially where the question of civil rights are concerned, these
are all differences without distinction.
If you want to know why
people opposed to same-sex rights are going to be on the wrong side of history
it is precisely for this reason: they don’t know the difference between a plain
old difference, and a difference with distinction. Politicians, voters, and courts
for some time now have asked the homophobes of the world “why shouldn’t gay
people be allowed to marry?” In response the homophobes list a whole load of
differences. But not once have they been able to tell us why any of those
differences could possibly justify refusing to recognize a fundamental civil
right.
I am concerned that Mr.
Broverman suffers from the same disability. Does he know the difference between
the plain old differences and the ones with distinction, the ones that matter?
One certainly can’t tell from his article. While Mr. Boverman’s story mucks
about in Argentinean restaurants; while it ponders “what people back at the
Advocate” would say about dating someone who is anti-gay marriage; while Mr.
Boverman dithers about self-fulfilling prophecies; Mr. Boverman misses the teachable
moment.
Mr. Boverman misses the
moral of his own story. He misses the moment when he says to Dylan, “ yes gay
people are different. Yes, some times we are promiscuous. Yes, you yourself are
different. But these are all differences without distinction, no one should
take away your rights or mine because of them. It is ok to be different.”
I suppose until we all
learn this very important lesson we are all going to be beating dead horses for a
very long time to come. But it is ok because I am well stocked and well
prepared for the looming zombie apocalypse, are you?
