February 22, 2004

The Role of the Queer Eye

Andrew Sullivan gave an eloquent defense of gay marriage today on Meet the Press, and I have to say that if I thought most gays felt as sincerely about the issue as Andrew I would not feel the ambiguity that I now do. If I believe that Newsom is shooting the movement for gay marriage in the foot by creating a spectacle that looks suspiciously like a mardi gras, at least to those of us on the outside, Andrew sees something quite different:

Suddenly, it's not the gay pride parades and mardi gras festivals that illustrate gay lives. Suddenly, it's love and patience and kids and umbrellas and bouquets and tuxedoes and all the other bric-a-brac of living. How hard is it to tolerate that?

Again, if Andrew is right, and a cadre of gay men respect and value marriage as an institution in ways that many heterosexuals have not done for a generation, then a queer eye may have something really profound to teach the straight guy. That's what Andrew sees, and it strikes me as the same kind of bold vision that informs his views about the neo-Wilsonian effort to rescue the Middle East from itself.

But, like the Middle East, it seems wise to take things one step at a time. At worst we'll learn as we go.

Posted by Demosophist at February 22, 2004 11:00 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Man, I don't know. The more I hear arguments from the crowd that apparently thinks of gay marriage as just another entitlement they have a right to expect from society the more I think we probably should not even start down this road at all. I realize I'm flip-flopping, but I can't really see how society is harmed by denying gay marriage, and I see lots of ways it can be harmed by allowing it. Clearly the advocates aren't going to be satisfied with having it legalized in a few states, and they aren't even remotely concerned about negative consequences. Andrew Sullivan is clearly the exception rather than the rule. So, lets give it a few years and see how it works out in France and Australia (and probably Massachussets).

It makes me feel lously to be on that side of things. I wonder if the situation is being fed by the fact that there have been lots of folks like me who really weren't paying much attention to the controversy, and basically have a "live and let live" attitude. And one of the things that's beginning to smell "fishy" is the way people seem to be making demands on a society they don't really respect, or even like very much. Are these San Franciscans whose sympathies really sort of sided with Saddam in the recent conflict going to like and respect America more if they have their way? Really?

Posted by: Scott at February 24, 2004 02:09 AM

Why on earth would you think that's NOT how gays view marriage? Sure, not all of them do, but neither do many hets. I believe in any poll you would find the same percentage of gays and straights expressing the same view of marriage as Andrew. Where ya been?

Posted by: Yehudit at February 25, 2004 05:06 AM

"I wonder if the situation is being fed by the fact that there have been lots of folks like me who really weren't paying much attention to the controversy, and basically have a "live and let live" attitude. And one of the things that's beginning to smell "fishy" is the way people seem to be making demands on a society they don't really respect, or even like very much."

I think that's the problem - you weren't paying attention to the issue, so now you link "gay marriage" with people who "don't respect my society very much." You don't know about all those boring mainstream suburban gay couples with SUVs and kids in Girl Scouts in all the red states, who have been hoping they could get married for the past 30 years.

Posted by: Yehudit at February 25, 2004 05:08 AM
I think that's the problem - you weren't paying attention to the issue, so now you link "gay marriage" with people who "don't respect my society very much."

I admit that these folks have pissed me off, but my attitude is really more nuanced, and ultimately I think it's more consistent than Andrew's. I still think it's possible that gay marriage might be OK, or even beneficial, but I just don't see how we could have the luxury of running isolated social experiments to get more purchase on those questions if it's regarded as a "right." I see Andrew's position as internally inconsistent in that regard. If something is an inherent right how can you experiment with it, limiting the right in some places and not in others? I no longer agree that federalism could provide the context of social experimentation, because I think the press would be on to make the "right" universal. That's what recent events in San Francisco tell me. And Andrew's recent comments about that weren't very reassuring. I guess I decided that even he was less than sincere about the federalism thang.

My impression is that if gays backed off the demand for marriage, and concentrated on "civil union" we'd have a system of social experimentation that could provide some answers to critical questions about the effects of the shift on family and child-rearing (or, in other words, the effect of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage). Granted it's not perfect knowledge, because civil union is only an approximation of marriage. But it could be a closer or more distant approximation depending on jurisdition, which would actually give us more variation and therefore answers to more nuanced questions. I doubt that a marriage amendment would pass if such a strategy were adopted, either. But given Andrew's recent statements, and the position that gays have taken (which is understandable on an emotional level) I have my doubts that they'll settle for that and take a long term perspective. I'm just not ready to run an irreversable global social experiment yet, and if the amendment is the only way to stop that then I'd be for it. However, I admit it amounts to something of a travesty, and I really hope we can stop short.

Posted by: Scott (to Yehudit) at February 25, 2004 12:08 PM