I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past. My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book, "Vamps & Tramps") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.
In their displeasure at the California vote, gay activists have fomented animosity among African-Americans who voted for Proposition 8 and who reject any equivalence between racism and homophobia. Do gays really want to split the Democratic coalition? I completely agree with a hard-hitting piece by the British gay activist Mark Simpson (which was forwarded to me by Glenn Belverio), "Let's Be Civil: Marriage Isn't the End of the Rainbow." Simpson, who has been called "a skinhead Oscar Wilde," is famous among other things for a riveting 2002 Salon article that put the term "metrosexual" into world circulation. I appreciate Simpson's candor about how marriage is a very poor fit with the actual open lifestyle of so many gay men, which is far more radical. Marriage may be desirable for some gay men and women, but at what cost? Activists should have focused instead on removing all impediments to equality in civil unions -- such as the unjust denial of Social Security benefits to the surviving partner in gay relationships.
Showing posts with label Camille Paglia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Camille Paglia. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Dear Camille...R.S.V.P.
Several readers have asked me whether Camille Paglia ever responded to the email I sent her on "gay marriage" (see December 10 post). Well, not directly, but she does address her views in her most recent Salon column.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Dear Camille
Everybody has one - a favorite atheist, lesbian writer, that is.
My favorite is Camille Paglia whose column appears on Salon's online magazine. I have included a link to her column under my "favorite links".
Once a month, Ms. Paglia entertains questions from her readers. Feeling feisty, I penned her the following letter regarding "gay marriage"
Dear Camille,
As a new reader to your column, I was interested in your views on the gay marriage issue.
Though I was first apathetic to it, in the course of debate about it in my state of Massachusetts, I came to appreciate that the government has an interest in recognizing and supporting the uniqueness of heterosexual families as the building blocks, if you will, of society.
Simply put, society suffers when marriages and families suffer.
To give just one example, the decline of marriage and family life has contributed, in my opinion, to the deterioration of the education system which has had to take over many of the functions of the extended family such as providing daycare and meals at the expense of reading, writing and arithmetic (not to mention the arts).
Saving the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions would serve to recognize and support their natural function of raising children. No matter what one's morals, recognizing that it takes a man and a woman to have a child and that children do better psychologically and economically when that man and woman are in a stable, loving relationship is common sense. By extension, the more stable children are the less resources they will need from government and the more they will be able to contribute to society.
The names we give to things are important because they are indicative of the values we place on them. If the term "marriage" wasn't powerful and influential, gay advocates would not be fighting so hard to have their unions called "marriages". Saving the term for only heterosexual unions need not be an expression of prejudice but a simple recognition of reality.
From the gay perspective, I have often wondered why homosexual couples would want to take on the hetero-normative paradigm of "marriage" to define their commitments in the first place. By asserting that they are no different than heterosexual couples, aren't they arguing against the diversity they claim to value and aspire to promote? My inclination is to think that, if homosexual unions do come to be called "marriages", the gay community will eventually reject that term in favor of other symbols and ceremonies which celebrate the singular contributions of their culture.
When women first entered the workforce, they had only men to pattern themselves after. With time, they began to bring their own unique insights and contributions to their companies. At present, homosexual couples have only heterosexual institutions to pattern their lives together after. I suspect that, as the marriage debate evolves, they will likewise develop their own customs and ceremonies reflecting the diversity of their values and experiences.
Anyway, since my few homosexual friends are not keen on monogamy and commitment to begin with, I'd be interested in your thoughtful and sensitive insights in the matter.
With unconditional positive regard,
Doug
My favorite is Camille Paglia whose column appears on Salon's online magazine. I have included a link to her column under my "favorite links".
Once a month, Ms. Paglia entertains questions from her readers. Feeling feisty, I penned her the following letter regarding "gay marriage"
Dear Camille,
As a new reader to your column, I was interested in your views on the gay marriage issue.Though I was first apathetic to it, in the course of debate about it in my state of Massachusetts, I came to appreciate that the government has an interest in recognizing and supporting the uniqueness of heterosexual families as the building blocks, if you will, of society.
Simply put, society suffers when marriages and families suffer.
To give just one example, the decline of marriage and family life has contributed, in my opinion, to the deterioration of the education system which has had to take over many of the functions of the extended family such as providing daycare and meals at the expense of reading, writing and arithmetic (not to mention the arts).
Saving the term "marriage" for heterosexual unions would serve to recognize and support their natural function of raising children. No matter what one's morals, recognizing that it takes a man and a woman to have a child and that children do better psychologically and economically when that man and woman are in a stable, loving relationship is common sense. By extension, the more stable children are the less resources they will need from government and the more they will be able to contribute to society.
The names we give to things are important because they are indicative of the values we place on them. If the term "marriage" wasn't powerful and influential, gay advocates would not be fighting so hard to have their unions called "marriages". Saving the term for only heterosexual unions need not be an expression of prejudice but a simple recognition of reality.
From the gay perspective, I have often wondered why homosexual couples would want to take on the hetero-normative paradigm of "marriage" to define their commitments in the first place. By asserting that they are no different than heterosexual couples, aren't they arguing against the diversity they claim to value and aspire to promote? My inclination is to think that, if homosexual unions do come to be called "marriages", the gay community will eventually reject that term in favor of other symbols and ceremonies which celebrate the singular contributions of their culture.
When women first entered the workforce, they had only men to pattern themselves after. With time, they began to bring their own unique insights and contributions to their companies. At present, homosexual couples have only heterosexual institutions to pattern their lives together after. I suspect that, as the marriage debate evolves, they will likewise develop their own customs and ceremonies reflecting the diversity of their values and experiences.
Anyway, since my few homosexual friends are not keen on monogamy and commitment to begin with, I'd be interested in your thoughtful and sensitive insights in the matter.
With unconditional positive regard,
Doug
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)