Yet again on same-gender marriage: An argument not yet tried

[thatcrazycajun]

In my habit of occasionally scanning the periodicals put out by and for right-wingers (acquiring counter-intelligence in more ways than one), I find The American Conservative has just printed this essay by one Margaret Liu McConnell. (An Asian and female conservative—a double sell-out! If she were lesbian, she could go for the trifecta.) The link is to the copy posted by the Free Library site; the actual magazine's own site is about a week behind in posting articles.

McConnell suggests that opponents of "redefining the institution of marriage" should try one tactic that hasn't been used as yet: arguing that allowing same-gender couples to marry leaves society without a way to make sure both parents of a child fulfill their moral obligation to rear any children they bring into the world. Can you say "Mandatory parenthood"? I knew you could. [/misterrogers]

Those blessed with more sophisticated analytical or polemical talents than Your Humble Correspondent possesses are invited to peruse the essay and judge whether it is the colossal, steaming load of meadow-muffins I strongly suspect it is. But one way or another, I expect this one to get trotted out in a real-world court case sooner rather than later...and those of us who support marriage equality had damned well better be ready for it.

Comments

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

hold on a minute. "conservative" != "sellout". I know a few. Sure, we get into vehement arguments online, but we're still good friends, and if he were a sellout, he would not be.

That said, pushing a patently religious agenda in America is frankly (IMNASHO) tantamount to treason.... what part of "Congress shall make no law" (or the Fourteenth Amendment, which makes all the rest of them apply to the several States as well) does this induhvidual not get?

You can be conservative and be accepting of your fellow human beings, accepting of the fact that not all who bring new life into the world are ready, willing, or able to nurture it (and what of those whose parents, Lady forbid, encounter some misfortune and leave their child an orphan?). It's not so far a leap to accept that love is where and with whom you find it... indeed, I know those who have cleared that seeming chasm...

It is, however, distinctly un-American and anti-Freedom to mandate in law that the opposite must be the case, that just because two - or more - individuals have plumbing issues with procreation they cannot sufficiently nurture a child far more than any orphanage, nor may they enjoy the rights of "normal" parents and spice... this is, as you say, meadow-muffins. I know such people, too.

Fortunately, my state, while it does not yet recognize that the state has no business being picky about who can and cannot be recognized as formal partners without a lot of legal tomfoolery, doesn't seem to have much of a problem with allowing said whoosiwhatsis, nor do the local hospitals bat an eye when one's "immediate family" wanders in the direction of double digits.... but that makes 49 versions of YMMV.

Point being, there are a potload of people who call themselves "conservative" who have no frakking idea what that word really means.... and who come up with these meadow muffin ideas and try to push them on us. But tarring with that broad of a brush is what they've been doing to the left for decades. Don't stoop to their level.

On the other hand? Any fundy (this is the proper word for this) who comes up with this sort of asshaberdashery? Feel free to lynch, deport, tie to a rail, whathaveyou. But use the right word, please.

(One notes that "Fundamentalist" has as its root "fundament," that is, that portion of one's anatomy upon which one sits. This is... appropriate.)

"conservative" != "sellout"? Only if you're a rich white Anglo-Saxon hetero male...

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

History has shown that conservative policies, especially as practiced by members of the Republican Party, tend to benefit mainly (if not only) those who are male, rich, Caucasian, Judeo-Christian and heterosexual...and are often deliberately designed to screw over anyone who is not part of one of those subgroups. Witness "welfare reform." "tort reform," school vouchers, attacks on affirmative action, the killing of the Equal Rights Amendment, anti-abortion laws, gay marriage bans, voter ID law tightening, tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent and I could go on.

Therefore, it has always seemed to me that any woman, gay man/lesbian, a member of an ethnic/racial minority or of the underclass who advocates for such policies is either deluded or deliberately selling out their own. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Thomas Sowell, Linda Chavez, Mona Charen, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin are among the most egregious examples that leap to mind...and every single one is way too smart to simply be unable to get how these policies harm people like them.

I will allow that there are some decent people who call themselves "conservative," and that the label is woefully misused. But most of the ones I know are white males such as myself and can at least be understood to have a potential benefit. And did you happen to notice that 77 percent of the leadership of the so-called "pro-life" movement is male? (100 percent of them can never possibly get pregnant.) Ditto with the fundamentalists, the tax-cutters and nearly every other right-leaning group except Schlafly's and Lahaye's...and I don't know what their deal is. (Brainwashing or fembots built/programmed by men would be my best guesses.)

By my lights, anyone who is a part of one or more groups that get harmed by these evil policies ought to damned well know better than to advocate for them...at least if they have anything resembling a conscience. If they do push for such evil, they are blinkered at best and collaborators at worst.

Re: "conservative" != "sellout"? Only if you're a rich white Anglo-Saxon hetero male...

[ldwheeler.livejournal.com]

Some good points -- though I would note that not everybody considers "what is advantageous to my demographic/ethnicity/family/self" as the highest value in determining what sorts of public policy to support or reject. Ideology, deeply held belief, what-have-you (and this can take many forms) are, to many people, more important/relevant than self-interest.

I say this only to note that supporting policies that may seem to be contrary to one's self-interest (or the interests of one's "people," whatever that is in context) doesn't necessarily make one a sellout -- in some cases that may be true; in others it may simply mean that there are factors more important to them than self-interest or ethnic/gender interest. (Conservatives in particular tend to at least in theory be more individualistic in nature, more likely to reject identity politics, so presumably/theoretically are less likely to consider themselves to really have a "people.")

None of which is meant to condone any of the outrages on the right -- it's just to point out that one can't automatically assume bad faith no matter how incongruent the position seems to be.

Hope any of that made sense. Why do I comment past midnight?

* I wouldn't consider Ann Coulter a sellout to women so much as a sellout to all humanity, perhaps all sentient life. *

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

Wake me up when the author has the guts to openly stand by the required corollary of this argument.

(That is, obviously, "divorce for any reason whatsoever should be prohibited")

[terriwells.livejournal.com]

Oh, but there are even more corollaries I suspect she'd be a little uncomfortable with. For example, sperm banks should never be used, even by couples desperate to conceive but unable to, because it means the male contributing the sperm has relinquished his role as a supporting parent. (Though given some of her comments in the later part of the article, she might actually stand by that).

Her article really doesn't deal with the fact that not everyone who has children is a suitable parent...and not everyone who can be a good parent is able to become one biologically. In short, she's living in a fantasy world. At least she doesn't *quite* insist that the only reason for getting married is procreation; if that were true, I can think of plenty of folks who either wouldn't be allowed to marry or would have to turn in their marriage licenses.

[robin-june.livejournal.com]

Lessee . . . if Adoption is a poor substitute for Natural Parents, doesn't that diminish its value as an alternative to abortion?

Methinks I hear the fundamentalists commence to scream and rant.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

Doesn't forbidding gay couples to marry leave society without a way to ensure that their children have at least two parents with a moral obligation to rear them?
I don't see why the father of a lesbian's baby (either from a previous marriage, sperm donation or just one-night fling) is going to feel any more morally obligated to care for the kid because she can't marry her partner. All that does is ensure that there's only one custodial parent with legal obligations towards the child, which is counterproductive.