Gay marriage and state tyranny

English theologian John Milbank gives a different argument against gay marriage.  He says it will give the state direct control over reproduction, removing the mediating effect of the family in favor of purely legalistic, arbitrary, and commodified state regulations.

Milbank’s whole essay is worth reading.  Here is an excerpt:

There was no demand for “gay marriage” and this has nothing to do with gay rights. Instead, it is a strategic move in the modern state’s drive to assume direct control over the reproduction of the population, bypassing our interpersonal encounters. This is not about natural justice, but the desire on the part of biopolitical tyranny to destroy marriage and the family as the most fundamental mediating social institution.

Heterosexual exchange and reproduction has always been the very “grammar” of social relating as such. The abandonment of this grammar would thus imply a society no longer primarily constituted by extended kinship, but rather by state control and merely monetary exchange and reproduction.

For the individual, the experience of a natural-cultural unity is most fundamentally felt in the sense that her natural birth is from an interpersonal (and so “cultural”) act of loving encounter – even if this be but a one-night stand. This provides a sense that one’s very biological roots are suffused with an interpersonal narrative. Again, to lose this “grammar” would be to compromise our deepest sense of humanity, and risk a further handing over of power to market and state tyrannies supported by myths both of pure human nature and technocratic artifice.

It is for this reason that practices of surrogate motherhood and sperm-donation (as distinct from the artificial assistance of a personal sexual union) should be rejected. For the biopolitical rupture which they invite is revealed by the irresolvable impasse to which they give rise. Increasingly, children resulting from anonymous artificial insemination are rightly demanding to know who their natural parents are, for they know that, in part, we indeed are our biology. But this request is in principle intolerable for donors who gave their sperm or wombs on the understanding that this was an anonymous donation for public benefit.

The recipe for psychological confusion, family division and social conflict involved here is all too evident and cannot be averted. In this instance we have sleep-walked into the legalisation of practices whose logic and implications have never been seriously debated.

From this it follows that we should not re-define birth as essentially artificial and disconnected from the sexual act – which by no means implies that each and every sexual act must be open to the possibility of procreation, only that the link in general should not be severed. The price for this severance is surely the commodification of birth by the market, the quasi-eugenic control of reproduction by the state, and the corruption of the parent-child relation to one of a narcissistic self-projection.

via The impossibility of gay marriage and the threat of biopolitical control – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation).

HT:  Matthew Schmitz

"Right now they seem equally committed, if not more so, to the campaign for Saudi ..."

A Bill to Amend the Religious ..."
"This argument would hold much more water if progressive personal values encouraged violence.Good grief. Then ..."

Why Would a High School Kid ..."
"I'm unaware of progressive culture teaching that men have a right to women or their ..."

Why Would a High School Kid ..."
"Maybe they indeed see the American flag as the flag of American ideals.Maybe. Or maybe ..."

Are Evangelicals Now Dwindling Like Mainline ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment