THOUGHTS ON THE A.F.F. SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DEBATE: Scattered impressions, of course–what, you expected concise paragraphs in military formation?

The panelists were Pia de Solenni, Robert Knight, Patrick Guerrerro, and Jonathan Rauch. Rauch was by far the best speaker, as I’d expected. He kicked off the panel with a strong defense of two things that may or may not be the same thing: marriage, and “long-term caring relationships,” “someone to come home to,” someone to provide stability in one’s life.

He also argued that if same-sex marriage doesn’t pass soon, a Chinese menu of alternatives to marriage will arise (or rather, will gain in popularity–all of these already exist): domestic partnerships, civil unions, committed relationships without marriage, etc. etc. Basically, the idea is that heterosexual couples will see these other relationship models being practiced by homosexual couples, and will pick these looser-but-stabler unions over the demands of marriage. (Interestingly, this claim rests on the premise that hetero couples will take advantage of problematic relationship models offered by homosexual couples. That’s a premise that advocates of SSM generally deny when the question is whether hetero couples will imitate male-male couples’ often laxer standards of infidelity.) I think this is Rauch’s strongest claim, and will perhaps write more about it later.

De Solenni made one really good point, which is that advocates of SSM rarely cash out what makes marriage different from best-friendship. I think it’s fairly important to ask why nobody thinks the state should sanction or affirm my closest chosen relationship unless I start sleepin’ with her. More on this soon. Unfortunately, this interesting point was sort of lost amid vague, un-cashed-out talk of “complementarity” and children.

Guerrerro is a politician–he’s a big wheel in the Log Cabin Republicans–and talked like one, for good and for ill. He spoke movingly about 50-year-long loving homosexual relationships that have lasted through thick and thin. I found myself wondering whether Guerrerro really thinks that nobody is ever really in love with his mistress. IOW “but they love each other” is not really the end of the argument, you know? For oh so much more on that tip, check out Denis de Rougemont’s incisive and potentially life-changing literary study, Love in the Western World.

He also offered a very attenuated understanding of friendship (can you tell I’ve been thinking about this a lot?), as if a friend is just a casual acquaintance, rather than, so often, a well-loved shelter from the storms of life.

Knight… well, eh. I’ve seen him speak more persuasively than this on topics relating to homosexuality. Basically, he said that butt sex is bad, and we should be encouraging people to become “ex-gays” (not a notion I’m super fond of).

Then the moderator asked everyone to define marriage. You can probably do Knight’s and De Solenni’s yourself, but Guerrerro’s and Rauch’s definitions were interesting: G. said that marriage is when “two loving people choose to have the state recognize their lifelong committed relationship, with all the legal rights and responsibilities offered to heterosexuals.” Rauch, in a clipped and passionate tone, simply said, “To have and to hold, to love and to cherish, for richer and for poorer, for better and for worse, in sickness and in health, ’til death do you part.”

Overall take-home thoughts from the debate:

Like most of these discussions, it was framed in terms of heteros vs. homos. I think that’s unnecessary and misleading; I’ve said before that I think this is an issue about men and women, not gays ‘n’ straights.

Similarly, both Knight and the pro-SSM speakers seemed to think it was very important to figure out whether or not people could change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation. I don’t think that’s an especially important question (to the extent that it’s important to one’s personal life, you can find my answer in the “ex-gay” article linked above), and I think it reflects an unwarranted American pursuit of “the authentic self”–what I am rather than what I should do. Include me out.

Opponents of SSM need to work much harder on explaining what “the children!” are doing in our argument. There needs to be much more careful attention to the role of ideals and models in people’s lives. Instead, we’re getting bogged down in questions about infertile couples, etc., which I think are just plain irrelevant.

We need to talk about the effects of changing the ideal marriage to a unisex, not necessarily physically constant model, where children only enter the picture when you specifically go out and plan and get ’em. We need to talk about the expectations that new model raises, and the desires it does and doesn’t cater to. (Does = the desire to have control over our bodies, a control that is, frankly, illusory, especially for those whose sexual relations can and often do lead to pregnancy. Doesn’t = the desire for gender. For example.) None of that stuff got brought up last night.

Advocates of SSM really need to stop talking about me and my best friend when they think they’re talking about marriage. I mean, I don’t think Knight’s approach was super helpful either, but at least he did in fact talk about sex. Let’s have a less abstracted and more visceral, embodied understanding of what makes marriage unlike other socially-beneficial relationships.

Advocates and opponents of SSM might usefully discuss what they think about children and gender. Should children learn gender roles? Is that harder with a same-sex couple? Is it harder in a society with same-sex marriage? Do those questions matter, and if so, how much?

The language of “gender complementarity” is kind of bloodless. I more like a formulation, which I think Maggie Gallagher may have come up with?, that marriage is how we reconcile the opposite sexes.