Monday, 29 June 2015

Marriage Equality Is Not Enough

The campaign to legalise gay marriage in Western countries has been wildly successful. Political and popular opposition has crumbled in the face of the reasonable demand for a public justification for banning it. The feeble excuses for arguments trotted out by its opponents - including religious institutions, talking heads, politicians and lawyers in court - are increasingly perceived as mere rationalisations for bigotry. This is democracy as public reasoning at its best (and has been cited as such by political philosophers - e.g.).

As a liberal I find much to celebrate about this victory. Yet, at the risk of offending the righteousness of the left, I also see something to regret. The line of reasoning behind the marriage equality movement is disappointing in the smallness of its ambition. It holds up a mirror to the wider renunciation of radical idealism by what passes for the left these days.

Proponents of marriage equality have overwhelmingly argued that it is unfair to treat homosexual relationships differently from heterosexual ones because they are in every significant respect the same. As a rhetorical strategy to advance marriage rights and the acceptance of homosexuals in general this argument may be justified by its political success. But as public reasoning such a justification is disappointing. It does not really advance the idea of equality of deep freedom: it is a demand to have one's conformity accepted rather than to have one's difference respected.

Discrimination is a very real injustice that is worth fighting against. Preventing homosexual couples from marrying violates the principle of equality under the law - treating similar cases in the same way - and the principle of equality of dignity in a democracy. There are hundreds if not thousands of government benefits and ancillary rights linked to marriage status - from tax filing to health insurance benefits to parental rights - which it is unfair and demeaning to deny to people on the basis of an irrelevant feature: their sexuality.

In terms of justice, opening these benefits to homosexual couples is a comparative improvement. Yet it is only an incremental movement and not necessarily a step in the right direction if it forecloses further progress.

A genuinely just society would respect everyone's equal right to live your own life for yourself, rather than to have to satisfy other people's ideas of how you should live. Moving towards that goal would seem to require more than merely tinkering with the distributional rules about who gets the legal and financial benefits of marriage. It requires challenging their legitimacy.

A great many of the benefits of marriage have been explicitly designed by governments to support one particular way of life - long-term conjugal monogamy - at the expense of alternatives, like singleness or non-monogamous, non-sexual, non-long term relationships. These benefits make marriage artificially attractive, and also serve to make it pursuing any of the alternatives artificially difficult. This is the bureaucratisation of morality - the use of state resources and power to institutionalise certain private moral conventions in the order of society. Extending membership of the marriage club to homosexuals merely extends the benefits of conventional conformity to them: the right to live in the same way as heterosexuals are supposed to, to live what they consider a normal life. 

The reason why marriage equality may not be a step in the right direction is not only that it has taken the form of a demand for inclusion within the conventional order rather than a challenge to that order, but that it thereby implicitly endorses the primacy of conventional institutions like marriage. After all, it is hard to oppose an oppressive institution when you are petitioning to be allowed into it. As Betsy Lucal puts it very well, "the freedom to marry also signals the tyranny of marriage".

And this itself is somewhat surprising, for until quite recently the gay rights movement was characterised by a radical and foundational challenge to society's heteronormative institutions and norms. When Andrew Sullivan, a conservative gay activist, first argued for marriage equality he drew a lot of criticism from the gay community. As he noted in his 1989 essay, Here Comes the Groom: A (Conservative) Case for Gay Marriage,
Much of the gay leadership clings to notions of gay life as essentially outsider, anti-bourgeois, radical. Marriage, for them, is co-optation into straight society. For the Stonewall generation, it is hard to see how this vision of conflict will ever fundamentally change. But for many other gays--my guess, a majority--while they don't deny the importance of rebellion 20 years ago and are grateful for what was done, there's now the sense of a new opportunity. A need to rebel has quietly ceded to a desire to belong. To be gay and to be bourgeois no longer seems such an absurd proposition. 
Achieving marriage equality is a conservative victory, in that it is an implicit endorsement of the social primacy of monogamous sexual relationships and the state's involvement in maintaining that primacy by the very group that was once most critical of such uses of state power. The fact that some conservatives are too blinded by bigotry to see this is irrelevant. 

Indeed, given that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, perhaps we should not be so surprised by the speed with which support for marriage equality has become mainstream common sense in straight society. Permitting homosexuals to join the marriage club requires almost nothing from the rest of us. It allows self-professed progressives to congratulate ourselves on being open minded and open hearted, even though it actually presents no challenge to our sense of self or to our preconceptions about the good life.

Strangely enough, it is only among the minority of conservatives who continue to oppose marriage equality for religious reasons that the end of marriage is openly contemplated. The slippery slope arguments they come out with - about people marrying their horses and what not - are rather silly. But the fear behind them is driven by the recognition that without social and state backing their moral ideal of marriage has no substance. These conservatives suddenly recognise the malleability of the institution of marriage, the fundamental truth that as a society we can make marriage mean whatever we want it to. We can give legal recognition and social status to whatever kind of relationship we choose to.

Again this is strange. In the old days conservatives were the ones who saw the social order as unalterable natural fact and progressives were distinguished by their belief that the social order is human made and contingent (and improvable). Nowadays it seems that the left sees social institutions such as marriage as a recognition of human nature: our intrinsic, supposedly universal, desire for monogamous sexual love. 

No wonder the left is in such a dismal state. If self-professed progressives can't even see that marriage is a human invention - with a social and political history, and the power to perpetuate itself once established - their ability to imagine a better world will be stunted. They won't be able to envisage anything more radical than incrementally tweaking distributional rules in the direction of fairness. But we can't rely on the pursuit of fairness to bring us any closer to a just society of real equality and freedom.

A just society would be one in which we all have the real freedom to be ourselves and to reject the structuring of our lives by state backed social conventions about how we are supposed to live and what we are supposed to value.

Of course it is eminently unreasonable to expect gay rights activists to do all the work of bringing that about! There was a time, not long ago, when the gay community represented a particularly significant practical and moral challenge to the social order, but the character of the campaign for marriage equality suggests that time may be over.

Yet where can one look now for a radical critique of our social order and a radical vision of a just world? Mainstream feminism, the other major source, seems to have decayed into not much more than interest group advocacy (focused on motherhood and the interests of a professional elite - e.g.). Indeed, the left in general seems to have lost its ability to imagine a significantly better world - which is its whole point - and instead talks only of legalistic fairness. 

Fairness makes bad institutions better, as social mobility makes gross inequality more palatable. But it does nothing about the real problem of the domination of those bad institutions in the first place. The challenge is the same as it has always been, How do we get to justice from here? Fairer access to the unjust institutions bequeathed to us by ages past is not enough.


  1. The problem some people might have with your vision for society is that most people need structure in their lives and for many that comes from tradition and from a common way of life. I'm not disputing your vision. I'm not certain it gibes with human psychology- though to anticipate your argument current psychology as we know it might really be studying the current human condition and not human nature

    1. Exactly. It's hard to tell what relationships humans are best suited for qua humans given that we are born into a world already full of gender norms and romance. But given that the origins of marriage lie in the material economy of another age - of households as units of economic production and, for the wealthy, inheritance law - it would be a little surprising if marriage remained preeminent in our future.

    2. I propose bringing in a new monogamous social construct in which no-fault divorce is abolished and additional tax-breaks are restored. Obviously this would not need or require any form of discrimination and would be wholly secular. Merely an irreversible contract.

  2. Thank you for this excellent piece. While I would take issue with some of your language (marriage equality affects many people who are not 'homosexuals,' even leaving aside how problematic that term is when applied correctly), your point, that the centralisation of marriage equality by LGBT movement represents assimilation to heteronormative values, it spot on. Here's hoping that as equal marriage increasingly becomes fact the queer community can reorient itself both towards its former radicalism and its former queerness.

    1. It will be interesting to see if the queer community does reorient itself towards its original modus operandi.

      Personally, I think assimilation into the larger culture is a more likely outcome.

  3. Congratulations to the heterosexual philosopher who thinks he is making a unique contribution to gay rights discourse. Unfortunately, your argument is not new nor is it particularly clever. The gay rights movement, like most prior minority social movements against racism and sexism, has always been a mixture of radical, liberal, and "conservative" politics. This trope of
    "assimilation vs liberation" although in many ways correct is an incredible oversimplification of the viewpoints of many different constituencies within the movement (this is only magnified by the dominance of critical theory in the academy, which despite it claims to "non-normativity" is in fact "anti-normative" and just as "essentialist" in its analysis - it just posits a new "queer" essence that claims to be more authentic than the "assimilationists" it despises). The very early post-stonewall gay rights movement was in many ways a reflection of the radical politics of the late 1960s - the Gay Liberation Front was named after the various anti-colonialist national liberation movements in Africa and South America and grounded its politics in a bland sort of marxism, feminism, and anti-colonialism. Like most radical movements of its era, factionalism set in quickly and it split into various competing factions that eventually gave way to more liberal groups. The movement shifted to more consciousness raising and achieved some minor political successes in urban cities where it could exert some influence. However, greater political change was stymied a right wing backlash and many gay people were more interested in exploring sex than politics, which seemed impossible in the moral framework of the era. AIDS, of course, changed everything, but even prior to the discovery of HIV, many gay men were discovering that they wanted more in life than sex and the downsides of promiscuity were becoming apparent. This had nothing to do with conservative morality but just human nature - people want love and relationships and the sexual rat race was making that incredibly difficult. Finally, you make the same mistake the radical right, along with the Queer Left, does is attributing some sort of essential "otherness" to gay identity such that you view marriage as a normative compromise for gay people - that they want it because they want to assimilate and reject their radical nature. I hate to break it to you but most gays aren't that radical in their politics or personal lives. For every queer theorist, there are 100 other middle of the road boring gay moderates.

    1. I don't think you read my post very carefully.

  4. "it is a demand to have one's conformity recognised rather than to have one's difference respected"

    Exactly. This is what I've been trying to articulate. This whole marriage hoopla leaves me feeling very, "Yeah. So?" Obviously, gays and any other consenting adults should be able to marry. We shouldn't even have to be worrying about that. So it's very good we got one of the basics taken care of. But it felt to me that there was nothing to get too excited about here. It feels like just another brick in the old order. Finally, I know why. It is another brick in the old order.


Comments will be moderated for civility and relevance