Ted Olson, making the conservative case for gay marriage. (via newsweek)
While I am unquestionably in favor of equality for those who wish to get married, this is disconcerting. It has already been observed by writer and queer activist Kate Bornstein that the movements pushing for marriage equality do not represent the broader LGBT community, and that true marriage equality will not come until married and non-married people have the same rights. Olson has no interest in equality for those who don’t conform to his standards of what relationships should be. His case for gay marriage is not one based at all on accepting differences, but rather on social conformity. He wants gay marriage not because people should be free to choose, but because he believes that it will further homogenize people. The implicit point here is that marriage is the focal point of the community, the only source of social solidarity. This premise precludes other new forms of social relations in the name of a tradition that doesn’t, and never will, suit everyone’s needs.
Marx said “The bourgeoisie… has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” (The Communist Manifesto). Olson is explicitly saying that marriage and the family are (at least partially) economic institutions, subject to the forces that operate around and through the market. Given the dynamics of our society, this isn’t untrue (money is the cause for a large percentage of divorces), but it seems that Olson is projecting this historical circumstance into a universal fact. Beyond this, he implies that this economic relation is both ethical and beneficial to society, which callously ignores the disastrous effects on children in families destroyed by financial circumstances.
This blog has been retired.
