The Decline of Homophobia and the Rise of Heterophilia in the Aftermath of United States v. Windsor (Part I)

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    “But this is only one way of looking at this policy.”

    Albeit by far the most reasonable one. Unless, say, you want to either double Mayo’s health care expenses overnight, or force them to stop extending benefits to married partners

    “The problem is not with the proponents of same-sex marriage, but rather with the general socio-legal culture, which still discriminates on the basis of marital status and, now, happily, does so regardless of one’s sexual orientation.”

    So, the critics of SSM were right, when they claimed that the advocates of SSM weren’t fighting to gain marriage for themselves, but to destroy it for heterosexuals? And completing that task will be the next goal, now that the first step is finished?

    It does sound like you’re confirming everything they were saying about SSM.

  2. Shag from Brookline says:

    Perhaps Brett can inform us on whether divorce laws destroy marriage for heterosexuals rather than blaming the more recent SSM movement.

  3. Jimbino says:

    The new battleground will be over matrimania, the widespread concept that marriage is normal and desirable and that it entitles the married to special gummint benefits.

    Nobody will care to mess with marriage as long as it is confined to a religious ceremony or considered a sacrament, but laws conferring special benefits on marriage need to be abolished, in the interests of fairness to singles.

    It appears that Europe is way ahead of Amerika in this matter, as are many Latin, Asian and African countries, I think, since their tax codes tend to treat every worker as single.

    In the meantime, Amerika will enjoy lots of economic distortions, from the extra expenses incurred by married soldiers (naturally less desirable than single ones) to the extra expenses to employers who need to carry the burden of insuring spouses. As a single I have accepted only non-benefitted contract positions that pay twice the usual hourly wage. It has to be so, else the employer would lose the single skilled worker and ultimately have to compete with him at a disadvantage. But this amounts to a labor-market distortion that ultimately lowers the national welfare.

  4. Joe says:

    “So, the critics of SSM were right, when they claimed that the advocates of SSM weren’t fighting to gain marriage for themselves, but to destroy it for heterosexuals? And completing that task will be the next goal, now that the first step is finished?”

    No. Ms. Windsor, e.g., wishes to protect her own SSM w/o “destroying” the marriages of different sex couples also recognized in NY thanks to legislative change. A subset of the movement wants to change domestic relations as a whole, but that is not the basis of marriage equality movement as a whole.

    Jonathan Rauch in “Gay Marriage” explains how opposition to SSM is actually a major way to destroy marriage, including instead of equal protection, setting up alternatives that in the long run will be used in much greater numbers by different sex couples, given there are so many more of them. Opposition also cheapens the marriage brand, threatening marriage as a whole.

  5. Zvi Triger says:

    When I refer to critics of same-sex marriage, I refer to critics from within the LGBT community, not to homophobic opponents of same-sex marriage, who decry the so-called decline of the traditional marriage, family values, etc. There is a great difference between the two types of opposition to same-sex marriage. The homophobes are against equality of LGBTs, while the LGBT opponents are against the community’s concentration on marriage equality because of two main reasons: First, they view marriage as a patriarchal institution which discriminates against women and against those who choose not to live in a state-sanctioned marriage, but still want the state to respect and protect their committed relationships. Second, some critics from within the community believe that there are more burning issues than marriage equality, such as employment discrimination and homophobic violence, and that resources should be invested in those issues and not in marriage equality which some view as a middle-class and upper-middle class concern. Yet others are concerned with the normalizing effect of marriage and the discriminatory consequences that might occur against those who do not live in monogamous committed relationships, those who are single, and those who live in polyamorous relationships.
    To my understanding, any conspiracy to destroy marriage “from within” by joining it, has never been a motivation of LGBT proponents of same-sex marriage, but rather an allegation of homophobic opponents (warning against the “Gay Agenda” etc.). And frankly, in today’s world, when 50% of married (straight!) couples divorce, I can think of no worse enemy of “traditional marriage” and “family values” than straight folk. Which begs the question – why do LGBTs want to join what seems to be a limping institution in the first place?
    In reality, we humans, gay or straight, are more complex than a mere list of “for” and “against” arguments; law can humiliate and hurt. A law that takes from a widow a considerable part of her inheritance simply because her deceased spouse was a woman and not a man, forcing her to inherit as s stranger and not as a widow, is not only financially discriminating, but also humiliating and disrespectful of her feelings, love and grief. Marriage equality cannot bring back her partner, but can remedy the humiliation that is embedded in defining her love a second-rate one.

  6. Phileo says:

    Unless you want to erase all distinctions made by the law, I’m not sure what is added by the “philia”-ising the law. So, let’s say the criminal law is “lifeophilic,” because it prohibits murder. So? To love life, even with the moderate brotherly love of phileo, is a good thing. The question, then, is not whether a law expresses a preferential “love” for something, but what that preference is.

    I don’t think most same sex marriage advocates are against heterosexual marriage or heterosexual people, or at least I hope that isn’t the case. Why can’t the law be both “heterophilic” and “homophilic?” Why can’t it just be “anthrophilic?”

  7. PrometheeFeu says:

    “Heterophilia idealizes not merely heterosexuality, but heterosexual monogamous relationships in which the spouses are married to each other.”

    I’m not sure where monogamy comes in. You can be married without being monogamous. You can also marry at an extremely low cost. You are free to treat your marriage as nothing more than the commingling of assets between two adults. In that context, I’m not sure I see the problem.