3) Same-sex marriage recognition in the military reclaims (and possibly neutralizes) the term "family."
It's far too often that we hear Republican candidates (can you guess which GOPer this hyperlink goes to?) toss around the word "family" as a euphemism for anti-gay sentimentality. If the military -- as one of the most family-oriented institutions in American society -- recognizes same-sex families as legitimate, then others will inevitably do so, as well. Again, families are "the strength of our nation." If gays are included in this military definition of family, I would consider that a step up from the classification of "pervert" and "sexual deviant."
Pushing for same-sex partner recognition and family benefits in the military may appear to be a narrow goal in the wide scheme of LGBT issues, but it's part of a larger agenda. It's about reclaiming and eventually neutralizing the terms "family," "spouse," and even "patriotism" so they can't be placed in opposition to everything the LGBT movement stands for.
It was, admittedly, a bit painful to read. But then again what I feel reading that is probably the same feeling that motivates Miller to write it.
To me, family is like a very choice spot out in nature. It is beautiful, but fragile, and I wish people would appreciate it for what it is before leveling it to build something. It needs to be protected and looked after, and in turn, provides some of the greatest joy and connection to the world that we may ever feel.
To read in such curt terms that family needs to be neutralized sounds to me like taking a bulldozer to it.
Yet on the other hand, she sees it as a place of pain, of hurt, and general meanness. It is a sort of code word for "gays not allowed". While having participated in this debate for over a decade, I'm still left to question, "how did family become that"?
Every now and again we need to re-evaluate what we know. Sometimes we can learn more about things we already think we know very much about.
When we hold up the intact family, the one where the parents and the children they created together live in mutual support, it is as an ideal. It is the only way, I continue to argue, that all of the rights and responsibilities associated with a child being born can be fully realized. That is important enough to pause and take notice.
But being an ideal family doesn't make it the only family. We need neither tear down the ideal, nor make it exclusive, to appreciate the full landscape.
Speaking of full landscape, it is probably an oversight that Miller limits her article to same-sex couples when there are many other non-married or unrecognized family situations out there? Just saying.
No one is specifically barred from the ideal we try to hold up when we talk about family values. And support and recognition are not exclusive to the ideal either. Or in other words, "family" does not need to be neutralized away from its expression of an ideal, nor does that neutralize the needs of other families.
In fact, recognizing the ideal behind family can give importance to other family forms. Consider adoption, that is not the intact ideal. Yet who can deny that in its attempt to restore to a child the tragedy of the neglect, abuse, or death of their natural mother and father? The value we place on the former is directly correlated with the value we put on the latter.
Same sex marriage arguments show similar correlations. They argue how same-sex couples are committed, loving, and devoted care givers to children. The argument itself says that recognizing their closeness to the the ideal doesn't diminish it, it gives it more value.
But, alas, there is still a difference, no? Difference isn't in itself bad, it is what brings about variety. Difference is also a means to care for differing situations. One size does not fit all. But even more important the difference here is rooted in our very humanity, and to neglect it diminishes our value in our humanity.
Our heritage makes up part of our identity, it is our gift from our parents. Our identity and personality is also contributed to by our parents. Perhaps no one is better positioned to teach us the good of our identity, how to do the best with it, than the people who we share it with -- assuming they've lived their lives to develop it in socially beneficial ways. And isn't that what marriage is all about? Where else can that be seen so clearly and so naturally? It can be seen many other places, but to me it can't be seen in any more pristine condition than there. Being able to fully recognize and realize the rights associated with each child birth is a wonderful thing to preserve.
It's okay. It really is. "Speaking words of wisdom, let it be". Let marriage be marriage, and let their families be families. We can do this in a way that everyone gains value.
0 comments,:
Post a Comment