It seems to me that the ‘manif pour tous’ was attempting in a confused and deeply reactionary way to address this deeper set of questions concerning the relation between biology and social destiny and the destabilising of both family and community values. A vacuum has been created by the absence of a progressive engagement with such issues at the level of popular culture and everyday life; it has been filled by institutionalised forms of ‘political correctness’, and the ideological hothouse of identity politics. Against this background, the dream of a simpler world, a world of make-believe freed from the ambiguities and confusions of contemporary sexual politics, indeed a world liberated from sexuality altogether in the name of more innocent pleasures becomes ever more attractive.
I’m not sure that this piece entirely gels as a coherent whole but it’s an admirable effort nonetheless. The section I’ve quoted above is absolutely spot-on. I don’t wish to repeat myself at length but the shrillness of the ‘gay marriage debate’ certainly hasn’t been monopolised by the homophobes. The issue raises interesting questions, not least about marriage and about the nature of ‘equality’, which have been almost entirely ignored by the ‘progressive’ supporters of the cause. Instead, as the quote succinctly puts it, we’ve had “institutionalised forms of ‘political correctness’, and the ideological hothouse of identity politics”. The automatic (and smugly expressed) assumption that any criticism or opposition = homophobia, something we’re seeing again tonight with the ‘oh now the world will end waaaah!’ crowing online. It’s not exactly been dignified. It seems even less likely tonight that any of these issues will be thought about in any depth – indeed, there’s a Twitterstorm currently brewing over alleged Tory plans to ‘get tough on teenage single mothers’ yet absolutely no-one is drawing any connection between it and the question of ‘marriage equality’. Yet notions of ‘marriage’, particularly the morality behind it and its privileged status in society, are clearly relevant. Indeed, the ‘letting gays get married will mean less single parents’ argument has been wheeled out in favour of ‘equal marriage’. There are implicit judgements there, assumptions about the way a relationship is supposed to work and how a ‘family’ is supposed to be constructed. Once you start thinking about these connections it sheds new light on tweets like this, where we’re supposed to coo at some gays becoming respectable, making their love ‘official’. We’re not supposed to ask questions about why their love wasn’t good enough already or how folk in ‘non-traditional’ relationships which remain beyond the realms of ‘marriage’ fit into all this.
Gay marriage, whatever its merits, is as an issue a big old plaster which we nice liberal folk can slap over ourselves to feel good and superior without having to think about any of the uncomfortable stuff. In recent days we’ve seen the same with the Trayvon Martin verdict, where I’ve seen folk in the UK who only weeks ago were spouting reactionary drivel about the Woolwich attacks, who abandoned all pretence of ‘liberalism’ during the 2010 riots and who rarely have much to say about racism in the UK wailing loudly about the injustice. Racism in this case is not only on the other side of the world, it’s big and it’s obvious. That’s racism. They’re racist. We’re not racist. Again, there’s no need to think about anything. No need to consider the subtle and insidious ways in which racism manifests itself, no need to consider our own positions, our own privileges, our own attitudes and actions. At the root of both responses lies a conception of ‘equality’ which is woefully trite, naive and shallow. This lack of critical thought, this aversion to seriously looking lest we don’t like what we see, feeds into the vacuum which the author of the above piece mentions. And so we can tweet our support for the further privileging of certain kinds of relationships in society while seconds later complaining with disbelief that a government is yet again taking aim at a stigmatised form of ‘family’.
Edit – I’m compelled to add this story here as a further illustration of what I’m talking about. The full-on assault on those claiming benefits appeals to many prejudices and ill-founded assumptions but the benefits cap in particular rests on the basis that only those who can ‘afford’ it should a) have children and/or b) live in ‘desirable’ areas. This is exactly the kind of thing people mean when they describe ‘marriage equality’ as equality only for the already privileged, who already have choices and opportunities. Those who don’t due to whatever circumstances find themselves stigmatised and subject to the cruel whims of a baying mob. Look at the bottom of the linked article – it rather incongruously mentions a proposed tax break for married couples. You can safely assume that Osborne is not pitching this to the married couples who will be hit by the benefits cap – no, instead it’s aimed at the wholesome, ‘good’ families who pay their way and don’t rock the boat. They are the chosen ones. Now we gay folk can be the chosen ones too. ‘Equality’.