• Home
  • About
  • Guest Post
  •  

    The bed’s too big / The fryin’ pan’s too wide

    Andrew Sullivan has a new piece out on gay marriage, headlined Integration Day in The New York Times (registration required, as if you needed to be told). Sullivan’s writing meant a lot to me when I was coming out in the mid-’90’s and most gay writers were in the vein of, like, Michelangelo Signorile. But Girlfriend is really starting to annoy me something fierce.



    Get a load (heh-heh) of this:


    I remember the moment I figured out I was gay. Right then, I realized starkly what it meant: there would never be a time when my own family would get together to celebrate a new, future family. I would never have a relationship as valid as my parents’ or my brother’s or my sister’s. It’s hard to describe what this realization does to a young psyche, but it is profound. At that moment, the emotional segregation starts, and all that goes with it: the low self-esteem, the notion of sex as always alien to a stable relationship, the pain of having to choose between the family you were born into and the love you feel.





    One wants to just whisper in his ear that when Margaret Cho said the best reason for gay marriage was that it was inhumane to deny a gay man a bridal registry, it was a joke. But, fine…what he’s saying isn’t that superficial. It’s still, despite his unremitting complaisance as a writer and public personality, offensive.


    I like having people’s respect and approval. Resilient as my ego is, my nerves are not sheathed in titanium, and having my friends and loves and the life we cherish referred to as perversion all over the place gets me down sometimes. But either you claim control over your own life and mean it, or you slaver for people’s approval and give them the ability to define your worth. No fair congratulating yourself about being willing to take an unpopular stand out of moral conviction and then informing people that they will love you for it. That maneuver makes me as nauseated as…as…John Derbyshire in a roomful of Muscle Marys.



    Just to be clear: I’m not downplaying the hardships of being gay, and I give guys and gals who are just coming out quite a bit of leeway in finding their way at first. I have a more privileged life than a lot of people, but coming out was deeply painful. I didn’t think I would make it through; I don’t consider it whiny for anyone at that stage to be having difficulties getting it together and needing a lot of accommodation from supportive people. If I thought there were a policy proposal that would magically make that hurt unnecessary for future gay men and women, I’d be agitating for it in a second. Also, no one is going to stop me from being a thoroughgoing homo: being in love with a man, feeling that thrill when a cute guy comes into my field of vision, hanging out and being queeny with friends, and (what have I missed?…oh, yeah) mind-altering screwing. I know my own mind, and that’s where it’s at. I wish that didn’t present an obstacle in getting along with some people, but reality is, it does. Though I’m grateful that people cut me lots of slack when I needed them to, now that I’ve righted myself and become a sovereign adult, I deal.



    All of this blather about how our need for marriage is connected with [yaks all over freshly-cleaned floor] self-esteem and not making us feel so alienated just reinforces the charge that our real problem is arrested development. To the extent that psychologists can even determine whether self-esteem is a useful concept, my understanding is that their idea of where it comes from is pretty old-fashioned. Encouragement from others is part of it, but most of it is meeting and overcoming obstacles, fulfilling one’s obligations, and paying one’s debts. For that reason–much as it galls, galls, galls me that hetero convicted felons, multiple divorcés, and deadbeat dads are free to indulge in messed-up marriages without interference, while we’re told that we’re going to spell doom for the concept of the family–I don’t trust our own high-profile crew of dissolute, flim-flamming party animals with marriage any more than Rick Santorum does.



    Most of us are not that caricature, including, I presume, Sullivan and the like-minded Jonathan Rauch, whose book Gay Marriage I eagerly pre-ordered and ended up being disappointed by. Like Sullivan’s latest article, Rauch’s book leans heavily on the idea that marriage brings community pressure to be good, which helps keep married couples stable and benefits everyone. Rauch does raise the question of whether this will apply to gay marriages if a lot of people regard them as counterfeit, but as far as I can tell, he doesn’t really address it.



    If we’re going to be using marriage as a cure for the low self-esteem and alienation of “emotional segregation,” though, the answer matters. And the answer is: Those who wish us well and want our relationships to sustain us and bind us to the community are already treating us that way; people who see our relationships as illegitimate will keep doing so no matter who has a license for what. That means that even if gay marriage becomes a long-term fact, we’re initially going to have to be strong for each other, through our formal and informal institutions, every bit as much as we are right now. It may never be the case that everyone is brought around to our side, but to the extent that it happens, it will happen because people can see gays taking charge of our own lives and not bleating, two decades into adulthood, about feeling left out.



    I could also say something about DC-based political journalists who, while they may favor small government, still have the irksome habit of seeing the role of what the government does do as the conferring of legitimacy and Making things Real, rather than serving as a vehicle for the will and collected resources of citizens, but I’m too tired to get into that just now.



    Added on lunchbreak, 19 May: Brian Tiemann has a bit more temperate response to Sullivan, raising some of the same points (and including a penis pun) but giving them more context.

    6 Responses to “The bed’s too big / The fryin’ pan’s too wide”

    1. http://brain.mu.nu/archives/029019.php

      Great post by one of my favorite thinkers over here. I really think Sean should be a leading voice in our society, and will become so if he chooses that path… One thing I wish I could get across clearly…

    2. IB Bill says:

      You and Andrew Sullivan should switch places in our culture :)

    3. Auntie Mame says:

      I second that motion, Bill. A moral compass as a mentor and guide, with a compass that actually functions–now THERE’s a concept!

    4. Sean says:

      Thanks, you two. Your checks will arrive by next week. :)

    5. Mark says:

      Excellent post. Andrew Sullivan is really being his deep down, conservative self on this issue. And he’ll tell you that. Traditional conservatives are freaking out, saying that gay marriage is all about society giving moral sanction to homosexuality. Sullivan just has the opposite evaluation of the same fact. Both are (or should be) wrong. It’s about gay spouses getting the same legal rights as straight ones. Period.
      It should also be said, though, that Sullivan and the conservatives are hardly alone in seeing the state as conferring legitimacy on gay people. While they arrive at it differently, most people of all political stripes, gay or straight, see it that way. (Hear some of the couples in Mass. being interviewed about how they feel legitimate now?). Which is why it was so nice to read your post. :-)

    6. Sean says:

      Thank you, Mark. Like you, I think the practical matters of making a household and taking responsibility for each other should be front and center; that’s where the equal protection argument carries weight.
      In small doses, appealing to people’s sympathies can be very effective. In fact, I’d say it’s necessary for gay men in particular, since the Disco Era image that we’re all sex machines incapable of love and intimacy and settling down persists in a lot of quarters. But emotional appeals can’t be anything close to the linchpin of a public policy argument. That’s why I found myself being disappointed with the whole of Rauch’s new book while being very impressed, as usual, with the fineness and eloquence of the individual paragraphs and sub-chapters. Sullivan, sadly, started to lose me a while ago.