Nonexistent Lifestyles
Andy Towle, in reference to the recent story (see, for example, here) about Hallmark's introducing greeting cards that celebrate same-sex marriage, quotes a reactionary "family values" group promoting their own boycott of Hallmark as saying
Let them know you do not appreciate Hallmark promoting a lifestyle which is illegal in 48 states.
Now, aside from their casually dissing the gerund, what's wrong with this statement?
Clue: it's an ontological problem. It reminds me of a discussion I had at a party once about whether Catholic priests can be married. It turns out to verge on the trick question unless one is already in a pedantically scholastic mood–as I was at the time. The answer, of course, is that Catholic priests may be in a state of marriage, but they may not enter into a state of marriage. (This is how it is that Catholic priests who were formerly Episcopal priests may have canonically legal spouses.)
Although same-sex couples are technically prohibited in a large number of states from being married, the actual implementation of this prohibition occurs at the permission-to-marry (or permission "to gay marry", as Arnold Zwicky says is fast becoming current) stage through the denial of legal marriage licenses.
Thus we discover that although same-sex couples are technically prohibited from being gay married, in fact we have no choice because we cannot become gay married to being with.
And so I find it odd, this complaint about an "illegal lifestyle" that, where it is illegal, is an entirely nonexistent lifestyle.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 22.12
Permalink
I'm a bit surprised. Your point is well taken, but I thought you'd have something to say about the term "lifestyle." It implies you and other true gays adopt your sexual orientation the way one might choose to go through life as a cowboy or vegetarian.
I resent the term because it's being used dishonestly, as a propaganda tool.
The notion that being able to buy greeting cards for gays and lesbians somehow promotes those sexual orientations is absurd, even for these dolts. It makes as much sense as saying that being able to have a key made ensures you can/will buy a home of your own. (Key = five minutes/99 cents. Home = $50,000 down and thousands a month for 20 or 30 years). Brilliant!
on Sunday, 24 August 2008 at 23.08
Permalink
Indeed, SW, there's nothing sillier than people who refer to the "gay lifestyle", and I usually adopt a mocking tone to point out how ridiculous they are.
But this instance is slightly because it's not just the "gay lifestyle" that these people reference here, it's what we might call the "gay married lifestyle", since it is definitely being a same-sex couple in the state of same-sex matrimony that they are worried about.
Although there used to be a few aspects of the "gay lifestyle" that were illegal, they are no longer proscribed by law. However, in most states the "gay-married lifestyle" is not allowed, but it's also a lifestyle that therefore cannot ever be realized in those states, so it seems very odd to me for these people to put so much energy into something that 1) cannot happen if it is illegal; but 2) is legal if it is not illegal.