Junk science redux

Found this link via La Di Da: The American Anthropological Association has issued a press release denouncing the supposed ubiquity of the one woman/one man family as the basis of civilization. As usual, Bushco has it wrong:

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples."

No surprises there. It's been fun watching the spin on this one. I have been full of opinion, but better writers than me (especially Scalzi) have done a fine job, so I'm content to linky linky and hang back.

Except for this: It is virtually impossible for these wacky family preservationists to mount a credible argument in opposition to anything related to gay marriage without falling back to safe religious ground. There exists now no sociological, economic or other secular argument that holds any water. The "for centuries it's been this way" argument was the last shot, and that was thin on the face of it. The idea that all heterosexual marriages are somehow identical is just silly. The idea that marriage is intended for procreation and child rearing insults all those who are unwilling or unable to have children while married, or who marry past child-rearing age. So finally, to argue against the right for anyone to marry anyone means retreating to religious precedent and doctrine, and even in this there is no solid agreement, even among Christian or quasi-Christian groups.

Because, I think at the heart of it this has never been about marriage per se. What others do in their marriage has no bearing on mine, and the way that I view it, so challenging the sanctity of the institution is a false ploy. Rather, this has always been about the societal normalization of homosexuality, and how uncomfortable some people are with this idea. To grant homosexual couples any legal standing brings this minority group that much closer to becoming just regular folks, and some people won't have it.

I suspect, however, that in the coming months this issue will become less central, just a bit...especially as Dubya starts dancing on the graves of the 9/11 victims in his political advertising. His handlers should know better.



posted by MT at 4:03 PM |