So my three-part series last week on whether or not marriage equality is radical (in brief: who cares?; yes; and no) drew the attention of Maggie Gallagher, longtime opponent of same-sex marriage. It was kinda fun to be called "always interesting and honest." I've known for a long time that she and I agree about the symbolism of allowing two people of one sex into marriage—it's why we were paired several times in debate. As she says, quoting me whole:
Graff also acknowledges that Blankenhorn’s (and mine!) core concern is not irrational. Gay marriage furthers the disconnection of marriage from procreation; it helps in an ongoing way to sever the link between sex and diapers.
I just think the change is a good idea, while she thinks it's a bad one. I have long wondered, though, why she's fighting this particular rearguard action. Our 1.5 percent of the population is hardly a very important symbol. Why doesn't she focus on the real source of this disconnection—same-sex couples are just the aftereffect—and take up arms against legal contraception? Maggie, this is a real question. If you have an answer, I will give you my spot, here, for a day in which to post it.
You may also like
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)