Alex Blaze

Well, duh, marriage is about the regulation of sexuality

Filed By Alex Blaze | September 13, 2007 1:17 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: adoption rights, Arkansas, foster parenting, marriage, regulation of sexuality

-I don't think were talking about love here. We're talking about S-E-X in front of the C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N.

-Sex Cauldron! I thought they closed that place down!

Brummett, a local Arkansas columnist, has just written about the upcoming legislation in that state to ban gay couples and straight, cohabiting but non-married couples in a sexual relationship from adopting or foster-parenting. He outlines who'd be OK to adopt after the passage of the law - married couples, single people, and cohabiting people in non-sexual relationships. The specific example of the last, "two cohabiting elderly sisters", can't get any more desexualized. Those who wouldn't be able to adopt or foster would be same-sex couples of all sorts and nonmarried, conjugal, cohabiting straight couples.

Makes ya think.

The fundie in charge of this ballot initiative, Jerry Cox, admits that he was really after the gays but included the straight fornicators just in case someone would think that he's just singling us out:

Cox readily admitted that the impetus was to stop gays to "blunt the radical homosexual agenda," is what he said. He acknowledged that heterosexuals were thought about as afterthoughts mainly for the purpose of impressing a judge who might frown on the constitutional vulnerability of singling out gays. But he says it turns out that research has shown that heterosexual cohabitants provide bad environments for kids, too.

But he's still going after a very specific part of the straight population. While there are lots of arrangements under which straight couples could be having sex that would be nearly impossible for an adoption agency of a social worker to surveil, like two people living at separate addresses and having sex or married couples where one of partners is getting a little something on the side, the message that this sends is that any sex outside of marriage is going to be punished under the guise of the "best interests of the child" (citing, as always, that vague "research" that no one can pin down, because, of course, there is no such responsible research that says that sex occurring between people that a child knows hurts them).

In fact, Cox readily admits that he'd be against adoptive and foster parents having any sort of sexual relationships outside of marriage, but that the wording of the ballot initiative "was a matter of setting priorities and keeping proposals simple and understandable."

Marriage itself, with the social status and material benefits it gives to people who engage in the institution, added to the legal messiness and expense of leaving it, is about trying to regulate sexuality, punishing those who do not express their sexuality in a way deemed valuable by the government. This ballot initiative, by dividing cohabiting, conjugal, unmarried couples from all other straight people, puts the focus where it has been all along: on the sex.

And, of course, we queers get shafted the most out of deals like this one.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Here in Indiana, State Senator Patricia Miller tried to get artificial insemination banned for "unmarried couples" which was her code word for "lesbians." We sent her a turkey baster in the mail.

These assholes deserve the scorn they receive.

Alex, let's call a spade a spade: What Mr. Cox is trying to do in enact his modern but fundamentalist conceptualization of Biblical prohibitions, which in turn, competent historians and Bible scholars tell us, themselves have been twisted and mis-interpreted by the Church for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Since the government has seen that it has no compelling state interest in regulating adultery, pre-marital straight sex, homosexuality, or interfaith or interracial romances, Mr. Cox is "fighting his good fight" at the last sorry, retreating edge of sexual theocracy, using that one remaining warm-and-fuzzy but contrived argument, "the good of the children."

To fight this theocratic nonsense, all we need is exactly what we needed in the other previous battles: clear legal reasoning, good science, and common sense.

Although Mr. Cox and his kind frustrate and concern me, I do think that the tide is going in the right direction, and that their days, too, are numbered.

That is, unless Fox News finds a way to electronically brainwash us all. Remember, if they introduce a "remote control" that gets implanted under your scalp, it's not likely that you can persuade Denzel Washington to pull it out with his teeth.