Radical, Conservative, Married, Polyamorous

Let's call the whole thing off.

While searching for more Zak Szymanski articles, I found this National Review piece (or rather, two pieces) by Stanley Kurtz about the "confessions" of a "radical" agenda by many in the same-sex marriage movement after the publication of the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement. The only movement figures who stuck to their conservative gay guns, apparently, were Jonathan Rauch and perhaps Rob and Clay Calhoun (the Calhouns I had never heard of before reading this article, to be honest).

Couched in the tones of a clever analytical piece, the article is in fact a sensationalistic bit of red meat for the National Review's social "conservatives" and perhaps some of their "moderates" (and which conservative in These United States doesn't at least sometimes enjoy being thought of as a moderate?). In it, Kurtz "reveals" that the LGBT movement is at its core socially "radical," and that even the strongest proponents of the "conservative" goal of same-sex marriage turn out, after some prodding, to be of a kind with the polyamorous freaks that the Right has always assumed them to be (notably absent from Kurtz's list of closet sexual radicals is orgy-lovin' Justice Antonin Scalia).

If the language Kurtz (ab)uses sounds familiar, it's because the divisions come in part from Andrew Sullivan's seminal homocon tract, "The Politics of Homosexuality" in The New Republic in May 1993. Though the words have been switched around a bit, the categories remain the roughly the same. In part this is because Kurtz can't hold a candle to Sullivan's originality of thought (honestly, his talents are completely wasted in Time magazine's online blog). It's also because the political climate at the New Republic is very different from that of the National Review, where "conservative" means "you, dear reader." Finally, it's also a testament to the superficial inclusivity of neoconservatism that one can even talk about "gay conservatives" and not be referring to some closeted religious nutjob.

Instead of quoting Sullivan's piece, why don't I quote an enjoyable summing up of the relevant categories by Tony Kushner:

Andrew divides said politics into four, you should pardon the expression, camps - conservative, radical, moderate, and liberal - each of which lacks a workable "solution to the problem of gay-straight relations." Conservatives (by which he means reactionaries, I think, but he is very polite) and radicals both profess different brands of an absolutist politics of "impossibilism," which alienates them from "the mainstream." Moderates (by which he means conservatives) practice an ostrich-politics of delicate denial, increasingly superseded by the growing visibility of gay men and lesbians. And liberals (moderates) err mainly in trying to legislate, through antidiscrimination bills, against reactive, private sector bigotry.

By the way, also absent from Kurtz's article is any mention of Andrew Sullivan - a pretty glaring omission, akin to visiting Paris and somehow managing not to see the Eiffel Tower. Of course, this is completely in keeping with the "conservative" tradition of completely failing to credit one's intellectual and political ancestors. For a group of people whose faction has "conserve" as a root word, they have remarkably porous memories.

Bitchy aside over.

So in Kurtz's article you have the "radicals" (who have kept the same name since 1993) and then you have - or rather, you don't have - the gay "conservatives" (who Sullivan called "liberals"). What "radicals" want, in Kurtz's remarkably narrow reading of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, is eventual state recognition of polyamorous relationships. "Conservatives," on the other hand, want same-sex marriage that looks exactly like old-school hetero-marriage, but with two suits or two bridal gowns.

How exactly did Kurtz come to such an "understanding" of what the LGBT movement really wants? His final paragraph offers some valuable clues about how Kurtz thinks of LGBT organizers:

For now, “conservative” proponents of same-sex marriage are out in front, supported by a vast array of considerably less conservative activists and lobby groups. Meanwhile, the radicals are marginalized and/or intentionally keeping a low profile. In a post-gay-marriage world, this situation will flip. The radicals will step out in front, supported by largely the same coalition of activists and lobby groups who currently support same-sex marriage. At that point, the conservatives, no longer needed to run interference for the larger movement, will be quietly put out to pasture. By then we shall be well beyond same-sex marriage. Listen carefully to the words of same-sex marriage supporters, and they confess as much themselves.

It's as though he thinks the whole movement is merely a kind of exciting strategy game for everyone in it, instead of a struggle for our lives and dignity. By using this "strategic" lens, of course, Kurtz manages to completely avoid any engagement with the underlying issues raised by the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement (Should marriage continue to be the "gold standard" of relationships? Should alternative forms of family be recognized? How should the state regulate human relationships generally?). Instead of treating various people's statements as part of a complex community conversation, he regards them as merely obfuscatory remarks meant to diffuse intra-community tension (admittedly, they also have that function). He then writes what is essentially a piece of schoolboyish self-congratulation at having "found out" the gay radicals by "listening carefully" to what they said.

But of course, I'm only scathing about Kurtz because he almost hits too close (see, if Sullivan had written this piece, it would have hit too close - Kurtz is dogmatically, intentionally oppositional to the LGBT movement, Sullivan thinks of himself as within it).

Earlier this year I had a conversation (just after Beyond Same-Sex Marriage) with my friend Rich about how marginalized I felt whenever same-sex marriage was the topic in political circles. He suggested a course of political judo. Perhaps, he said (I'm paraphrasing), same-sex marriage is the move in the wrong direction that can eventually lead to a move in the right direction. I was initially heartened by this thought, though eventually I was too uncomfortable with the idea of toying with what I saw could become a kind of political disingenuousness.

Some questions, then:

1) Could same-sex marriage "undermine" marriage? What would this mean?

2) If everyone decided to stop getting married (a la Brangelina), would we still need same-sex marriage? Would we still want it? Are hypotheticals like this completely counterproductive?

3) Why did Kurtz focus on the polyamory part of Beyond Same-Sex Marriage when this was merely one aspect of a call for recognition of a wide variety of already existing family structures? (okay okay, this is kind of a leading question)