Normativity

Comments

1. Thunder_Fox | April 5, 2010 3:01 PM | Reply

   Thank you for your provocative question, Monique. I think it is important that those on all sides of gay marriage and other complex controversies clearly articulate why they believe or don’t believe a service, recognition, etcetera should be extended to currently excluded groups. This helps us avoid using loophole-ridden “moral injunctions” Alison Jaggar warns against in Living with Contradictions (9).

   So getting back to your question, why would Jane, a straight female, care if a gay male is not allowed to marry his partner, or why would she want to maintain such a restriction? Jane will not be directly affected whether gay marriage is legalized or not.

   I’ll try to tackle one lens through which people view marriage: morality/religion.
   First, we should not assume that if Jane identifies as religious that she will be against gay marriage or that the religious community of which she is a member is anti-gay. For example, the Twin Cities Friends Meeting (whose congregation members are commonly referred to as Quakers and usually identify as Christian) has stopped certifying any marriages until the State of Minnesota recognizes gay marriage (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/12/07/quaker-marriage/). The clerk of the Friends Meeting explains, “We're simply trying to be consistent with the will of God as we perceive it.”

   I think the clerk outlines well the reason why many religious people feel polarized by such controversial issues: how do we correctly interpret the will of God?

   If Jane feels that God is for or against gay marriage, how does she reconcile her beliefs with those that feel otherwise? If she believes that God is pro-gay marriage, then she will likely feel that her and others’ religious and Constitutional rights are being impinged upon if her church can’t conduct a gay marriage ceremony recognized by her government. If she believes that God only intended for monogamous, straight couples to marry, then she will likely feel that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, and that such a definition is not subject to modification by humans.
   

2. Yein | April 6, 2010 11:02 AM | Reply

   To answer your question of why normative standards are set, I would say that norms allow people to ignore the gray areas and simplify ideas for themselves. The sad truth is that many people, whether it concerns them or not, do not like to go against established norms because the norms are what they are used to seeing and they do not want to come out of their comfort zone because it challenges people to explore a different perspective they might not be confident in.

   It may be that people oppose gay marriage because they want to keep everything the way they are used to. In other words they don't want to change. Moreover, although gay marriage may not influence them directly, it does impact them indirectly in the sense that gay couples are now contradicting their personal beliefs, which some people may find offending or threatening.

   However, people need to realize that society changes over time just like organisms evolve so people's attitudes should also change constantly. I think this issue should be a feminist concern to be addressed. Feminists should raise awareness of the need for a change in attitudes and way of thinking in response to changes in the circumstances given.

3. justsaying | April 6, 2010 1:17 PM | Reply

   It’s not the benefit itself, but the belief system or values attached to the benefits, which goes back to the idea of separation of church and state. In theory, separation of church and state implies that making and implementing laws is not influenced by religion which is not the case. As noted in other entries lawmakers are individuals with belief system. It goes without saying that, lawmakers intentionally or unintentionally will embed values of their belief system into the new law. This takes us back to the idea of marriage. Whether gay marriage can legalize or not, it does not prevent heterosexual from getting marry. The couple would still care because it has an effect on society and the definition of marriage changes which undermined the sustainability of marriage. Basically, some people would care if others do or don’t receive benefits because it has an indirect effect on their society.