Would a feminist be able to support the current push for gay marriage (here in Tassie) while remaining consistent to his/her own feminism?
I think the answer is a categorical, 'No'.
Now, that sounds rather naughty. After all, we're talking about two world views that are generally considered 'progressive' (feminism and the mainline of GLBT in public discourse). So let me outline my thinking, and I'd appreciate it if you could (politely!) point out to me if/where I'm mistaken.
Let's start with a cornerstone in the narrative of feminism (by 'narrative' I just mean a description of how the world does/could/should fit together):
(a) Feminism holds that a woman brings something truly special/wonderful/significant to the world by virtue of her being a woman, which is not equivalent to what a man brings to the world.And we could, of course, replace 'world' with 'marriage', since marriage is just one sphere within a woman's life that she enriches (partly) by virtue of her femininity. Let's be generous and do blokes the same courtesy in the interests of equal-treatment (but it isn't essential to my argument):
(b) A man brings something truly special/wonderful/significant to the world by virtue of his being a man, which is not equivalent to what a woman brings to the world.So, they're different, the feminist narrative holds, and those differences should be highlighted and celebrated. To minimise or down-play the distinctives of women as women is to take a backward step, indeed.
True, it may be very difficult to neatly define what a woman (or indeed mother) brings to a marriage (or family), likewise a man (or a father). Nevertheless, the feminist narrative holds dear that je ne sais quoi.
Let us turn our attention to one significant part of the GLBT narrative (as I encounter it, anyway):
(c) The GLBT narrative holds that Gay/Lesbian unions should be described by the term 'marriage' because your lover's gender has no bearing on the union you share with them, there are no significant distinctives dividing men and women in this arena.If, (a) and (b) and (c) are correct, then I think it's fair to say…
(d) a feminist could not support a redefinition of marriage to encompass gay unions while remaining consistent with his/her own feminism, for it would necessarily involve marginalising the uniqueness of women.Finally, let me spin this back the other way. If same-sex unions do become known as 'marriages', then would not a consistent feminist want to find some other way to positively signal the specialness of heterosexual unions? But that sure looks like a path of infinite regress to me.
