(no subject)
It's been ages since I wrote anything here. I have a paper that was due almost a year ago. At this point the utility of writing it is questionable, but it's been hanging over my head for so long that finishing it would be a relief on par with a stay of execution. Besides, the topic is Equality and I have almost total leeway to write what I want.
I'll be thinking aloud from here on. Please comment.
I've been thinking about equality in terms of same-sex marriage. My concern for this paper is not whether restricting marriage to heterosexual couples constitutes discrimination (it does). Instead, I'd like to focus on what legitimate reasons the state has for endorsing certain kinds of partnerships over others. So I guess I'm wondering about what ends marriage serves, and which of these ends the state can be reasonable expected to promote? And in what ways does state recognition of marriage (hetero or homo) ignore other types of relationships?
At the same time, I'm thinking of two kinds of equality: redistributive and recognitional. Redistributive equality is about a reorganization of benefits and burdens, in such a way as to decrease inequality. The redistributive framework is applicable, I think, only to material conditions. For example, redefining marriages to include same-sex couples translates into access to material benefits in the form of pensions, inheritance, taxation, etc.
Redistributive equality would be accomplished by designating a special category for gay couples. But the redefinition of marriage is also about recognizing the value of same-sex relationships, i.e. recognizing their equal value to hetero couplings. To that end, a separate category for same-sex couples perpetuates inequality. People often talk about recognizing "difference," but the inclusion of same-sex couples in the category of marriageable people is, to a large extent, about recognizing sameness. Gay couples want access to the rights and privileges that straight people enjoy because they are valuable to them: custodial rights over children, the power to make decisions concerning the life and health of an incapacitated loved on (or to even visit that person in the hospital), the right to inherit joint property on the death of a partner.
I'm tired of thinking about this. My brain is splintering. I was going to say something about the normativity of marriage, but I JUST DON'T CARE. I'll deal with this later.