Let me first say that both Corvino and Stanton were extremely courteous and respectful to one another despite being strongly opposed over these issues. Their own friendship and sense of civility, however, could not be found in some members of the attending crowd who chose to make polemical attacks during the Q&A period. Although I cannot hold anything against them for their reactions, simply because of the nature of the topic, I did find the moderator, Dr. Kruman’s comment at the opening helpful in framing these reactions.
“This debate often creates more heat than light.”
I obviously support same-sex marriage, however, my commentary here will focus on one rhetorical choice and an interesting question from an audience member.
Glen Stanton’s staunch defense for marriage as a heterosexual institution rested most obviously on what I, unversed in the particular rhetoric of this debate, will call the “nature argument.” Heterosexual unions are the transhistorical, transspatial norm for humanity. Although Stanton granted that polygamy of various sorts were normative, he emphasized the heterosexual nature of these extended ‘unions.’ Interestingly, he ventured so far as to say that interracial conflict could not be similarly universalized because ‘there have been different races living quite nicely together;’ the gay black man directly in front of me shook his head. So as not to caricature his argument, Stanton did emphasize that he did not believe gender, especially as envisioned in these heterosexual unions, was not wholly a social construction or a slave to genetic determinism but a complex mix of the two. However, more often than not, Stanton could be heard saying, “if you look at the Anthropological texts…”
Anthropology was his undergraduate major and a field that continues to occupy his intellectual interests, especially as it intersects with his current political work. However, my own disciplinary prejudice silently roared in muffled speech and shaking head: “What about Foucault?!?”
Stanton’s rhetorical move back to Anthropology for evidence of what is “natural,” for transhistorical ‘truths’ of human nature annoyed me to no end. Treating a field born in the imperial age, the bastard child of an affair between a turn to rationality and mercantile expansionism, as an empirical science that allows one to glimpse into that untouched laboratory of humanity, primitive societies, is simply unacceptable to me. Has the field, like Area studies, made strides toward self-diagnosis and treatment? Without question. Unfortunately, so much of Stanton’s “nature” argument rests on evidence collected through this historically limited and awkwardly situated field that it strikes me as a deeply problematic rhetorical move.
A less polemical audience member asked about the specific strategy same-sex advocacy seems to take. Specifically, the audience member noted that such arguments avoid religion and morality, moving instead to challenge the Right through public policy questions. Corvino noted the astute observation and agreed that indeed morality should be foregrounded by advocates. (I believe his work is focused on ethics) Stanton argued that the Right was simply responding to “activist judges” who have chosen to take these issues directly into the realm of public policy; it was not their choice but simply the principal medium in which these debates were taking place.
I note the moment not to argue for a religious left, as one of my teachers would, but rather to note, rather unoriginally, the conflation between ‘religious’ arguments and ‘moral’ arguments. Corvino, a definite secularist, demonstrated the difference in a rebuttal statement that rejected claims of homosexual unions “deliberately taking” anything away from children. He called the claim a “morally wrong mischaracterization” because it attempted to spotlight a perceived lack, one that is itself bound up in a very specific conception of gender roles, while ignoring the loving scene built for these children.
I wish I could add more commentary on this problematic conflation but don’t feel at all qualified.
Let me briefly add that Corvino’s presentation, admittedly well received at “home court,” was a wonderful demonstration of rhetorical eloquence and range that skillfully deployed the dramatic, the comedic and everything between the lines.
