[BRIEF NOTE] On liberal conservatism
Jul. 15th, 2010 04:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldIn his analysis piece on Argentina's legalization of same-sex marriage, Glenn Greenwald makes an important point about the motivation for this legalization. Argentine citizens and politicians didn't do this because they were radicals; Argentine citizens and politicians did this, rather, because they saw it as the natural extension of commonplace rights.
Many others have observed how the push for same-sex marriage probably would have ranked among the most conservative hopes from the perspectives of the 1970s, when so much and more radically innovative things seemed possible. Same-sex marriage is, I think, among the best wedge issues for people trying to make a dent into homophobia: "Here are some people, just like you, who have hopes, just like you, and want to secure their hopes, just like you, only they're not being allowed because of an arbitrary principle that's playing havoc with their lives." Not to sound Burkean, but traditions are useful, especially since--no matter what anyone says--they have to evolve if they're to last any length of time at all.
Argentinian politicians acted in the face of "polls showing that nearly 70 percent of Argentines support giving gay people the same marital rights as heterosexuals." That's what is most striking here: this is not happening in some small Northern European country renown for its ahead-of-the-curve social progressivism (though gay marriage or civil unions are now the norm in Western Europe). Just as is true for Brazil, which I've written about before with regard to my personal situation, Argentina is a country with a fairly recent history of dictatorships, an overwhelmingly Catholic population (at least in name), and pervasive social conservatism, with extreme restrictions on abortion rights similar to those found on much of the continent. The Catholic Church in Argentina vehemently opposed the enactment of this law. But no matter. Ending discrimination against same-sex couples is understood as a matter of basic equality, not social progressivism, and it thus commands widespread support.
Many others have observed how the push for same-sex marriage probably would have ranked among the most conservative hopes from the perspectives of the 1970s, when so much and more radically innovative things seemed possible. Same-sex marriage is, I think, among the best wedge issues for people trying to make a dent into homophobia: "Here are some people, just like you, who have hopes, just like you, and want to secure their hopes, just like you, only they're not being allowed because of an arbitrary principle that's playing havoc with their lives." Not to sound Burkean, but traditions are useful, especially since--no matter what anyone says--they have to evolve if they're to last any length of time at all.
