Last Friday the New York Times ran a profile of blogger Eve Tushnet, a “celibate, gay, conservative, Catholic writer”:
While gay sex should not be criminalized, she said, gay men and lesbians should abstain. They might instead have passionate friendships, or sublimate their urges into other pursuits. It turns out I happen to be very good at sublimating, she says, while acknowledging that that is a lot to ask of others.
Marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals, whose relationships can be either uniquely dangerous or uniquely fruitful, she explained in an e-mail message. Thus it makes sense to have an institution dedicated to structuring and channeling them.
But same-sex marriage, she wrote in The New York Post in 2007, can bring one of three outcomes: A two-tiered marriage culture, where heterosexual couples are asked to do the hard things (sex only within marriage, marriage for life in most circumstances) and homosexual couples work out their own marriage norms; reshape marriage into an optional, individualized institution, ignoring the creative and destructive potentials of straight sex; or encourage all couples to restrict sex to marriage and marry for life, and hope that gay couples accept norms designed to meet heterosexual needs.
I think it’s safe to say that option #3 isn’t likely to be embraced by many SSM advocates .