The Pink Trlongle Supplement,. Tuesdoy Morch 10,1992.

Poge 5

Whot About the Fomil

How often have you heard the argument
that gay men and lesbians threaten the heterosexual nuclear family, that institution so
cherishedand adored inoursociety? Thanks
to bigots like our pal Ernie over at the Legislafure, I'veheard thatargumentmore times
than I care to remember; it's a homophobic
classic. Homophobes all seem to agree that
gays and lesbians pose a threat to the values
and institutional structures that hold Canadian society together. However, there is no
classic "gay" response to this argument.
There seem to be two responses, and they

don't seem terribly congruent when you

first hear them.

One response to this

pervasive

hornopl-robic argument is that gays and lesbians, on the whole, want to be part of a
family as much as any straight person. Gays
and lesbians don't get married, because
Canadian law refuses to recognize marriages
between same sex couples; if the law was to
change, hordes o' homos would rush to the
chapel tomorrow. After all, gay and Iesbian

relationships are just Iike straight relationships; the only difference is the stigma attached to gay relationships. Moreover, many
gays and lesbians want to adopt children,
and many lesbians find ways, like artificial
insemination, to have their own children
within their lesbian relationships. Basically,
this response stresses the similarities between gay life and straight life, asserting that

gays and lesbians don't threaten the family;

they just diversify

family' response.

I'll call

it. I'll call it the "gay

the other response the "feminist"

response. People who like this response

view the heterosexual nuclear family as the
primary location of the patriarchal oppression of women; consequently, they don't think
that threatening the family is such a bad
thing. This response likens the institution of
the family to the institution of slavery.
Looking at the history of the institution of
the family, it is not difficult to see the paralIels. In the past, when a man and a woman
got married, her legal identity was merged
with his. This was called "coverture", and
the origin of the idea can be found in the
Christian creation myth in the book of Genesis. All her property became his, because, in
the eyes of the law, she no longer existed.
Not that long ago, it was impossible for a
man to be charged with raping his wife. The
idea that you couldn't rape your wife was
based on the idea that wives had certain
marital duties. One such duty was their duty
to fulfil their husbands'sexual needs; it was
part of the marriage contract, Iegally and
socially. In effect, men owned their wives'

2
t

sexuals have, and most desire stable, longterm relationships, just like shaights. The
strength of the "feminist" argument is its
nuclear family itself cannot be salvaged? recognition of the oppressive character of the
What if the ideas at the heart of those archaic heterosexual family. Perhaps by putting a
laws are neiessarily a part of any society spin on these two approaches, we can put
which revolves around nuclear families?
them together and unite the fight against
Heterosexual relationships are necessarily patriarchy with the fight against homophobia
between men and women, and, because of at the same time.
By integrating these two approaches, we
the imbalance of power between men and
women in our culture, these relationships can fashion a unified response to the
generally embody the domination and sub- homophobicassertion that gays and lesbians
ordination of women. Many believe that the threaten "Canadian family values". Moreheterosexual family actually maintains the over, we can also provide a potential source

dividuals, separate from their husbands, and

men can now be charged with raping their
wives. This may be true, but what if the

for solutions to the problem of women's

oppression in our society (at Ieast within
heterosexual family structures). By incorporating the "gay family" idea that gays and
lesbians are just regular people into the
"feminist" discourse which criticizes the
oppressive nature of the patriarchal heterosexual family, we can set gay and lesbian
relationships up as examples of non-oppressive "families" which embody things
like love, commitment, and caring rather
than domination, ownership, and duty.
However,reading this isonly thefirststep.
It's not going to be easy to "integrate" two
sexuality. Throughout history, marriage has sponse stresses their similarities. Each re- approaches that seem mutually exclusive, so
been the ownership of wives by their hus- sponse has its own strengths. The stren{th of if this approach is going to work, it will take
bands.
the 'tay family" response is that it points out a lot of work and discussion. But I think it
You might argue that the law has changed. that gays and lesbians are just people. They will be worth it.
-by Clay Mcleod
Contemporary law recognizes women as in- have the same emotional needs that hetero-

To Birth or Not

patriarchal oppression of women that is a

part of our society. Gays and lesbians who
believe this don't mind that homophobes
portray homosexuality as a threat to the
family; they think that's just fine. Many gays
and lesbians (particularly Iesbians) relish the
fact that their same sex relationships lack the
domination/subordination dynamic that is
present in heterosexual relationships.
The "gay family" response and the "feminist" response seem to be mutually exclusive.
Are they? The latter response stresses the
difference between gay relationships and
straight relationships, while the former re-'

to Birth:

A Lesbion'Ootio

A lot of gay people do find ways to make

their own families because the families they
were born into have so totally failed them.
These are the harbingers of the newnorm for
families. .. people who live together because
they love each other. A truly "new idea" if
ever there was one.