DAVID SIDORSKY
549
plural lifestyles. Thus the issue in dispute in gender politics is no longer
the right of consenting adults
to
enter into private sexual relationships,
but the need to reform major institutions of the culture to enhance free–
dom of choice. Thus, one example is the claim that limiting the institu–
tion or sacrament of marriage
to
heterosexual individuals is a historical
norm of the culture which involves an essential discrimination against
freedom as the choice of plural lifestyles. Consequently, the legitimation
of gay or lesbian marriage rites is asserted as an extension of nondis–
crimination and as a requirement of liberty.
In the traditional view, based upon alleged biological facts of a given
human nature, the procreation and associated rearing of children were
related
to
heterosexuality. In terms of the third concept of liberty, with
human nature represented as a product of choice rather than a biologi–
cal given, this would be a discrimination against, or denial of, the free
choice of gay or lesbian individuals. The legal reforms suggested are the
legitimation of adoption or other strategies for parenting by nonhetero–
sexual families. In one branch of feminist theory, the lifestyle of mar–
riage asserts a choice which excludes any need for male participation.
Thus, two women with access to a sperm bank or sperm donor could
freely choose or create the process of partnership, deciding which part–
ner should be obligated
to
give the fertilized ovum and which partner
should be obligated to carry the fetus
to
term.
The interpretation of liberty as the freedom to create the self brings
with it a change in the application of the concept of equality. In both lib–
eral and conservative traditions of Western society, equality has been
identified with a demand that there can be no discrimination based on
irrelevant reasons, such as, as the formula goes, race, religion, or gen–
der. Under this interpretation, egalitarianism would not be denied by a
political order which discriminated for reasons such as talent, ability,
performance, or even prior deprivation.
In Western societies, reasons that may be rooted in the recognized
"givens" of biology or history have been judged
to
be relevant. Conse–
quently, there has been a pattern of discrimination against the partici–
pation of women in combat infantry units or in the selection of families
that lack a male father and a female mother to adopt infants. The third
concept of liberty renders any proposed reasons rooted in biology or
history irrelevant relative to the right of the person to exercise free
choice in the creation of his identity. An extension of social egalitarian–
ism follows from denying the relevance of biology or culture as grounds
for discrimination. The consequent limit upon what may be considered
relevant reasons for discrimination sets a political agenda which seeks
