Good point,however,provisions often get made for ordinary people to get around injustices in the real world. These don’t make front page news. The example of not being able to visit a sick spouse is not terribly realistic. Even under the new $22 billion dollar HIPPA regulations to protect everyone’s privacy in the health care system, if you are conscious you can authorize anyone to visit you that you want. You can also pre-designate anyone to be your confidant or surrogate. As far as health coverage of significant others, many big (i.e. “evil”) corporations provide it. However, if gay marriage is made constitutional many companies could drop coverage except for married gays- see http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/may2004/nf20040514_1508_db035.htm.

Many years ago when things were not so complicated, I recall that a pretty young woman had a motorcycle accident and was injured. At the end of visiting hours the nurse informed the apparently male partner who was dressed in jeans and had short hair that “Sir, visiting hours are over.” The visitor wheeled indignantly and said “Don’t call me Sir! I’m a woman.” Perhaps the proper way to address a visitor today would be “Hay you!” The evils of heterosexism have been around for a long time. Good luck to the cultural police in their efforts to reeducating us earthlings.

My vagueness in defining damages was intentional. You can interpret the term as broadly or as narrowly as you like and my point still stands.

That having been said, I assume regular readers of this site are well aware of my opinions on politics and normative legislation. Still, it’s rather silly to say that a homosexual (or anyone else, for that matter) has a “right” to be covered by his/her spouse’s insurance. Sure, we’d all like to get such coverage, ceteris paribus, but rights, if they exist at all, must have some foundation in moral imperative, not in wishful thinking.

(Note: I’m not saying gay couples shouldn’t get the same insurance coverage as their straight colleagues; I personally think it’s rather silly that many employers will offer insurance coverage to some spouses but not all. I’m just saying they have no obligation to offer coverage to any spouses, nor are they obligated to avoid doing things I think are silly.)

I agree with you in that the problem is not the lack of acknowledgement of heteronormativity’s existence. Generally I think people on both sides of this “norm” recognize the extent to which people are assumed to have a certain sexual preference based upon their biological sex, for better or for worse.

However, you stated that the norms that are ‘bad’ are so only because they do damage to those who violate the norm. Since ‘damage’ wasn’t elaborated and you mentioned that one could argue those observing the norm are also damaged by others’ norm violations, I assume you were referring to the psychological damage you briefly hinted at.

If that’s true, I have to say your statement must be taken a step further to be accurate, because not only are people damaged by their norm violation in this regard, they are also penalized for it. When a norm prevents homosexuals from enjoying the same benefits of heterosexuals (such as visiting one’s partner in the hospital during family-only situations, qualifying for their spouse’s insurance, etc.), your norm’s value-neutrality is completely destroyed, and the result is infringement upon citizens’ very rights. The dilemma then is no longer people’s personal views and behaviors toward the infractions of the norm, but how the norm is unjustly made an official prerequisite within institutional codes and governmental laws.

But, if you want to debate it, things cut both ways. Both those who promote homosexuality and those who accept the majoritarian position have potentially strong emotions invested here. Why do gay activists think that they owed instantaneous public acceptance of their lifestyle while the majority is expected to just stuff it? In the insular subculture of the campus and Hollywood homo-equivalence may be a current fad, along with assorted “isms, exclusions and oppressions” (Remember the Sandinistas?) but don’t lose too much sleep if it turns out to be another dud as a prescription for wi