(no subject)

[gaudior]

I was talking to a (moderate, politics-wise) friend this evening about gay marriage. He advanced the idea that everyone, straight and gay, should have civil unions, which include all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage, but don't use the word. Instead, the word "marriage" should be reserved for religious institutions, which can then decide for themselves whether they will perform same-sex marriages.

This is not a new idea. This is, in fact, an idea which I myself advanced early in the debate, and someone told me, "No, that's a bad idea-- no-one will vote for it."

But it just keeps coming up. I've heard the idea proposed half-a-dozen times over the last few years, always by relatively moderate people, all of whom seem to think that they've come up with it on their own.

And I do know a number of arguments as to why people want to insist on actual legalized gay marriage (not the least of which is that it seems entirely likely to happen, and soon)(and all the difficulties involved in things like, say, Catholic hospitals not wanting to allow unionized queer couples visitation and adoption on their premises). But I find myself curious about the numbers.

So, o my (admittedly biased) sample:

[Poll #1452891]

And this raises the question-- if it turned out that a majority did favor this plan, should same-sex marriage advocates change tactics? Or not?

Discuss!

--R

(Upon request, I have added the following questions, for people who like the status quo in New Jersey, here. That's, civil unions for queers, legal marriages for straight people. Unfortunately, lj will not allow me to revise a poll, or add another poll to a pre-existing entry-- otherwise, I would edit this into the original.)



ETA: Okay, so, on further reflection, I clearly did not think this entry through very thoroughly at all. It is, as many people have pointed out, a bad poll, poorly worded, and unlikely to get results which are in any way representative of the general population. If I were being a real social scientist, this would have been my test-run, in which I found out all the things wrong with the poll before revising it, running it by another test pool, and then taking it to a large, anonymous, randomized sample, preferably with multiple methods of reaching participants of a good range of demographics.

Which was clearly not my intent. Honestly, I just wanted an ideas-check-- "Hey, I've heard this idea from a bunch of people, but I don't see any moves towards it-- howcome? Is it a bad idea, and if so, why, so that the next half-dozen times someone proposes it to me, I'll have ideas about what to say?" Or it might have been possible that it was a good idea, which for some reason no-one had proposed, in which case, I might have wanted to take more action. But I didn't have a real agenda besides finding out what people thought, and looking for more ideas.

So, my apologies for taking so long to respond to people's interesting and insightful comments-- I was somewhat overwhelmed by just how many responses I got! But. Onwards.

--R

Comments

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

We had this argument in our household. Problem is, "marriage" is a civil term - the marriage of two people, two idea, two business, etc.

Matrimony is the "holy" or religious term. I am fine with matrimony being reserved for religious institutions only. But not marriage.

[navrins]

I don't remember who I had this discussion with - it might have been dpolicar. It began with me mostly supporting this suggestion, but by the end I was pretty well convinced that "marriage" is not, in fact, a religious term. (Come to think of it, that is supported lightly by some things I've read in a psych textbook, about how some form or other of marriage is universal among all known human cultures.) I think the argument that "marriage" should be reserved for a religious ceremony and "civil union" for a legal one sounds nice and simple, but leaves out the social concept that is perhaps what most people really mean by "marriage" anyway when they're not arguing about it.

So, I personally can answer your specific question with "Yes (I'm straight)." But then, I'd also vote for marriage for anyone capable of understanding it and desiring it, regardless of sex, gender, number, or pretty much anything else I can think of, because I don't really care what you call your relationship. But I think you're leaving out important categories of "no" that are why it would in fact not pass.

Which is kinda like, "What she said," though less so than I thought before I started writing. (How do I know what I think until I see what I type?)

[ckd]

I had started a long comment on my iPod, but it's a pain to type much there so I figured I'd wait and use the computer...and alaria_lyon beat me to part of what I was going to say!

The major problems I see with the "civil unions for everyone" concept is that it makes all the civil marriages not performed or recognized by a church (and there are plenty of them) instantly "separate and unequal"...because the laws (both statute and case law) will not be updated instantly, non-legal language will continue to use "marriage" even when it should say "civil union", etc...and besides, the anti-equality folks will just change their argument because it's not about the "magic word" anyway. (I've seen plenty of photos from the MA protests with signs that said "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE - NO TO GAY CIVIL UNIONS"... nice professionally printed signs, too.)

If a "compromise" is only accepted by one side it's not a compromise, it's a capitulation (though only a partial one); given the concept of the Overton Window, I reject partial capitulation as being extremely counterproductive.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

We had this argument in our household. Problem is, "marriage" is a civil term - the marriage of two people, two idea, two business, etc.


That's really interesting. Do you have any good links to articles on the meaning of "marriage", or should I go look for them myself?

(Edited to make it clear I'm responding to alaria_lyon)

[fiddledragon.livejournal.com]

I'm uncertain. I wouldn't campaign against it, but I'm not sure I'd be really enthusiastic about it. Part of my objection is purely linguistic -- if we're going to argue about language, I want "civil union" to have an obvious associated verb. Married people are married. A couple who has a civil union are...unionized? United? And what if they want to call themselves "married" because they consider a civil ceremony sufficiently sacred for their personal beliefs?

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

I voted "yes," but I pretty much agree with this—I have serious qualms.

Matt

[q10.livejournal.com]

‘incorporated’?

[jedibl.livejournal.com]

I'm one of those people who came up with this idea "independently" years ago. I think it's great, but I also honestly think that it's even less likely to happen than "full-fledged marriage for all." I'm not sure it will be to the gay-rights movement's advantage to push for this option. I'm afraid that too many people in the anti-gay-rights movement camp will turn it into, "Wait, now you're telling me that I can't get married?" (or, worse, "Now you're telling me that I'm not married anymore?")

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that too many people in the anti-gay-rights movement camp will turn it into, "Wait, now you're telling me that I can't get married?" (or, worse, "Now you're telling me that I'm not married anymore?"

It's true-- one of the major arguments raised against people in favor of same-sex marriage is that we're trying to "undermine the fundamental nature of marriage." Which I don't think has been done by gay marriage, per se-- that was done by women being able to own property and read and use birth control. But this, as a move, would be feeding right into that line of argument, and that is a serious flaw in it.

[navrins]

Tangentiating a little: if we were going to do something like separating the legal rights currently associated with legal marriage from the social construct we call marriage, I'd want to consider detaching them entirely from the two-person relationship and attaching them instead to "family." (Or maybe, "nuclear family" or "family household" or something synonymous with that.) Where it doesn't matter how many people of what sex are members of it or which ones are married to each other, only which ones are adults and which children... or maybe the right words are "independent" and "dependent," allowing (for example) a person with severe Alzheimer's to be taken into a family as a dependent.

Taxes are assessed per family, based on family income, regardless of who earned it. Health insurance policies could cover your family.

If you're in the hospital, your family can visit you. Adult family members can make medical decisions for you if you're unable to.

Children born into a family are members of it. Other children can be adopted into it. Adult children often separate from the family when they move out. Older parents sometimes join the family of one of their adult children

If a family breaks up, the assets and child-rearing responsibilities are divided in some way among the adult members.

It's quite possible there are problems with this idea, or places where it fails, that I haven't thought of. But the same is probably true of civil-unions-for-all. This idea at least feels like it deserves to be considered, even if it is ultimately rejected.

You ask good questions.

[orawnzva.livejournal.com]

Tangentiating a little: if we were going to do something like separating the legal rights currently associated with legal marriage from the social construct we call marriage, I'd want to consider detaching them entirely from the two-person relationship and attaching them instead to "family."

I also think this is a good idea, but actually advocating for this requires very careful framing, because right now in our society the idea of "we are living together as a household and are responsible for one another" and "we are romantically committed to one another and having sex" are conflated.

I think the mainstream is already comfortable with non-standard structures for households, it's just hard to get most people to say so because it's hard to ask the question without invoking the much more controversial question of non-standard romantic relationship structures.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Tangentiating a little: if we were going to do something like separating the legal rights currently associated with legal marriage from the social construct we call marriage, I'd want to consider detaching them entirely from the two-person relationship and attaching them instead to "family."

Personally, I think this is awesome and ideal.

Practically, I'm curious-- would this be a political possibility? And if so, how?

[weirdquark]

I've also proposed this, but mostly as a way to highlight the difference between a civil and religious marriage. So I guess the answer is yes, but I'd prefer for people to be okay with civil marriage being different from religious marriage and everybody gets a civil marriage if they want it and each religion can marry who ever they want to marry, just like they do now.

My parents were married at city hall. They have a civil marriage; they do not have a religious one.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

Me too, neither of my marriages have had any benefit of clergy, they are civil marriages.

Marriage is between people, but it's also between the people on the one hand and the community on the other -- it's not just "Chris loves Pat" it's "we all recognise that Chris and Pat are a family now, yay!" It used to be perfectly reasonable that this was marked with a religious ceremony at the church door in communities that all shared a religion and place of worship. These days this makes less sense.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Makes sense to me.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I voted yes, but that's not the only way I might vote. I'm most concerned with getting these legal rights to people in relationships whether or not they're queer or straight, and less concerned with what that relationship is called. I'm willing to believe that there's some better solution out there, but I'd take this one if it were offered.

That's exactly and precisely how I feel.

[angstnokami.livejournal.com]

What's your definition of "queer" in the poll options? There doesn't seem to be an option that fits most-often-straight-lately-but-previously-more-leaning-towards-queer-and-sometimes-still-doing-so, which would be my answer (along with a yes). I suspect other complex orientations are also being generalized here...

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I know, that's super-problematic. The categories I had in mind were

"person for whom there is a possibility (though not a guarantee) of this being personally relevant to you"

and

"person for whom this will only be relevant on behalf of others"

In which case, you would count as "queer" for there being a possibility? But overall, I think it's going to be a guesswork and whatever feels most-like-right to people.

[badoingdoing.livejournal.com]

I voted "yes" but with the caveat of "marriage" being reserved for whether the couple identifies as married, rather than whether the couple has done something religious or not. For a lot of couples, their marriages will likely be religious. For a lot of couples, not so much.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

True that.

[q10.livejournal.com]

i'd also vote for full-fledged marriage for all, of course. i'd have to think about which of the two options i'd prefer if i were choosing between those two, but either would accomplish all the goals that i see as important, and either would be a massive improvement over the current situation in most parts of this country.

and i guess if a provision specifically said ‘“marriage” shall henceforth be a term reserved for religious institutions’, i'd have to oppose it, but i take it what you meant by that was that the term ‘marriage’ would have no legal weight and that the state would make no effort to define or regulate it - that basically any private institution or individual (religious or secular) could make its own decision about how to use the word.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

i take it what you meant by that was that the term ‘marriage’ would have no legal weight and that the state would make no effort to define or regulate it - that basically any private institution or individual (religious or secular) could make its own decision about how to use the word.

Yes. Actually, now that I think about it, I suspect that this would undermine the roots of traditional marriage a lot more effectively than same-sex marriage would. Because it would mean that if the neo-pagans wanted to perform group marriages, or the Church of the Subgenius wanted to unite this man and this pineapple in holy matrimony, they could do that. Hm. That's actually a pretty good argument against this idea as being appealing to the moderate majority...

[zdenka]

Is there a reason you left out the option of supporting/accepting same-sex civil unions but not same-sex marriage, or any other intermediate opinion between "accept all" and "oppose all"?

For what it's worth, I consider the word marriage important, and I would be strongly opposed to the idea of "civil unions for everyone." I have heard the idea proposed multiple times before.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Is there a reason you left out the option of supporting/accepting same-sex civil unions but not same-sex marriage, or any other intermediate opinion between "accept all" and "oppose all"?

Well, mostly that I don't think anyone except members of a particular religion have the right to tell members of that religion how to practice it, and I believe there are a number of religions (e.g., Reconstructionist Judaism) which practice same-sex marriage. The only real question is whether these religious marriages (currently illegal in many states) should or should not be linked to law.

ETA clarity.

[plasticsturgeon.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think that all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage should be separate things that you can allocate to any of a predetermined number of people. You shouldn't have to have a sexual relationship with someone in order to be part of their (non-genetic) family, and you might want one person to inherit your stuff and another to make your medical decisions etc.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

I think this would make a lot of sense, but it also makes sense to have a societal default for people who aren't on top of things enough to make legal designations of different people. Is it not legal right now to hire a lawyer and designate people to do these things?

[wherdragon.livejournal.com]

At the moment, I'll happily vote for anything that actually gets all couples the legal, taxable, visitational, etc. rights, whatever the fuck it's called. I think it makes more sense to separate out in law what's a civil agreement that states, businesses, the law, and federal goverment honors with various protections and responsibilites, and what's the religious ceremony recognizing two people commiting to each other. However, if it gets people to agree to DO IT, actually give ALL the rights to queer couples, I don't care if it's called "LOLCATS", so long as it's there and enforced.

I know I'll be calling my commitment to significant other of whatever gender "marriage", but that's a slightly different issue.

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

However, if it gets people to agree to DO IT, actually give ALL the rights to queer couples, I don't care if it's called "LOLCATS", so long as it's there and enforced.


Heh. While I think that people have made a number of good points above for why, politically, it makes sense to push for full-fledged "same-sex marriage," I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

Also, I totally want a ritual to celebrate my lawful wedded LOLcats...

[khyros.livejournal.com]

On a lighter note, possibly we should make "Marriage" the wholly civil matter, and allow "Mawwiage" to be determined by religious institutions?

That dweam wiffin a dweam...

[gaudior.livejournal.com]

Laughing out LOUD.

Grin.