gaudior | (no subject)

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

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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?)

the social concept that is perhaps what most people really mean by "marriage" anyway when they're not arguing about it.

What is this concept, in your opinion? How is it defined?

But I think you're leaving out important categories of "no" that are why it would in fact not pass.

Like the one

lignota cites below? Or did you have others in mind, too?

What is this concept, in your opinion? How is it defined?

I think for most people it's defined as, "Y'know, marriage, duh." Which definition is of course slightly different for everybody and wildly different for many, which is of course part of the problem. I could try to define what I mean by it, or what I think somebody else means by it, or what some hypothetical category archetype means by it, but none of those definitions is likely to be particularly useful to you except possibly in defining the space of things people mean by it, which I expect you know roughly as well as I do and probably better in certain directions.

Like the one lignota cites below? Or did you have others in mind, too?

Actually I meant the one alaria_lyon cites above, though lignota's is another. Your proposal includes, '"marriage" being reserved for religious institutions,' and some people (probably including me if I cared more) would say, "no, I'm fine with saying the government doesn't get to define marriage, but neither do religious institutions."

I do think gay atheists should be able to get married, for example, not just partnered or united or whatever.

(How do I know what I think until I see what I type?)

Snerk. Yeah, me too...

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.

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.

Sir, I am pleased to discover that I am already subscribed to your newsletter, and hope that you will continue sending regular bulletins via the usual mechanisms.

because the laws (both statute and case law) will not be updated instantly,

That is true. I've heard the suggestion that such a law would work only if it a) were federal, and b) included the condition that all laws referring to "marriage" were retroactively changed to mean "civil union."

non-legal language will continue to use "marriage" even when it should say "civil union",

Yeah. Which wouldn't interfere with people's legal rights, but could be a pain in the ass. Would also be a clear way of people subtly showing their politics, too.

and besides, the anti-equality folks will just change their argument because it's not about the "magic word" anyway.

True. The question I was raising was whether "civil unions for all" would please the moderate majority enough more than "marriage for all" that it would be worth pursuing. I have no expectation of pleasing those whose religions forbid homosexuality, and whose politics are focused on their religion.

Overton Window

? *googles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)* Ah! That makes a lot of sense. By all means, let us shoot for the stars, and so not accidentally hit ourselves in the foot. Good point!

included the condition that all laws referring to "marriage" were retroactively changed to mean "civil union."

Comparatively trivial nitpick: American law includes - in fact, primarily consists of - case law. What does it mean to "retroactively change" case law? Are we supposed to retroactively say that in the 1938 case of Dope v State of Ignorance, that Mr. and Mrs. Dope had a civil union, not a marrage, despite the fact that they had never heard of such a thing and in fact died before the thing was invented? If not, then how does their state of marriage impact the ultimate disposition of their case, which is has now been used as precedent for thousands of other cases, some of which have been used as precedent for thousands more cases, all of which are now part of US law?

This is far from being the biggest problem with the idea, but I think it's a very difficult one on its own.

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)

Edited 2009-09-06 18:06 (UTC)

Well, we just looked at a dictionary, that was written in 1986, pre-debate -

Marriage: 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony 2. the acting of marrying; wedding 3. the rite or form used in marrying 4. any close or intimate union 5. the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle.

SYN - marriage refers to the state of, or relation between, a man and woman who have become husnad and wife or to the ceremony marking this union; matrimony, a formal word, applies specifically to the religious sacrament of marriage and stresses the rights and obligations of the marriage state; wedlock now applies specifically to marriage a legal relationship.