The fallacy of renaming marriage--And the danger
When the subject of gays and marriage arrises, I hear a lot of well-meaning people suggest we just impose a term like "civil union" on every marriage and "get the government out of it" entirely, or some variation.
A post featured on the OS home page today puts it this way:
What I propose is that "marriage" no longer be endorsed or promulgated by the government for any couple, straight or gay. Instead, the government will only offer "civil unions" to two consenting adults, whether you're straight, gay . . .
I appreciate the various intentions behind this, including helping gays reach equality and separating church and state.
But I think it is terribly misguided, on several counts.
First, marriage is an idea, not just a word. The word is merely a label for a concept/idea/tradition/institution--all those things. You can rename it as many times as you want, that won't change anything. Or solve anything.
Anti-gay forces are fighting for the institution of marriage. Change the name and they will fight you every bit as hard. You won't have won anything.
Also, as a practical matter, it may sound simple enough to change the name, but language is at least as worthy an adversary as religion. The government is not in charge of language. No one is, individually. It's an immovable force that responds to its own rules. Just imagine trying to change it. Do you really think you're going to get more than twelve people in the country to open a conversation by asking, "So are you civil unionized?"
As a writer for a living, I come up against this sort of thing all the time. The culture, collectively decides what it calls something. And our culture calls this (supposedly) lifelong bonding between two people into couplehood "marriage."
Gays want in on that concept--by whatever name it's currently going by in the culture.
At this point, a majority of straight people actively want to exclude us from the concept--whatever it is called.
That's the problem.
We will be equal when we're allowed in, and accepted. It will probably take courts and state legislatures to help us force our way in, and once we're in, and the sky doesn't fall, and the straight people realize nothing freaking happened and there was nothing to be scared of will gradually quit caring, and they will quit looking down on us, and then we'll be in and accepted.
It's the attitudes that have to change. Changing the name does nothing.
---
So my first objection is that this idea of changing the wording is a fool's errand, which seems to be leading a lot of folks astray when we have a real fight on our hands. We have to fight. Taking comfort or putting our efforts into this effort merely depletes us.
But there is a much bigger danger. If you were a strong supporter of marriage and had fear--misguided or not--about gays undermining marriage, how would you react to that proposal?
I think a lot of pro-marriage people would see it as an attack on their institution.
And when someone from our side takes it just a hair further, they would get really sad. Consider this comment posted just a few minutes ago in this post:
SO LET"S DO A NEW PROPOSITION!
I propose right here, right now that we begin a petition to get the following proposition passed in California:
"The term 'marriage' shall be banned for all ceremonies performed in the State of California. Henceforth, only 'civil unions' shall now be performed by any authorized state and local authorities, and the term 'marriage certificate' shall be replaced in all public documents by 'civil union contract' which will be limited to a seven year renewable term.
That scared the shit out of me.
All the scarier, because the commentor was responding to my suggestion that we put a new proposition on the California ballot to allow gays into marriage.
Instead of allowing us in, the proposal that came back was to blast a hole into the institution as it stands now.
That would be disastrous. That really would be an attack on the institution of marriage.
I think it's that kind of talk that caused Prop 8 to pass. And frankly, why anti-gays have some legitimate reason to fear. It scares me to hear people on our side say that. It means that I have to concede to my opponents some people on my side trying to blow up their institution.
That is the core of their argument, and their deepest reason for opposing me. Please don't make me concede their core argument, or legitimize their deepest fear.
The last thing I want to is attack their institution. I want to join it. Or at least to have the right to join it.If you want to opt out, that's fine. But a proposal to attack it, that undermines so much work that we've done.
I beg pro-gay people to reconsider that stance--here or elsewhere in your daily travels.
And I hope that people who suggest we change the name of the institution
I beg everyone making the name-changing argument to reconsider. It may embody the way you would remake the world if you were in charge of making/remaking it, and if you wrote the language, but you're not.
And you are playing right into the hands of our opponents.
---I also want to take this opportunity to thank Stella and several others who have so adamantly championed this issue in this venue.
I'm particularly grateful to all the straight people who have no dog in this fight, yet are fighting strenuously on my behalf, because you think it's the right thing to do.
It means the world to me.
It fed my soul the past several months and gives me hope on shitty mornings like yesterday, when even a great state like California let me down.
Thanks.
---
After reading some of the comments, I realize I've glossed over a very reasonable more global argument about marriage. There is a really good point in there, about the setup of marriage rules to begin with. I agree. However, you have to pick your battles, and timing is everything, and it's the idea of connnecting these that I disagree with so strenuously.
Let me put it in very practical terms: We just lost the popular vote in a liberal state. When 52% of the population rejects your position, the worst thing you can do is dig your hole deeper and convince them they were right.
Calling them fools or bigots makes us feel better for a little while, and I have indulged in that, too. I get angy, and I have to vent. But it's not constructive.
When you lose an election, you get angry for awhile, but you cope with that anger, you don't lash back at the voters.
If you want to win the next time, you swallow hard and try to understand why you lost. Really. Liberals can scratch our heads, but at some point, you have to cut that shit out and see it there way for a minute or you're never going to win them over.
Why are they scared of us?
What is really going on underneath that is making them so jittery?
Once we get that, we can think about the next question:
How do we calm those fears?
First, the fears. A lot of them are just plain afraid of homos--or unnerved by us, grossed out by us, whatever. Pick your word. Each word is a bit different, but all true for a lot of straight people. We give them the heebee jeebees. Let's lay it on the line here: we do nasty things with our butts. Some people have a really tough time getting past that.
For those people, and those fears, marriage is a just a proxy: one more way to hold us back, keep us at bay, keep us from sullying their institution and their lives.
Those people are going to be tough to reach, but quite a few are reachable. A lot of good people fear the unknown and get unnerved by exotic people like homos, but they also want to do the right thing. They are instinctively aware of the odor of bigotry and will try to reach past their feelings to do the right thing.
But our opponents take their queasiness and add fear: What if gays take us to court and force our priests to marry them, or close down our churches, or . . . attack the institution in whatever way they can?
Queasiness and disgust are core hurdles for us to overcome, but fear is the killer.
I have spent years working with Evangelicals and writing about them. I was raised Catholic, did the whole nun thing, and I know those people, and I talk to my Catholic siblings who are opposing me. One actively worked from Illinois to pass Prop 8.
Many of these people, for whatever reason, truly feel under attack. They feel their institution is under attack. So don't attack their fucking institution!
It's a really horrible tactic.
I agree that their institution was designed with some big flaws. And if someone wants to reform it, great, go for it, but good luck taking on something so ingrained. But the guardians of that institution and a lot of members of the institution will see your "reform" as "attack." So would you mind holding off on your reform/attack for a few years? After ten or twenty thousand years, do you really have to pick that bloody fight while my people are right in the middle of a struggle to join the institution which already scares the shit out of them?
And whatever you do, please do not link our struggle to join the institution to your desire to remake it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
kfujioka
Nick Leshi
Judy Berman
Christopher di Spirito
SaucyB
gaypersonsofcolor
Salon.com
Comments
One speaker at our university said that when majority voices are joined to the minority voices, then they will be heard. That is what it is going to take.
The utter shame of it is that this bigotry illigetimazes whole families--kids and their parents. I am hoping that we will also see this travesty lifted soon.
Never let a chance comment (eg "gay) go unchallenged.
rated and I am so sorry for this
Amen.
This is what I have been struggling with for a long time now.
I understand what you're saying, Dave. I wish I knew what the correct answer was. No matter, I still stand behind you and every gay person the world over in your demanding the right to be legally considered married, because it isn't any different than my marriage is; marriage isn't about gender.
buckeyedoc is right that government needs to take a stand here - religion does not belong in legislature.
Rated/appreciated
I think that it's a mistake to so quickly dismiss the idea of separating religion from partnership (for everyone, of course, not just gays or straights). I'm not going to go out and campaign for it, but I think that it's an idea that should be considered thoughtfully rather than just rejected.
after all, we do have separation of church and state in the US - at least we're supposed to. (And as progressives, we argue for maintaining that line strictly all the time on other issues.)
So separating the legal institution and the religious ceremony not only might make sense, but it's hardly without precedent - it has been and still is done that way in many other countries, including in Western Europe (some people do only one and many do both civil and religious ceremonies).
Not everyone, gay or straight, belongs to a religion, or wants it to be associated with their partnership. And it seems like it might quiet at least some folks who think that anything related to "marriage" impinges on religion.
just some thoughts.
My husband is from The Netherlands. Everyone (gay and straight) still call their unions marriage but the government only recognizes civil unions performed by government entities (i.e. town halls). If you want to get married in your church, by all means do that but the government won't recognize it unless you also have a ceremony at a town hall.
I have had this discussion with an evangelical here at my work. If religion was completely taken out of the government sanctioned unions (preachers, ministers, etc couldn't perform state approved weddings anymore), then he wouldn't object to the government including gays & lesbians. And he thinks a lot of other evangelicals would agree with him.
Do we need to get some of them on our side to make it work? I don't know.
I do know it was much easier for The Netherlands to pass legislation to include gays & lesbians in their civil unions since they had already removed religion from the process.
I think that it's a mistake to so quickly dismiss the idea of separating religion from partnership . . . I think that it's an idea that should be considered thoughtfully rather than just rejected.
this idea has been circulating widely within the debate for at least ten years, probably much longer. that's my rough guess on how long i've been hashing out the idea with people. you may disagree with my argument, but i don't know where the idea comes from that i arrived at it "quickly."
I am an athiest, and if I ever decide to marry again (which I won't) I want it called a marriage, no matter who I marry.
And of course, as an athiest, I wouldn't have any kind of religious ceremony.
To define "marriage" as strictly religious means MORE people can't marry, not fewer.
And it IS a strictly legal association, right now, today. If you go get a priest to say you're married in the next 20 minutes, the state won't recognize it until you legitimize it with the state.
In other words, the state inserted itself into marriage a long time ago. It's either in or it's out.
I think it should be in the business of marrying people, because at it's base, a marriage is a civil contract relating to property rights, next of kin status, etc. If I want to confer rights to my property on someone, I need the state to back that up so that in the event of my death, my wishes are honored and defended. That's important stuff. It's also utterly civil stuff, and the church has no business in it.
Marriage is marriage. It's not a religious or spiritual state. It's a legal status. That's all.
Leigh, do you mean this? It seems like we are saying the same thing. The government should take a solely legal perspective of marriage, and then it's up to the participants to decide about any additional spiritual/religious meaningfulness (or choose not to have any religious component).
Right now, the church only sanctifies a marriage in the eyes of a God I don't believe in. Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples can continue to do so forever. They can call it whatever they want to.
Marriage, however, is a state-sanctioned, legal union. It's not about love, it's not about sex, it's not about God. It's a contract.
Relationships, on the other hand, can be about all of those things.
Let's save the word "marriage" exclusively for contracts entered into by consenting adults, period.
Let's call everything else "spiritual unions."
buckeye, i hear this frequently, and it puzzles me:
The government should take a solely legal perspective of marriage, and then it's up to the participants to decide about any additional spiritual/religious meaningfulness (or choose not to have any religious component).
isn't that what we have today? how is that different from the current situation? what am i missing?
if we keep the status quo, then . . . gays still can't get married and Californians still vote 52% against us.
I wrote a long post that was deleted by the internet gremlins. It's a good thing that happened, though, because it gave me a chance to read what you added to the bottom of the post.
So you really want to join an institution that has been debased to the point where you can order up a marriage from a guy dressed as Elvis from the front seat of your car? Or do you want equal protection under the law for property rights, next-of-kin, and insurance issues for both gay couples and straight couples?
If this institution "already scares the shit" out of you, then how can you not want to reform it? I, personally, have no interest in any marriage that I might enter into being approved of by any religious institution. Mormons, to use a pertinent example, can certainly be married in their church, in front of their community. Under the "civil unions" that I proposed, you could do the same in your community. But neither you nor your straight Mormon counterpart would be recognized until you went down to City Hall and signed a civil union contract, something that would be open to any two people, regardless of sex or sexual orientation, who choose to enter into that contract.
This would not have any effect on the institution of marriage. All the societal constructs that surround marriage would still be in place, but now they would be managed by the parties engaged in the union and not the government. I certainly do not expect people to begin calling themselves "civil unionized." People would still be married, but now this would be affirmed by themselves and their community instead of by the heavy hand of government.
I know this is an end run. But sometimes you can't run up the middle because the defense has eight men in the box. At times like these, you've got to go around or over the top.
I didn't really intend to set up a "civil union" vs. "really married" dichotomy.
I certainly do not expect people to begin calling themselves "civil unionized." People would still be married, but now this would be affirmed by themselves and their community instead of by the heavy hand of government.
The state HAS to recognize the union legally IF the parties want the protection under law of that union. My community can't stop my evil, homophobic brother (who is a total fabrication. I don't have a brother) from taking my property from my wife in the event of my death.
The state HAS to be involved because if I slip into a coma and I have made my wishes known to my wife that I want to die with dignity, my evil brother can't keep me plugged in. He's not my next of kin, she is.
Even WITH the legal protections of marriage, these things get challenged.
Let religious people form any spiritual bonds they want. Let their communities support them. I don't need a community supporting me or my choices. I need laws, and my government, supporting my rights to make those choices.
I don't think you read what I wrote in the sentences immediately preceding what you quoted. In a civil union, your government would protect your rights and your choices. And you could call your union whatever you want!
You thoughtfully argue here that changing the language of marriage is not the answer, but I think you're missing the point a little.
"[language] is an immovable force that responds to its own rules. Just imagine trying to change it."
As you argue against trying to remodel the language of the debate, you ignore the fact that changing a word's widely accepted definition is just as much "changing the language" as substituting in a new term.
The word marriage is such a powerful one--just as the institution is. So are other words like "husband, wife, family," etc. All of these words would take on at least slightly different meanings and connotations if same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry nationwide.
By fighting for government sanctioned marriage for same sex couples, you already are trying to change the language. I can't see how that point is not abundantly clear to you.
.............
That all being said,
I am not happy about the vote in California on prop 8, but this is not the end of the world. Gay rights activists should focus on winning the easier smaller battles and continue to gradually win over larger and larger chunks of our society. Things like openly gay service in the armed forces are attainable short term goals that will help immensely in the long run.
Look at race relations: the military and sports lead the way on civil rights issues like these.
Right now, you can't be openly gay and serve in the military. We don't even have a single openly gay professional athlete in any of the big 3 (NBA, MLB, NFL).
I don't understand how some people are that shocked that prop 8 passed.
I want everything else called "a spiritual union." If you want the law to protect your and your spouse's rights, go to City Hall and get married. If you want God to bless your union, go to church.
If you want both, go do both.
Why create new language for a state-sanctioned contractual relationship when perfectly adequate language already exists? And again, civil unions already exist, and straight couples may enter into them.
Only gay couples may not enter into a contractual marriage with another consenting, same sex adult.
That's marriage. Not romantic feelings or any of the other fuzzy nonsense that people have loaded it up with. Contract. Law.
Anecdote: Thirty years ago, my uncle was a Lutheran minister in Mississippi. He had been trained in a Missouri Synod seminary up in St. Louis, but was either kicked out or left them for another branch of the Lutheran Church due to theological differences.
Anyway, the powers that be in the Missouri Synod called the relevant Mississippi authorities asking that my uncle not be allowed to perform marriages because of his apostasy.
The Mississippi clerk basically laughed in their faces and said, "Folks, this is Mississippi. I've got self-ordained preachers marrying people here."
From a linguistic standpoint, the problem with calling homosexual pairings "marriages" is that it drastically alters the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness. Throughout most societies and throughout most of recorded history, the core understanding of the meaning of the word "marriage" is that it is between/includes people of the opposite sex. Monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, group marriage--these are not homosexual. This is not a value judgment of heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage--it is a statement about the understood linguistic meaning, not about the spiritual meaning, which of course is impossible to fully define.
It's like the words "bastard" and "gentleman." "Bastard" originally only meant a person born out of wedlock--there was nothing illogical about saying that so-and-so was both a real bastard and the kindest, most thoughtful person you ever met. Likewise, "gentleman" referred to a member of the landed aristocracy--there was no contradiction in pointing out that so-and-so was a gentleman and a scoundrel.
If you want it called "marriage," the forces of intolerance will fight you tooth and nail to prevent that linguistic and legal term from applying to homosexuals. I find this odious, but it is, unfortunately, the way things are.
If all you want is the legal protection, then why do you care what that protection is called?
From a linguistic standpoint, the problem with calling homosexual pairings "marriages" is that it drastically alters the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness.
That is absolutely not true. Not even from a linguistic standpoint.
From the very second that the state got into the business of sanctioning marriage, it became a legal status. Period. There is no argument there.
Don't dictate to me, or to anyone else, what the "meaning" of the world marriage is. Honestly, fuck you! I don't care at ALL what you think it means. I truly, really don't.
It doesn't even MATTER what you think it means, or whether you're attached to a "traditional" definition. Fine. Be attached. Marry traditionally. Go for it.
And if you PERSONALLY don't want to call my marriage a marriage? Go for it. I couldn't care less.
But the state? That I pay taxes to? IS going to call my marriage a marriage.
Get used to the idea. Or don't. But keep your opinions and your definitions off my rights, thank you.
Again and again, according to the state, marriage is a legally binding contract entered into by two consenting adults. That is the ONLY marriage recognized by the state and the state calls it "marriage."
I will insist that, rather than create a secondary category to ghetto-ize gay marriage into, that the state extend marriage to all its citizens. And I and Dave and the many millions of people like us will absolutely triumph in this.
Why? Because if I decide to marry my girlfriend, then I am marrying my girlfriend, and no one, NO ONE, is going to tell me that I am not married but instead am in some other kind of legal relationship that I don't want, and won't accept.
Really, people, get used to this idea. Separation of church and state dictates that they be SEPARATE. The state ALREADY CALLS it "marriage." And I'm fine with that. And all couples who want protections of their unions have to allow the state to MARRY THEM.
That's sort of my point: changing either of the following is extremely hard:
1. the language: getting people to change the word they use in their speech from marriage to civil union.
2. changing the institution.
both are extremely big battles, but #2 is the battle we're after. it will be a hard fight, but it's worth it.
#1 is a tough battle and a pointless one for gay people who want to get married. it is proposed as a solution, but does not solve our problem, and instead diverts our energy. and it enrages our adversaries and would-be allies to boot.
Leeandra, I hope you would rethink language like this, and consider what it suggests to people like me:
. . . the problem with calling homosexual pairings "marriages" is that it drastically alters the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness.
it seems to me that what you're saying applies equally to the word and the institution: and that to change either to include me is to alter them to the point of making them useless.
are you aware that you are repeating the central argument of the religious zealots behind prop 8?
why is marriage--either word or institution--"useless" if it includes me? that is about as offensive as you can get. how would you feel if i i singled out a group you were a part of and found a reason that marriage was undermined in some way if it included you?
your argument is also based on the false premise that these religious zealots keep passing off: that marriage has always been one, particular, unchanging thing, and that we're trying to alter it significantly for the first time, and that means destroying it.
over the ages it has frequently been forbidden to marry outside your race, tribe, class, family . . . all sorts of things. the word and the institution changed and didn't become "useless" as it adapted.
as for the word and this "useless" thing. come on. if we win this fight, and gays can marry, in 20 years when someone asks "are you single?" and you say, "no, i'm married" you think they'll be confused? try any typical conversation where the word is used, and see how it functions. doesn't sound "useless" to me.
let's hear your examples of situations where the word will fail to communicate the intention.
Also "marriage."
Marriage, as defined in the Old Testament, didn't occur until a child was conceived. When you got knocked up, then and only then were you married. We backed off that tradition as well, didn't we?
But I do have a question for you, friend Dave:
Why do you care that people like Edgar or Leeandra agree that your marriage is in fact a marriage? As long as their opinions don't carry the weight of law, I think we should simply regard them as opinions, and allow them to define marriage however they like.
I just don't want them defining it for us. That's all.
this is the "separate but equal" argument attempted ad infinitum through history, but in our recent history with black/white drinking fountains, schools, etc.
the argument goes that as long as we create something equal for you--your own sets of water fountains, for example--then we have every right to forbid you from drinking from ours.
it's the same with marriage: we won't let you "marry" or call what you have "marriage," we'll create this "civil union" thing for you which is exactly like marriage--separate from marriage but equal to it--as a way to overtly exclude you.
why is that a problem? same reason the black water fountains were a problem. black people could get all the drinks of water they wanted, but it wasn't just about the water. by being overtly excluded from the white fountain, it was an obvious insult, a statement everyone could understand that blacks were disgusting and by merely touching the water fountain they would contaminate it.
the message is just as clear with marriage. if you're setting up something exactly like it for us to exclude us from it, there's only one reason to do that: to convey to us and to everyone else that we are disgusting and our very inclusion in it contaminates it.
that is a vile thing, and by accepting it, we accept the degradation and reinforce it.
that's why blacks in the south eventually refused to drink from those fountains, or sit in their section of the bus and all those other things.
oppression has many forms, and this is such an obvious one to most gay people being told we're not allowed in.
its' not about the water.
However, when the term/concept 'Vote" was established in America, it was to be done by wealthy white men. When women, blacks, and the poor were given that right, it wasn't termed "Civic Selection." It's called vote.
Very interesting read, though.
That's a good question. If and when I do find a husband, I fully intend to get married, and call it that, regardless of what the state calls it, or whether Leeandra refuses to use it or acknowledge that I'm married.
It's kind of like right now, being gay. Most of the day on most days, I hang around with people who could not care less that I'm gay, and it makes no difference, and I don't think about it. But then I come across the people who sneer at me for it, and own family members who matter-of-factly say I shouldn't be able to adopt a child, and members on a liberal site saying matter-of-factly put me down in really revolting ways without even realizing it, and I feel the need to stand up for myself.
I'm tired of my society telling me I'm inferior. I'm tired of this particular point of marriage, where they overtly exclude me, which clearly indicates my inferiority. I won't accept it silently.
On forms, where it gives you boxes to check for married, single, divorced (sometimes widowed, etc.), I draw a box, label it "not allowed to marry"and check it. (Not my idea, but I like it.) When asked if I'm married, I try to summon the courage to answer "I'm not allowed." It can be socially awkward, but it's the fucking truth. Why should I silently suck it up and go along with the oppression?
very nice!
i'm going to start using that.
great example. imagine how blacks would feel if, in 1965, they were granted "civil selection" and still had to do that, while the rest of us voted.
and contrary to Leeandra's contention, it didn't make the term "voting" useless. it just included more people, and different types of people.
(i may be misreading something, though. the "however" and the last sentence of your comment suggest to me that you're disagreeing, when you seem to be making my point. i'm confused about one of those, but i'm not sure which.)
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. As I wrote in the post on my blog that this post was written in response to, I don't want the government to let anyone marry. Civil unions won't be "second class" or "ghettoized". They'll be the only available option.
This would require going into the statutes, finding where it says "marriage," deleting the word, and replacing it with "civil union." Marriage is a word that is fraught with baggage for everyone on all sides of the issue, and it isn't reflective of our modern world.
Marriage, in the eyes of the law, would cease to exist. While that might scare some, it would have ABSOLUTELY no effect on marriages that would then become civil unions, other than to change their legal name.
You ask: "Why create new language for a state-sanctioned contractual relationship when perfectly adequate language already exists?"
Well, clearly, that language isn't perfectly adequate if it confines the contractual relationship to one between heterosexual couples.
I guess what I'm saying is, I couldn't give a rats ass about their hearts or minds. I care about the law.
And we know that changing the law won't change hearts and minds, at least not completely, and not for a long, long time.
Their hearts and minds are irrelevant to the law, just as the hearts and minds of of anti-miscegenationists hearts and minds didn't matter when SCOTUS ruled on Lovely v Virginia.
Are there still racists who believe in racial purity? Sure. Would we live next door to them? Not if we could help it. Do they matter legally? Nope.
I think this battle will be fought, and won, by a minority, and in a courtroom. I no longer think it matters what "they" think or feel.
After Tuesday, I no longer care.
There would be no separate-but-equal. There would be no separation! No one could get "married" by the government. We would all be equal under the NEW law that ONLY allows civil unions.
But I'll fight this "civil union" thing tooth and nail, for all the reasons Dave cited above, and all the reasons I cited above.
I don't want civil unions for anyone. I want marriage equality for everyone. And as I think I've made clear, I truly don't care what "baggage" the word carries for anyone. It's their baggage, not mine. And it's irrelevant.
It had nothing to do with your proposal.
And really, I have heard various proposals about how exactly to get "marriage" out of the language and/or statutes, but they all come down to burning down the house so that gay people can't live in it.
In one important sense, you are right that in your proposal there is no separate/equal, because you expel everyone. So we're all now separate and unequal. But Leigh is exactly right that we're still ghettoized outside the thousands-of-years-old term, in whatever form. So we'd rather expunge the word than let you be a part of it. It's still a blatant move to exclude us, even if you have to exclude everyone else to do it. It's still a slap in the face.
As for this: "I guess what I'm saying is, I couldn't give a rats ass about their hearts or minds. I care about the law. " You're going to have to take that up with my shrink. Hahaha.
If only I were kidding, though. She tends to make the same point, and I try to live that way, but the truth is that it does bother me. I shake them for awhile and don't care, and/or forget, but then somebody makes the most insulting statements without even guessing at the implications and it pisses me off.
Or I hear myself lowering my voice at the gym when I'm talking to a gaygay and a certain pronoun or bar name comes up. I hear myself self-censoring, because I'm still afraid of some straightguy's eyes bugging out if he hears the wrong thing.
It wears on me.
My priority is the law. But it bugs me to be looked down upon, too.
Only, I'm not straight. ;-)
But fwiw, I don't think "renaming marriage" is the essence. It's not about redefining marriage as such, it is about redefining the state's role in private matters. It doesn't say marriage isn't marriage, it says marriage, to the extent that it is a religious, spiritual, or emotional matter, is a private matter that the government will stay out of. Different groups can define that as they wish, just as different Christian groups can define Christianity as they wish.
But the legal contract with legal consequences that are enforceable by the state, that comes with marriage - clearly, the government has to define that and it should do so in non-religious terms, which can most easily be done by not using the word "marriage" (which is overwhelmingly defined in religious terms).
I am not saying there are no weaknesses in this position, but the "separate but equal" thing is most definitely not one of those weaknesses.
Taking the state out of the definition of marriage is also a good precedent in so many other ways. It says very clearly that private life really is private and is none of the government's business. Acknowledging a legislative or executive right to define marriage is a really lousy precedent and a beachhead for all kinds of intrusion into private matters, even if you manage to score a definition that's in your favour.
There was another thread, regrettably I have forgotten who authored it, which basically said, "even if you're straight, or don't want to marry, proposition 8 is curtailing your rights." I agree with that, but for different reasons to those that were enunciated there. Proposition 8 seems to me to endorse government intrusion into personal matters, and government regulation of conduct that harms nobody and involves no state interest. That is the biggest objection to it that I can see. It is not that it prohibits gay marriage per se, it is that it acknowledges that the government has any right to impose any definitions about marriage whatsoever. Were I a Californian, I would have voted against it.
But I just can't agree with your reasoning, and I am still not completely happy about a couple of unfair presumptions you made about my position on gay marriage. You are in effect saying that bringing politics and government further into the private sphere will increase freedom. Well, I think that when government intrudes into the private sphere the net effect, for all of history, is almost always to curtail freedom.
Anal and oral sex are still technically illegal in some places. They shouldn't be. Is the solution to have the applicable governments legislate a broad and inclusive definition of permissible sex practices? No, it is to have the government withdraw from this area where it doesn't belong, and have no legislative definition of acceptable sex practices at all.
(I anticipate that you will express offence at me equating oral sex with marriage; let me say in advance that i'm not equating them, I am trying to illustrate a clear example of why it is better to get government right out of private matters altogether.)
In a pluralistic and tolerant society the goal is not really to get universal acclaim or acceptance of particular private choices, it's just to make it clear that those things are nobody else's business. I still think that, in implicitly accepting that the population as a whole (as represented by the government) has a right to define what is and what isn't a legitimate relationship, you are the one advocating the weaker, half-way position.
This, I get. And it's why I live in Berkeley. And why I likely won't leave except in a pine box.
But what if, at the same time, my partner and I want the legal protection that we are undoubtedly entitled to?
Taking marriage out of the government's reach satisfies my needs and frankly I believe still satisfies the hypothetical need you've outlined. But who are you, or who is the majority of the voting population, to say that if I want those legal rights, I have to call it a marriage?
I realise this may seem a little overreaching. But I hope that nonetheless it illustrates a point: like it or not, by demanding that the government define marriage the way you want it defined, you are implicitly acknowledging that it has the right to define it. But it doesn't.
It makes no sense for a word with so much private, religious, spiritual, and emotional significance to be defined by the government, however broadly. The government should stay the hell out of it.
I and my hypothetical girlfriend, however, want to get married.
I and my hypothetical girlfriend, however, want to get married. "
Hmm, there's a whiff of "separate but equal" to that, but I'll leave it to one side except to say that nothing in my position stands in the way of you and your hypothetical girlfriend.
Are you saying you are comfortable declaring that the government has the right as well as the power to define what is and what isn't a legitimate marriage? Are you really sure about that? What other personal matters do you feel the government can legitimately define for all of us?
One more time for the peanut galleries. Listen carefully. This is getting really boring:
Today, legal marriage is a status conferred EXCLUSIVELY by the state. Religious ceremonies do not confer that status. ONLY the state does.
It's a perfectly comprehensive status. Two adults agree to form a legal, contractual union. With that union comes some legal obligations (shared property) and rights (ability to file as a single entity with regard to taxes) and responsibilities (next-of-kin status).
It's fine just the way it is. Except it excludes one group of people.
Include those people? It'll be perfect. Why reinvent the wheel? There's nothing wrong with the wheel we currently have. Just let everyone have access to it.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
I don't have an issue with the creation of "civil unions," if you prefer that to marriage. It can be identicle to marriage if you want it to be, but cannot replace marriage. Because why should it?
I want the option to marry. I couldn't possibly care less about my own personal access to a "civil union" alternative, but if you want it, that's okay by me too.
Just don't use it to take away MY option, the one I want.
"Why do you care that people like Edgar or Leeandra agree that your marriage is in fact a marriage? As long as their opinions don't carry the weight of law, I think we should simply regard them as opinions, and allow them to define marriage however they like.
I just don't want them defining it for us. That's all."
I'm not surprised by this, but only because it's coming from you.
If you go back and actually read my comment, you will see that I was simply making a point concerning the nature of the "changing the language" portion of Dave's argument.
Dave believes that we need the term "marriage" to apply to same sex legal unions and that to accept or promote any other term is detrimental to the ultimate end that he seeks. He backed up his position with some thoughts on the nature of language itself.
Dave wrote, "The government is not in charge of language. No one is, individually. It's an immovable force that responds to its own rules." I took this to mean that changing the language by force does not change the institution.
In my comment, I made the point that no matter how we go about achieving equal marriage rights for gays, we are still in some ways "changing the language." That's what I wrote..
And, implied in my comment was my opinion that this changing of the language is what makes same-sex marriage so hard for so many people to accept (right now).
Dave and I pretty much agree. Take a look at his response to my comment. I am with David and my gay brother and all those fighting for gay marriage rights.
I might disagree with the movements' tactics (as the second half of my original comment suggests), but I am after the same end state as Dave.
I don't appreciate you trying to make me look like a bigot, Leigh.
And one other thing about this thread: please be cautious when comparing the struggle for black rights and womens' rights with the struggle for gay rights. It is easy to see some similarities and easy to draw some parallels (I even did it in my last comment), but the struggles are much, much different and it isn't really fair to act like they aren't.. .
"it says marriage, to the extent that it is a religious, spiritual, or emotional matter, is a private matter that the government will stay out of. . . . But the legal contract with legal consequences that are enforceable by the state, that comes with marriage . . ."
marriage is a legal contract with legal consequences, but it's a private matter the government should stay out of?
huh?
the same line runs throughout your comments: "bringing politics and government further into the private sphere . . . "
how does anyone other than a government enforce contracts and legal consequences. isn't someone who does that by definition a government?
i continue to be baffled by your comments on this from thread to thread jason.
you have some peculiar notion that marriage is and always has been primarily a religious institution, though you steadfastly insist on claiming that by mere assertion, without support, and in spite of your own words repeatedly contradicting it.
you also put this one forth by fiat: "I am not saying there are no weaknesses in this position, but the "separate but equal" thing is most definitely not one of those weaknesses. "
just because you said so?
i made a case for why it is. where's your case for the opposition?
This is the part of your post I took issue with:
The word marriage is such a powerful one--just as the institution is. So are other words like "husband, wife, family," etc. All of these words would take on at least slightly different meanings and connotations if same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry nationwide.
Implicit in your post is the idea that somehow, their relationship changes anything at all about a heterosexual couple's relationship. It doesn't. And it won't.
That's the argument that the bigots are raising. That if I marry my girlfriend, I somehow change what it is to be a "wife." I don't accept that. I am the female partner to my marital partner, I am her wife, she is mine.
My freinds Ed and Gary are husbands.
You're talking about what your idea is of the meanings of those words. There is no inherent, immutable, Platonic "meaning" of wife, husband, family. These are societal constructs. They are not writ in stone universal rules, like E=MC squared.
Neither do I believe that LGBT people should have to wait around to have these rights conferred. I think I was pretty clear when I said I don't actually CARE how anyone else defines "marriage." Not my problem, except as much as how they FEEL about THEIR definition interferes with my rights.
This is a legal question, and it will be decided in a court of law.
whoops. sorry.
this is really well said:
Today, legal marriage is a status conferred EXCLUSIVELY by the state. Religious ceremonies do not confer that status. ONLY the state does. . . .
It's fine just the way it is. Except it excludes one group of people.
---
i didn't grow up imagining the day i civil unionized. i don't think about it in those terms now.
i'm not suggesting i had the fairytale wedding, fluffy dress kind of fantasy. i'm saying i had the fantasy of living with a guy and making a life together with him--fighting occasionally, working it out . . . just like i did with a boyfriend until a few years ago, but for keeps, hopefully, this time.
and there is a word for that, in my head and everyone else's and in our mouths, and it's called marriage. and there are all sorts of legal attachments to it, starting with one of the very first boxes to check on my 1040 tax form: married or single.
you can concoct any scenario you want to create some alternate mirror institution for me, but i'll still go to bed knowing you did it to refuse to let me get married, or to acknowledge that i was married the same as all the other people.
it really comes down to that.
In my opinion, states don't sanction marriage because marriage is a wholly secular matter, they sanction marriage because historically the state has claimed a right to regulate religious matters along with secular ones.
On that basis, the push for gay marriage has uncovered a problem that has always existed but not previously mattered much - the unwarranted intrusion of the state into a religious question. I certainly have a right to prefer that the state steer clear of matters that are not within its proper ambit and I don't feel obliged to accept your argument that just because the state has always regulated who may or may not marry, therefore it always should.
Why reinvent the wheel? There's nothing wrong with the wheel we currently have.
That is a debatable point and it is impolite to say the least to describe anyone who disagrees with it as "the peanut gallery" or claim that they suffer from an "inability to understand" you.
Even if people argue, I think erroneously, that marriage has always been a secular, state matter and not a religious one, it is still undeniable that it sits very, very much at the intersection of church and state, and that it is currently a matter for both. Whther the dividing line is in the right place, or has even been clearly drawn, is a matter of legitimate debate and just because the debate bores you doesn't mean that you're right, or that those who disagree don't understand your point.
I question the right of the state to dictate who may or may not enter into a marriage. If you want to talk about being a little blind, or having unconscience resistance to simple ideas, maybe we could also talk about it in this context. You say that you want the state to acknowledge your marriage. That seems fair enough on its face. But I wonder whether you are asking the state to do something that it does not, in fact, entirely have the right to do. It certainly has the right to recognise the secular aspects of your marriage - the contractual, business side of it. Is that enough of what "marriage" is to justify the state's sanction? Dubious, because there is very much more to marriage that the state should not be allowed to comment upon at all.
FWIW - and I am only mentioning this since you saw fit to denigrate the intellectual bona fides of everyone who disagrees with you, as well as expressing boredom with them - I have noticed that when I start thinking, "these people just don't understand my simple idea! they must be unconsciously resistant to it!" it sometimes means that I myself am missing something, have made an unwarranted assumption, and need to listen harder. Not always, but often enough to give me pause.
But there is NOT consensus about whether or not it should be called "marriage."
In this, I don't think we'll need consensus. I think the courts will decide that it is marriage and should be called marriage. And I think (obviously) the courts are right about that.
It may seem like semantics to you and others, but Dave is right. It's not.
Because it's not just about the water. Or the word. It's about exclusion.
"Many of these people, for whatever reason, truly feel under attack. They feel their institution is under attack. So don't attack their fucking institution!"
That's just nuts. Sorry, it is. *They* feel under attack!? Give me a break. I just had to cancel my marriage plans. I'm not feeling terribly sympathetic to the poor, oppressed, heterosexual Christians, right now.
I'm with Leigh. It's marriage. Let Leigh and her hypothetical girlfriend get *married.*
It's not that difficult a concept. We have one word with two meanings: one a sacrament with God, the other a legal contract with benefits conferred by the state. Even Christians can figure that out, right?
Take the word, "pen." Now, maybe you write with one. Me, I keep my chickens in one.
One word; two concepts.
Dave, you're an appeaser. It's about power. We have to TAKE it; it won't be given. And we take power through the enactment of LAWS, whether by legislation, initiative or judicial precedent. Hearts and minds will follow. That's how it happened for Blacks...
It is very deniable.
You may be a person of faith, and therefore would only feel truly “married” through a religious ceremony.
I am an atheist. My marriage is exclusively secular. There is no “intersection of church and state” in my marriage.
It certainly has the right to recognise the secular aspects of your marriage - the contractual, business side of it. Is that enough of what "marriage" is to justify the state's sanction?
Yes. That would be just fine. I am an athiest. To me there isn't anything OTHER than secular aspects that I would require the state to be involved in. And that’s all I’m asking.
Dubious, because there is very much more to marriage that the state should not be allowed to comment upon at all.
Like what? Name something. There may be considerably more to YOUR marriage than you want the state to comment on, but that doesn’t mean there is, or has to be, more to mine. I am free (or not) to marry whom I choose, for any reason that I choose.
In your argument and in Edgar’s, there is a bias that I think neither of you recognizes In a nutshell, this is what I think it is:
Marriage is what YOU believe it is. Anything outside of that definition cannot be called “marriage.” Or shouldn’t.
I say, marriage is a secular, legal contract, when it comes to the state. I say, the actual inner workings of my marriage, or yours, or anyone else’s, are nobody’s business but our own. You can involve the church if you want to, but it doesn't make your marriage any "realer" or more loving or more legitimate than mine.
So from a straight but ardent support of gay rights, thank you all, and particularly David and Leigh for so carefully parsing the language used with this issue, and thereby identifying valuable nuances and perspectives. A most thoughtful and thought-provoking thread.
We're asking for the legal part, their church can decided anything it wants on the sacramental part.
And I get how you feel with this: "*They* feel under attack!? Give me a break. I just had to cancel my marriage plans. I'm not feeling terribly sympathetic to the poor, oppressed, heterosexual Christians, right now."
I know I'm pissed off, and I don't have an actual husband lined up. I would REALLY be pissed if I were you and actually had to cancel a wedding.
I also get why it would seem "nuts" that they seem under attack. I was never quite buying that until I started covering Evangelicals. It was one thing to interview them, but I got a different take once I actually enrolled in bible study at one of their churches right after Columbine. (It was actually Joan Walsh's idea, and I'm grateful to her. BTW, my first instinct was to do it sort of undercover, but Joan said I should be up-front. It worked better that way.)
That was just the start, but an eye-opening start. They quickly got used to me being there, and I was shocked and kind of puzzled to hear that they DID feel threatened. They feel like they're getting creamed in the culture wars. They did even right after the election of Bush, and the R Congress.
They speak of living in "a post-Christian world." They feel they are marginalized and ridiculed. They feel that liberals control the popular arts (films, TV shows), and most of the country rolls their eyes and laughs at them, and/or sneers at them.
Frankly, there's a lot of truth to that. Don't we?
They also do feel the family is under attack, and not just from gays or even mostly from gays, but by porn, promiscuity, divorce rates, and a shitload of other things, many of which have a strong basis in fact and statistic.
I personally think that the gay-fear is a strange boogeyman thrown in there. They have a different sort of revulsion and distrust of us, which got lumped in with all the other cultural changes that came of age in the 60s.
What I'm saying is that their overall fears are real. Perception is reality: if they feel threatened, then their fear is real. I also think there is some legitimate basis for some of it.
I think we are wise to try to help the moderates untangle that and realize we're not a/the real threat to them. When someone is afraid of you, you don't improve the situation by screaming at them more loudly.
---
Now I'm certainly not suggesting that be our only tack.
I think we need to proceed on two tracks:
1. Changing the laws.
2. Winning the hearts and minds.
On #1, I cheered the CA court, and when I met Gov Patterson during the DNC I personally thanked him for making the outside-NY marriages legally binding in NY. (Which he did by a series of executive orders.)
I am all for marching ahead and demanding our rights.
I think that is the best course, but also comes with lots of danger. It's dangerous to get out too far in front of public opinion. Backlash can be a killer.
It's the same concept as warfare in Iraq or Vietnam, or anti-terrorism. You can only do so much by force. If you don't convince people and bring them along, there will be hell to pay.
I think the two go hand in hand. Every state where we win the right in court, and force it on people, they discover that it doesn't undermine marriage. The action brings opinion along after it.
But that only works if they are somewhat amenable to it already. We can't do nothing but shove it down their throats.
I think it is working well that the most liberal states are granting it, one by one. The country is getting dragged into this one step at a time, year by year. There's such a thing as grabbing too much too soon.
If Alabama did it too soon, I think there would be hell to pay.
I would prefer the pace a bit faster, and I sure as hell thought CA was ready. This is a setback. But the overall course is right. And the more we can do to win people over the better. Scaring fearful people is not wise.
How fucked up is that.
I'm not too worried about getting ahead of popular opinion. That's what courts are for.
Marriage is what YOU believe it is. Anything outside of that definition cannot be called “marriage.” Or shouldn’t.
Not at all. And just for the sake of disclosure, I am an atheist myself. I am not taking issue with any particular definition of marriage. I am taking issue with your willingness to attribute to the state a right to define what marriage is at all.
Is it really all very well for the state to define private things as long as it does so inclusively? I guess that the state could set out a definition of love, a definition of sex, a definition of commitment, a definition of faith... as long as it does so inclusively enough that anyone can sign the love, sex, commitment, faith forms.
Such definitions would not necessarily be discriminatory. They could include all the many varieties of love, sex, faith, etc. But they would go beyond the state's legitimate ambit.
That's a fact.
Now how far marriage falls into the private box, as opposed to the box of things in which the state has an interest - that is a matter for legitimate debate.
Consider divorce. There was a time - and in some places probably still is - where the state was seen as having a right to define what conduct does or does not constitute "grounds" for divorce. I think it is fair to say that by today's standards, in so doing, the state was entering into a private realm where private standards should apply. Thus we have no-fault divorce and what I would argue is a retreat, by the state, from the private arena of marriage.
I am arguing that the state should take still another step along that progressive road, and acknowledge that it has even less right to adjudicate marriage. You are saying that the state should assert a right to intrude into this area - provided, apparently, that it does so in the ways you personally find pleasing.
YES! jason, for about the 20th time in multiple threads, yes, that is all gay people are asking for: for the state to recognize the secular/contractual/business part: the only part it recognizes for anyone.
I don't know if you lived in Colorado when Amendment 2 reared its ugly head. A hateful amendment aimed at discrimination against gays (created out of none other than Colorado Springs). The language was confusing and it passed. Eventually the Supreme Court overruled it, but the damage and pain it caused still continues. I fought hard against that amendment, and that amendment, as well as a very powerful personal experience in a hospital in SF (http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=20021), changed my life profoundly. Because I was a "born again" at the time, I ended up leaving the church and lost many friends. It was well worth it. Count on me anytime to be part of your many friends who believe in your right to marry.
And Dana, if it wasn't clear, I really valued what you have to say.
As for appeasing, I'm a bit of a waffler. I get REALLY angry sometimes and rant and just want to grab some people and shake them.
But I also look at a 52-48 defeat, and think, "Shit, we were so close. How can we win over just 2 percent more of the people? How do we keep moving ahead in other states?"
I look at the Pew research that has been tracking this for more than a decade, and we're on a steady course for success, but we've had some ups and downs. I want to think about how we keep moving those numbers us.
I also think that this fight goes hand in hand, with some others, especially gays in the military. (And also with some damn movie stars and pro athletes getting the balls to come out--especially the men. Lesbians are more accepted by a lot of straight people.)
It's still a distant concept for too many people, and the more institutions we get them over the hump the better. When generals and war heroes and football players turn out to be homos, that busts some of the stereotypes and the discomfort.
I personally think that Ellen's self-outing was a watershed event. So was the Brokeback film. Popular culture is extremely important, and by getting gays into the mix, we normalize it, and that's the underlying mover.
We need to be working this on every front.
Authorizing officiants purely on the basis of a religious qualification is discriminatory. A hard core atheist may be unwilling to be ordained. Similarly, a devout person might be unwilling as well. Any one who does not have beliefs that prevent them from ordained purely for expediency can become an officiant for free in 5 minutes.
Regardless of what we call the status, the distinction between civil marriage/union and religious marriage would be clearer if the government alone retained the right to authorize officiants and did not have a religious test that allowed automatic authorization.
Using the same word for both the civil and religious institution is bound to cause to trouble among people who can not grasp the concept of separation of church and state. I don't think the vocabulary is likely change so the confusion will persist. The difference between civil and religious marriage is really not an intellectually challenging concept but in a county where critical thinking is often not valued or even disdained, it's not surprising that many people can't grasp it.
I got to Colorado just after Amendment 2 passed, and boy was it gloomy here. That really cast a pall over everything gay. The gay bar owners were furious at HRC and others for years for popularizing the term "The Hate State," because apparently it really drove a lot of gay people away--or rather stopped them from coming. Colorado was/is growing rapidly, and there had been a steady influx of gays, which they claim came to a screeching halt. (It has since returned, thank God.)
The day the supreme court overturned it was like New Years here. I've never seen such joy and relief in person. It felt very much like what I saw on TV when Mayor Newsum first allowed gays to marry in SF, and then when the court allowed it again.
I think that's one of the things that gives me hope. I've been here through the dark times, and we progressed.
The court had to force the state to drop it, but today it would not have passed. (The damn marriage thing did, but at least it was close.) The thing about the marriage fight is that it actually solidifies some of our earlier gains.
Ten years ago, we were fighting over basic discrimination: getting fired, beat up, etc. That fight is not over, but we have won the fight for public opinion on it. Healthy majorities now say we should be treated equally, and at least believe that in theory, even though they won't go there in practice.
There are still a hell of a lot of athletes and more important public figures who are in the proverbial closet though. It's a pity. The number of people for whom it is an issue is dwindling, but I guess may still be big enough to make it too daunting.
There are also a lot of people who are silent about their sexual orientation because they believe it's a private matter. Where this is a genuine principle they hold, I think it is pretty commendable.
I am sorry but my feeling that the issue of gay marriage is qualitatively different from those kinds of issues persists. I guess I am bothered a little that my position is characterised as an anti-gay or anti-equality one when it is not; I feel I am just looking at an even bigger picture. So I apologise for over-commenting again; I know it's annoying.
(seriously, all the non-religious aspects of marriage: money-sharing and joint-property, inheritance, hospital rights of visitation, custody of children, decisions on medical care and death, raising of children . . . on and on and on--many of the core elements of life, and all you can see is the church blessing it?
this is one of the strangest arguments i've heard advanced. but it sounded familiar, and suddenly i realized that i often hear priests speak that way: the church butting into all sorts of things, and that's the only part they see.
perhaps you should consider the seminary.
You want the state out of marriage altogether. I think I understand why.
But that's not a position on gay marriage. That's just a position on marriage.
I disagree, and DO want the state to sanction the contract, and there are myriad reasons I feel that way.
This is a discussion about the way things are now. The state IS involved, but is discriminatory.
Two simultaneous, but quantitatively different disussions. Causing confusion.
I type too fast.
"Civil and religious marriage have gotten blurred because state governments allow any minister or clergy to officiate. . . . regardless of what we call the status, the distinction between civil marriage/union and religious marriage would be clearer if the government alone retained the right to authorize officiants and did not have a religious test that allowed automatic authorization."
it never occurred to me how blurry that simple symbol of a priest/rabbi/mulla officiating could make it. but it sure has tied jason up in knots.
i think you have a good solution to untangle part of it.
i think that's a good long-term thing, but i still think it's really bad time to introduce those sorts of reforms. in the middle of a cultural battle over gays marrying, any change right now will be seen as part of The Gay Agenda, and as part of a coming onslaught to change marriage. not a good time to be fucking with the details, while they have their panties in a wad.
The things that you have listed - "money-sharing and joint-property, inheritance, hospital rights of visitation, custody of children, decisions on medical care and death, raising of children" - most of these are matters that the state needs to enforce. But they are also mostly things that individuals should be able to sign up for without having to say they are married. Why should I have to be married to somebody for that person to have a special right to visit me in hospital? Why should greater parental rights accrue to the married than to the unmarried? Why, in short, should I have to get married to enjoy government enforcement of the many things you've listed?
Dave, I felt that you were ideological and hard on Jason in a previous post on this topic, and I'm afraid it's looking that way to me again. While you may have a different opinion, you seem to immediately assume that anyone who disagrees with you on this precise interpretation is either anti-gay or overly religious or something.
For the record, I think the disagreement is a semantics issue. If you can agree with Leigh on this:
"Marriage, however, is a state-sanctioned, legal union. It's not about love, it's not about sex, it's not about God. It's a contract...
Let's save the word "marriage" exclusively for contracts entered into by consenting adults, period...Let's call everything else "spiritual unions."
then how can you disagree with people (not necessarily Jason here, but more like the "well-meaning but misguided" people about whom you based your post) who simply want to use different words in place of Leigh's? They want to put "civil unions" where she has marriage and "marriage" where she has "spiritual unions."
As far as I can tell, the only difference--and I agree one could make the argument that it could be substantial--is in whatever meaning and tradition lies in the language. That is, since "marriage" has been around and meant a lot of things to people, then you might argue that it and not a new "fake" word should be the more universally applied, legal word. But please don't dismiss this argument as completely outside the realm of logic or thoughtfulness. For all that "marriage" brings with it (positively for gays in your view), applying that word universally also represents a pragmatic hurdle that some feel would be better walked around than jumped. You know, save the energy for the more meaningful fights, etc. I think your position on this borders on the ideological, which is always lovely in the intellectual but usually an action-stopper. It's the people who've been willing to compromise on just getting the same rights who have actually moved forward.
I'm not sure what I personally think on this--I move around on it and sort of get all the arguments. Just wanted to weigh in at this moment while thoughts were scurrying around up there in my head.
Jason,
You seem like you sincerely want gay people to prosper and I have no idea of your motives, and they seem sincere and merely an attempt at intellectual exploration, though oddly in an fervently anti-intellectual manner, in my opinion.
I don't think you have said anything obscenely anti-gay like you did in that other thread, though I'm still wincing from that. (I don't like being characterized as inferior because I'm homosexual.)
But it is a big problem for me that you back what seem to me as phony arguments of our Religious Right which rewrite history and mischaracterize our current world to claim marriage as fundamentally religious.
You go well beyond even our proud anti-gay leaders like James Dobson and the FRC. Even they only claim that marriage has a long history intertwined with religion. I don't believe even they try to make the case that you do that the secular/legal/contractual/social (ie, all the non-religious) aspects of marriage are trivial. (I have never heard anyone make such an argument.)
You do get this "marriage is the realm of religion" argument is their chief weapon against gays in this fight, right?
So when you take the arguments used by the anti-gay hate mongers, and advance them one step further . . . well, it makes me shudder.
It may not be your intention to keep the ban, but that's the effect of your work. (I also think your argument is absurd, and you steadfastly refuse to back up it up with anything more than your assertions and restatement of your "opinion"--opinions are a lot more convincing with data and/or an argument. you argue lots of things, but leave the basic assumption unsupported.)
That accusation is just beyond the pale for me. I bit my tongue when you suggested I should "try out for the seminary" and I can accept being accused of being "fervently anti-intellectual", even by someone showing far more signs of throwing an emotional tantrum than I am.
But this accusation that I have made obscenely anti-gay remarks is an unacceptable personal attack.
Over and out.
Dave, when I talked about taking time to consider the idea of moving towards a European model of having both civil unions and religious marriages for all (gay and straight), I wasn't implying that you had reached your ideas quickly. I meant that it may be needed for the country to consider it more.
I think the fact that it has been debated so vigorously here by people who actually are all on the same side proves my point. It's not an idea that can simply be dismissed as untenable. People will keep coming back to it as a proven resolution to this problem (proven in other countries). It has to be grappled with, rather than decreed to be unworthy of even being considered.
I also liked Lainey's post about pragmatism vs. ideology. I'm a card-carrying pragmatist, even though I can be an idealist as well.
1. I see you addressed the semantics angle. Very well, I might add.
2. I also see, and find interesting and insightful, your notion that if we did do the "name reverse" thing, calling marriage "civil unions" and limiting "marriage" to religion, then the fear-mongers will really feel like we're attacking their institution. However, you overstate that case when you say, "It means that I have to concede to my opponents some people on my side trying to blow up their institution." But do you see that this is not true, precisely because you've so eloquently described that marriage is a concept and goes far beyond language? In other words, people on your side are in fact not trying to blow up their institutions, they're just trying to blow up the semantics that describe them. Nobody on this side is trying to change the concept, they are merely trying to change the language. You've made it clear that that would be difficult and perhaps out of anybody's control, and I agree, but you go too far when you suggest that those suggesting that alternative are trying to blow up the concept of marriage.
3. More than ever, I'd like the link to that previous post where you and Jason hashed this out. He decidedly did not say anything remotely anti-gay, and I think you owe him an apology. He is engaging in an intellectual debate with you and has been nothing but upfront and thoughtful. You are insisting that anyone without your precise viewpoint is suspect.
as for the rating thing, try clearing out your browser address line. (you may seem some weird gibberish embedded in there.) delete it and retype open.salon.com -- that has fixed it for me sometimes. (and thanks for the rating.)
I understand how you and silkstone and others get distressed over angry posting on this. I feel bad about doing it sometimes, including in that other thread that I can't remember.
But this is a really tough discussion because it is laced with implications about my worth as a person. I will tell you bluntly that in my experience, a lot of straight people say a lot of things on this issue which they think of as totally innocent and uncontroversial, which, which a lot of gay people hear as derogatory and/or cruel.
Just like at least half of the people who voted for Prop 8 would probably tell you they have nothing against gay people and are all for equality, and blah blah blah. Nothing anti-gay about it. Well I'm sorry, I think there is.
I'm not suggesting anyone on this thread is in that camp, but that things that straight people think are fine are often heard very differently. And sometimes when you unravel that, the speaker agrees that there were some ugly implications, sometimes they do not.
You want to know the truth. There was a statement up-thread, where I honestly felt like punching someone in the face.
I have bitten my tongue so many times. To bring up this issue and to discuss tactics, I know I am going to be insulted--unintentionally, but it still stings.
Never settle until it's equal.
Dave, so you know what I mean when I'm talking about the effects of Amendment 2. I'm glad things are improved, but again, marriage should be a legal option for everyone.
let me respond to this part:
However, you overstate that case when you say, "It means that I have to concede to my opponents some people on my side trying to blow up their institution." But do you see that this is not true, precisely because you've so eloquently described that marriage is a concept and goes far beyond language? In other words, people on your side are in fact not trying to blow up their institutions, they're just trying to blow up the semantics that describe them.
ok, i hope i can do this without getting too lost in the words. here goes.
i was probably imprecise in my phrasing, but here's what i mean: "attack" is in the eye of the beholder. i was responding to this suggestion "The term 'marriage' shall be banned for all ceremonies performed in the State of California. " proponents of Prop 8 would DEFINITELY see that as an attack on the institution of marriage.
they would see it as seriously undermining "their" institution. whether it would or not i think is open to debate, but i think anyone who has spent any time we these people would agree that THEY would see it as a huge attack. a lot of their constituency would as well, and a lot of the moderates they are convincing.
which goes to my larger point. when you're losing 52%, and it's because they are scared you're attacking their institution, why do something they will perceive as even more of an attack?
(unless, of course, you're getting something big in return. i don't see anything i'm getting out of forbidding straight people from using the word marriage in their ceremonies. or any variation on that theme.)
And I bet I know precisely which one it was.
Also, thank you Sandra!
"...burning down the house so gay and lesbian couples can't come in..."
That's the most cogent, succinct re
now i think you're greatly overstating. i got in a fight with one person--partly because he said something i considered incredibly insulting in that other thread, and partly because i find some of his arguments and his habit for making these assertions without support "maddening" as i said in the earlier thread, and he quoted here.
thanks for recognizing that. it stings terribly. i think that is the most painful part.
the one consolation i have is that two of her kids are now in or past college and i know they are totally with me. those attitudes are slowly dying out.
(i don't really want to wait that long, as i'll die before many of them. but it gives me hope for the long, long run.)
And irrelevant. He wants the state out of marriage altogether. That whole concept doesn't belong in this conversation, to my mind, as interesting as it may be in another context.
But he did ask, repeatedly, Why do you care that the state marries ANYONE?
And the answer is, because right now, today, the state will only marry SOME people.
In many ways, Lainey, it's really frustrating to be so misunderstood, to speak at cross purposes like that. It seemed to me, at least, that Jason was so intent upon making his point that he utterly ignored the meta-point, which is discrimination.
Does that make any sense?
The original post opens with: 'When the subject of gays and marriage arrises, I hear a lot of well-meaning people suggest we just impose a term like "civil union" on every marriage and "get the government out of it" entirely, or some variation."'
... and continues at length in the same vein.
You summarise my position as wanting the state to stay out of marriage altogether. How can that be irrelevant in response to the original post?
And contrary to Dave's rather rude allegations, I have not merely made baseless assertions. I have argued that marriage has components in which the state has an interest, and components in which the state has no interest. I have provided examples of both, including the question of "grounds for divorce", in which the state previously asserted an interest but which we now recognise as largely private.
I have also suggested some analogous areas of life which are private, but in which the state used to assert an interest, such as legislated prohibitions on anal and oral sex. I suggested that, as with these areas, the solution to discrimination against some couples is not for the government to legislate new boundaries defining acceptable sex acts, but rather to acknowledge that the area is private and not legitimately subject to state control. It is not that we want the state to sanction these private matters, but rather that we want them to butt out.
There is a conflict with, on one hand, the desire many people hold to have their relationship sanctioned by the state, and on the other, the threat to freedom, and the threat of still more discrimination, that is posed when we acknowledge any government rights over private matters. It isn't anti-intellectual fervour, nor does it seem to me to be irrelevant, to debate the proper balance point between these two competing interests. I have been accused of being obscenely bigoted, blind to simple points, and overly intent on making my own point. In relation to these insults, I say: right back atcha. If you can't acknowledge an argument that (a) there are risks involved in granting to the state a power to define things that are properly in the private realm and (b) that the weight of this risk is at least relevant in response to a post that opens by referring to the self-same issue, then who isn't listening to who?
Yes, I may be suggesting that we burn the house down, but not to keep gays out of it. To keep the government out of it. Marriage currently combines non-private and private matters (yes, this includes but is not limited to religious ones). As a matter of principle, and on the grounds that individual liberty is more precious than state power, I suggest erring on the side of less government intervention rather than more. Am I wrong? Fine, but it doesn't mean that what I have said is irrelevant, nor do I accept that it's anti-intellectual.
And to be clear, although I've said as much before, these are arguments against Proposition 8 as I understand it, not in favour of it.
Also, just by the way, I am not the one who said that 'from a linguistic standpoint, the problem with calling homosexual pairings "marriages" is that it drastically alters the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness.' I am assuming this to be the "punch-someone-in-the-face" statement. If, instead, the p-s-i-t-f statement came from me, let me know what it was and I will explain or apologise.
I'm going to have to give up on finishing all the preceding comments--it's taking way too much time--so forgive me if I don't have the whole picture of what's been going on. I agree with you that Jason was getting into a larger, more philosophical argument, but I don't think it was totally irrelevant. And it really was a followup of a previous, now-phantom conversation that he and Dave had. Mostly, I think the anger coming from you and Dave toward people who are essentially on the side of gays but perhaps more distant from the issue personally feels a bit oversensitive to me. But of course, and why not? I have not lived the issue; it is only an abstraction for me and many others who weigh in, and on balance I feel I must take my cues from those who are quite viscerally living it. In other words, I bow to you on this (and surely you know that I would not have supported Prop 8).
As an observer, though, it occurs to me that for someone close to the issue as you are, both geographically and personally, a dispassionate view might ultimately be helpful in terms of learning what others think. Someone like Jason, whose intellect I hugely admire and whose sensibility I am almost always in synch with, was approaching the issue from an anthropological standpoint. I find that both Edgar and Leeandra, too, were looking at language sort of distantly, without judgment. Dave's grab onto the word "useless" felt disingenuous to me (don't mean to talk about you in the third person, Dave, just that I addressed this to Leigh, so now I'm stuck :); it seemed clear that she was certainly not disparaging him or his sexual preference but suggesting that expanding meanings can render words meaningless. As for Edgar's point that changing the current understanding of a word's meaning is as monumental as replacing that word with a different one, I find that true but not necessarily a prediction of failure, as evidenced by rijaxn's "vote" example. He was being a stickler, I think, more than anything--simply wanting Dave to acknowledge that he would be changing language, one way or another. I get the sense that some people are driven away from a discussion like this because of the emotions involved. I tend not to go away so quickly, but I'm brave that way! I also like to stick around b/c I'm genuinely working out my position as I go along and always want more information.
The biggest mistake many of us are making is forgetting that some people (you two, for example), are really living this nightmare of denigration. And I think something Dave mentioned in his post deserves much more comment: that we should be exploring what people are afraid of, really and truly. My guess is that people genuinely worry about their own relationships or sexual preferences or something. I know when the first close couple to my husband and me got divorced it sort of turned my world upside down. All of a sudden, it was, Wow--can this happen to us, too? I have no idea how this relates; it just feels relevant somehow.
I know that when I feel beseiged (and don't laugh, but it's usually on these two topics: home schooling and gifted programs for kids), I just get overwhelmed with the feeling of being wronged, the feeling that others just don't understand in their bones what I know is true. If that's the way you feel about this, I for one am simply willing to trust you on it and be done. Your position on this is now mine, period.
It does not directly relate to Dave’s original post or most of these comments, but it is a related issue (…and as such, would normally be fair grounds for discussion)…
Dave’s explanation of the legitimate culture war fears (about 7:40 p.m.) is perhaps the best comment in this thread.
Lainey makes some great points in her comments as well.
…………………………..
There are a couple of other things I need to address now that I’ve caught up on the comments after several hours away from the internet.
First off, Leigh: You wrote: “Implicit in your post is the idea that somehow, their relationship changes anything at all about a heterosexual couple's relationship. It doesn't. And it won't.”
This was in response to this statement that I wrote:
“The word marriage is such a powerful one--just as the institution is. So are other words like "husband, wife, family," etc. All of these words would take on at least slightly different meanings and connotations if same-sex couples were allowed to legally marry nationwide.”
Leigh, I think you pulled a Jason here and countered my point with something somewhat unrelated. My words attempt to explain the reasoning behind why people voted for prop 8 and why the meanings of words matter so much in cases like these (again, see Dave’s brilliant culture wars comment in this thread).
You’re right in stating that gay marriage should not and won’t affect a heterosexual couple’s marriage or idea of marriage. But, to say that my attempt to explain how the language concerning the definition of marriage carries as much weight as the use of the term itself (at least in the minds of most California voters) is in no conceivable way a commentary on how same-sex marriage rights will affect hetero couples.
The second thing, Leigh:
You later wrote:
“Marriage is what YOU believe it is. Anything outside of that definition cannot be called “marriage.” Or shouldn’t.”
This was in reference to Jason and my comments (although we were writing about two totally different things and likely have two totally different opinions…for the record, for yet another time, I am with you and Dave here).
Again, I was trying to explain the logic behind the vote—not apologize for it. You clearly have an extremely defined view as to what the term marriage means. From your Berkeley bubble you define those who disagree with your definition as mere idiots. You deem your position as the only acceptable one even though it has not been attained or accepted by the vast bulk of the population. You sound good when you spout your unflinching ideals, but doing so is not the best way to help future generations of same sex couples attain the rights that Tuesday you were denied. (isn’t that what this is really about? A better future?)
I ran into this same closed-mindedness back in our atheism discussions. I don’t even disagree with your definition in this particular case; I just frown upon your strategy and tactics.
Of course, I guess the people who really stand a chance of getting anything done on this front (like Dave) need people like you to make them more palatable to all those folks who voted yes on prop 8.
So I do have to give you some props, Leigh. And you still are my OS “friend.”
Lainey, you explained my original post perfectly.
Both of your (Jason and Lainey) last comments are among the best on this thread, and I guess that is the whole point of this commenting endeavor, right?
The more we discuss, read and listen, the closer we get to real understanding.
(on the third point, i'm a writer for a living. it's my profession. i don't behave disingenuously, and for my profession that's a serious charge. if you disagree with me, that's your right. but how are you reading my mind to know that i'm not speaking what i believe. and of all the examples to pick. that was the most infuriating comment on the thread. if you don't see why or don't agree with why, fine, but you don't even believe that it upset me?)
I realize that the person who made the "useless" comment did not consciously intend to offend anyone. but that doesn't mean she didn't. Nor does it mean that there was objectively no insult in there.
She didn't make some general statement about some words losing meaning, she said that specific word would be made useless by including gays.
(her quote: "From a linguistic standpoint, the problem with calling homosexual pairings "marriages" is that it drastically alters the meaning of the word to the point of uselessness.")
If you can't hear the insult in that, or the implications against our whole argument of marriage equality, well, I guess I see why you're calling us oversensitive.
I cannot speak for Lainey, but my interpretation of her point was that taking such comments as personal attacks and reacting to them with anger does little to help the overall movement.
The goal here is to secure marriage rights for same sex couples.
We've had a setback and I too find myself disappointed, emotional and angry.
Still, now is the time to regroup and move forward (and I interpreted "moving forward" as the impetus behind your original post).
Earlier in this thread I wrote about my reluctance to compare the Black rights movement to the gay rights movement, but I'm going to break my own rule:
The reactionary approach you (sometimes) and Leigh (all the time) have taken here resembles the Marcus Garvey/Malcom X path. This vein may be necessary, but it will only lead to real, positive change if it is coupled with the MLK approach.
I disagree with Leigh when she says that the courts are the answer. We need to focus on winning future prop 8 type events and I think that Lainey backs that idea with her relatively mild criticism of some of your comments (again, I can't speak for Lainey; and Lainey, I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your statements).
I really think that you said it best in your culture wars comment. We need to get the military, celebrities and pro-athletes on board. That should be the short term goal.
Thanks for understanding why I found the "useless" thing offensive.
I really that getting angry is not constructive, but it's hard not to be angry when you get insulted--particularly in the context and timing; which is that the whole reason for the discussion is that the biggest state in the country just slammed us with a huge fucking insult.
So this is a first for me--I'm not quite sure how to react to being called a reactionary or compared to Malcolm X--two firsts. (Nor had I heard Malcolm described as a reactionary, actually. Maybe I need to look up the term again--I thought he was on the opposite side from them, no?)
I can't be objective on myself, and I obviously don't buy it, but I have a bigger problem with that and your other digs about Leigh, who I find incredibly intelligent, patient, and most of all wise.
At this point, I'm not really interested in hashing out the particulars, I just want to express my support for her and the way she has conducted herself, here and elsewhere.
It's been enlightening at times, but it has also been rancorous and emotional, with me obviously being guilty at times on both counts.
I think it's run its course, and I best to call it a day, so I'm closing down the comments.
Thanks for participating.
And equality is the best name.