Is the debate about marriage equality really just a debate about a word?
Shakespeare gives us an example of marriage being thwarted by a word rather than substance. Juliet thinks that the only problem with Romeo is that he's a Montague and she imagines that all objections to their marriage would disappear if he simply had another name. "What's in a name?" she asks, "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
Juliet is right about roses but wrong about Romeo. The problem with Romeo isn't what he's called, but what he is. He'd still a Montague even if he changed his name to Smith or Jones. And if he hadn't been born into the Montague clan, meaning that he didn't have the genes that he has, or be raised as he was, where he was, with the parents and other cultural influences that he recieved, then he wouldn't be the Romeo that she loves. The substance of things and the names of things are not always as sepearable as Juliet wishes.
To say that same-sex couples should stop fighting for marriage and accept some other word that carries the same benefits makes several mistakes:
First, no other word carries the same benefits. The word marriage includes a set of intangible cultural meanings that do not transfer to another name. To be married is to partake of a centuries old cultural institution respected as the cornerstone of society that sustains families and orders our sexual lives. No legislation can give Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions that status.
Second, accepting a different name grants that marriage is an important word to one side of the argument, but implies that the word is not important to the other side of the argument. That's the position of marriage equality foes, and they're wrong. Marriage equality foes think same-sex couples disagree with them about the importance and sanctity of marriage. But we agree with them, which is why we're fighting for marriage and not something else. Marriage is important. Marriage needs to be protected and strengthened. Same-sex couples aren't fighting against marriage, we're fighting for marriage. it's the Civil Union and Domestic Partnership laws that threaten marriage by creating a weaker alternative instead of demanding the full legal and cultural weight of real marriage.
Some people who reject marriage for same-sex couples say they would support domestic partnerships or civil unions. A Field poll of California voters released today found that given three options 45% are in favor of marriage equality, 34% support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples but not marriage, and 19% favor no legal recognition of any kind for same-sex couples. That's good news, but support for Domestic Partnerships has grown precisely because gays and lesbians have been asking for marriage and folks now see Domestic Partnerships as the compromise, moderate position, where it used to be seen as radical.
And Domestic Partnership still is radical in some places. Recent events in Utah show that support for Domestic Partnerships as a compromise on marriage is not as strong as it seems. Following Proposition 8 the LDS church published a statement saying it was opposed to marriage for same-sex couples but not against gay and lesbian rights in general. Their statement listed several rights they would support including hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights. Taking them at their word the group Equality Utah introduced legislation called the Common Ground Initiative covering exactly those issues. And the LDS church failed to support the initiative, which has now failed in the Utah legislature.
A solution that proposes giving up the word marriage in exchange for legal recognition imagines that a compromise is possible on this issue where compromise is not possible. Just as in Brown vs. Board of Education where the U.S.Supreme Court realized that segregated schools was a failed compromise that had satisfied the bigots but failed to provide equal education to children, giving up the word marriage might satisfy the bigots (although apparently not in Utah) but would not actually provide equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples and would weaken an already imperiled important cultural institution.
What's in a name? In this case, a lot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Ricky,
I have given your eloquent and impassioned arguments some thought since you posted this. I was, and still, am very favorably impressed by your response to my question/suggestion regarding the use of the word "marriage". As much as I respect your point of view here I am not yet convinced that it is "impossible" to compromise on the use of the word "marriage". Here is my point by point response to your arguments presented in good faith and with respect. I look forward to your response to my counterpoint to your arguments -
:Is the debate about marriage equality really just a debate about a word?
Needless to say this is not the case, nor did I suggest that the marriage equality aka gay marriage debate is just (i.e. only) a debate about the meaning of the word marriage. Still, in that the word "marriage" has been traditionally defined and/or interpreted as meaning a union between a male husband and a female wife, debate about the very meaning of the word "marriage" is necessarily part and parcel of the marriage equality debate.
After giving some further thought to it I am not sure that your Romeo and Juliette analogy works as well as all that Rick. Obviously my suggestion that using a word other than "marriage" to define "gay marriage" is in alignment with Juliette's suggestion that if "we call a rose by any other name, it would smell as sweet." The received "cultural influences" of the word "marriage" strongly support the common belief that the word "marriage" is not as separable from the quite universal interpretation and definition of marriage as you and other marriage equality advocates would like. It may well be true that no other existing word "carries the same benefits" but this does not mean that another word or phrase cannot be created that would carry all the same benefits as the word "marriage". As I have pointed out, one of the very tangible and quite universal "cultural meanings" of the word "marriage" is that it is an union between a male husband and a female wife (or indeed multiple wives and vice versa of course). There are very few historical exceptions to this rule and the few that exist seem only to prove the rule as they say.
:To be married is to partake of a centuries old cultural institution respected as the cornerstone of society that sustains families and orders our sexual lives.
This is true, but for those centuries (to say nothing of a few millennia) the cultural institution of marriage has been commonly and all but universally interpreted and defined as a heterosexual institution. It is for precisely this reason that I believe that it may be of some benefit to those seeking marriage equality to seek that equality under a name other than "marriage". I honestly believe that "a rose is a rose is a rose" even if you call it a teapot as it were. Conversely I am not big on redefining words that have well-established meanings to mean something else. For example I am not a fan of how Humanist U*Us use the word "God" in ways that don't really mean a Deity or Supreme Being. "God the way I mean it" almost never actually means God in any traditional sense of the word "God". Using a word other than "marriage" to define a relationship between same sex couples that carries all of the benefits of marriage under a different label may well pave the way for acceptance of marriage equality amongst people who are open to same sex unions that are in all respects equal to marriage but are none-the-less uncomfortable about calling those unions "marriage".
:No legislation can give Domestic Partnerships or Civil Unions that status.
If Civil Unions carried all the legal rights and social benefits of Civil Marriages what status would be missing?
:Second, accepting a different name grants that marriage is an important word to one side of the argument, but implies that the word is not important to the other side of the argument.
I am not totally convinced that it does Ricky. In fact if people seeking marriage equality acknowledged the fact that the word "marriage" has traditionally meant a heterosexual union, and that preserving and upholding this traditional interpretation and definition aka meaning of the word "marriage" apparently is quite important to many heterosexuals who may not be otherwise opposed to marriage equality, and thus agreed to give that "rose" another name to define same sex unions that are in all other respects fully equal to marriage, more people might accept marriage equality.
:That's the position of marriage equality foes, and they're wrong. Marriage equality foes think same-sex couples disagree with them about the importance and sanctity of marriage.
*Some* marriage equality foes think same-sex couples disagree with them about the importance and sanctity of marriage. And let's face it Rev. Ricky, *some* GBLT couples do disagree about the importance and sanctity of marriage as do *some* heterosexual couples. Not everyone is big on the importance and sanctity of marriage and/or monogamy. The Unitarian*Universalist religious community has a subset of members affirming and promoting polyamory for example. Many long-term heterosexual couples forego religious marriage ceremonies and even forego formal civil marriage. Here in Canada there are many "Common Law" couples. There are also a good number of homosexuals who are far from enamored of the institution of same-sex marriage, indeed some homosexuals are opposed to "gay marriage" precisely because they perceive "marriage" as an exclusively heterosexual institution.
Full disclosure - I am not the world's biggest advocate of monogamy myself. I believe that adult human beings are fully capable of genuinely loving more than one other person and are capable of negotiating long-term relationships that are not monogamous. I guess that puts me more in the polyamory camp than the marriage camp, although there is this thing called an "Open Marriage".
That being said, those people who do firmly believe in the importance and sanctity of marriage, and want it for themselves, have every right to get married and enjoy exclusively monogamous relationships if that is their choice in life aka their chosen fate. ;-) My point is that the overwhelming, universal, and millennia old, cultural interpretation and understanding of the word "marriage" as being an entirely if not exclusively heterosexual institution may be an unnecessary obstacle to same-sex couples who seek the legal and social equivalent of marriage. I still believe that if marriage equality advocates were to give their "rose" another name that the societal hurdle that needs to be jumped over would be somewhat lower. How much lower it might be I don't really know but it might be significantly lower, quite possibly low enough to easily jump over it the next time that marriage equality is put to a democratic vote in a state, province, or nation.
:But we agree with them, which is why we're fighting for marriage and not something else. Marriage is important. Marriage needs to be protected and strengthened. Same-sex couples aren't fighting against marriage, we're fighting for marriage.
I do understand and respect that point of view Ricky, even if I am not all that big on marriage myself.
:It's the Civil Union and Domestic Partnership laws that threaten marriage by creating a weaker alternative instead of demanding the full legal and cultural weight of real marriage.
That may be so Ricky but there would be no Civil Union and Domestic Partnership laws if there were not a large number of people who wanted Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships rather than "real marriage". Your use of the phrase "real marriage" brings us back to the fact that many people, who may not be all that opposed to the "rose" of "gay marriage" under any other name, none-the-less seem to believe that "real marriage" is an exclusively heterosexual institution and thus do not want to vote in favor of the word "marriage" being legally redefined to include same-sex unions.
:Some people who reject marriage for same-sex couples say they would support domestic partnerships or civil unions. A Field poll of California voters released today found that given three options 45% are in favor of marriage equality, 34% support domestic partnerships for same-sex couples but not marriage, and 19% favor no legal recognition of any kind for same-sex couples. That's good news, but support for Domestic Partnerships has grown precisely because gays and lesbians have been asking for marriage and folks now see Domestic Partnerships as the compromise, moderate position, where it used to be seen as radical.
These statistics may actually serve to prove my point Ricky, or at least strongly support it. If I read these figures correctly 79% of Californians support some form of "domestic partnership" aka "civil union" for same-sex couples, only 19% are totally opposed to any kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples. I can't imagine that the 45% of Californians who are in favor of full marriage equality would vote against "gay marriage" under another name, but I have reasonable grounds to believe that a good number of the 34% of Californians who support "domestic partnerships" but not "marriage" for same-sex couples might actually accept "gay marriage" if it was presented to them under a name other than "marriage". I can understand how you and other marriage equality advocates might not want to compromise when you are not *that* far from obtaining a 51% vote in favor of marriage equality, but what would you rather have? A 51% vote for "marriage equality" or a 60% to 70%, or possibly even 80%, vote in favor of "marriage equality" aka "gay marriage" under a different name/label than "marriage"?
As far as the Utah situation goes compromise on the word "marriage" may not make enough of a difference anyway, but it could make the difference in other states where there is a split in the vote between those who favor "marriage equality" and those who support "civil unions" but balk at "marriage".
:A solution that proposes giving up the word marriage in exchange for legal recognition imagines that a compromise is possible on this issue where compromise is not possible.
I agree that there are situations in life where compromise is either impossible, unviable, or "less than advisable". I am not yet convinced that this is one of them. You have made an eloquent, impassioned, and generally well reasoned argument in favor of not compromising on the use of the word "marriage" Rev. Ricky, and I understand and respect where you are coming from, but I still believe that compromise on the use of the word "marriage" to describe same-sex unions that in every other respect are equal to "real marriage", except for the name "marriage", is not only possible, but quite possibly even advisable in terms of gaining the proverbial "prize" that you and other like-minded people in same-sex relationships have set your eyes upon.
:Just as in Brown vs. Board of Education where the U.S. Supreme Court realized that segregated schools was a failed compromise that had satisfied the bigots but failed to provide equal education to children, giving up the word marriage might satisfy the bigots (although apparently not in Utah) but would not actually provide equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples and would weaken an already imperiled important cultural institution.
Are the 34% of Californians who support "domestic partnerships" aka "civil unions" for same-sex couples but, for whatever reason, can't quite bring themselves to vote in favor of "marriage" for same-sex couples "bigots" Rev. Ricky? I would like to think that most if not all of them are not "bigots". It seems extremely unlikely that any homophobic bigot would ever support even "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples. N'est-ce pas? I think that to some degree you are comparing rotten apples to almost ripe California oranges here. I guess The Fruit Avenger slipped in there a little bit. ;-) How would legislation that actually did provide genuinely equal rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples, but did not use the word "marriage" to describe such same-sex unions, serve to weaken the important cultural institution known as "marriage"?
:What's in a name? In this case, a lot.
I very much agree in principle Rev. Ricky, but obviously from a somewhat different perspective. It seems to me that there is indeed a lot of centuries old, and even millennia old, heterosexual "cultural influence" invested in the word/name "marriage" that causes a good number of good people to have some difficulty in accepting a redefinition of that word/name to describe same-sex unions when they might otherwise be quite open to marriage equality if the word "marriage" was not used to describe such same sex unions. To come back to your Romeo and Juliet analogy, if Montague is analogous with marriage, it is Montague/marriage's ancient "genetic" heritage, how Montague/marriage was raised over the years, centuries and indeed millennia, and Montague/marriage's "cultural influences" that make the word "marriage" inextricably linked to heterosexuality in many people's minds. It is not really a question of Romeo Montague changing his name to Smith or Jones or indeed Capulet, so much as Romeo Montague being "less than comfortable" with a Smith and/or Jones calling themselves a Montague. At least that is the way I see it.
In light of recent UUA concern about cultural appropriation and/or cultural misappropriation it occurred to me early this morning that *some* heterosexuals who are not opposed to GBLT people having equal rights may nonetheless feel that use of the word "marriage" to describe civil and/or religious unions for same-sex couples is a kind of "cultural misappropriation" since marriage has a quite universal centuries old "cultural heritage" of being considered to be a union between a heterosexual husband and wife. I am not really saying anything new here, other than to place this issue within the context of perceived, or indeed actual, "cultural (mis)appropriation" of the institution of marriage by same sex couples. I am convinced that *some* heterosexual people, primarily married couples, see things this way and thus balk at voting in favor of "gay marriage" or even "marriage equality" when they would be quite open to same sex couples having rights and responsibilities fully equal to heterosexual married couples if a word other than "marriage" was used to describe them. I could be mistaken in this belief, which is based on a rational assessment of the facts by someone who is not really an "interested party" in this issue, but I am reasonably confident that this is true enough.
Post a Comment