Political rant

[cnoocy]

Apparently the right has their, um, undergarments in a twist over the idea of gay marriage. It's just so dumb. Though I suppose if I can make an electronic copy of a song and that counts as stealing from the person who still has the original, then for, say, Ian McKellen and his partner to get married somehow reduces the power of my cross-gender marriage. Feh, I say. If you want to defend marriage, enact the following law:
A couple who wishes to become married must allow two weeks to elapse between getting their marriage license and their wedding. At no point during this period may either of them appear on a television show that deals in any way with their marriage. That deals with attention-seeking celebrity marriages and marriage reality shows. It means it's harder to elope, too, but I don't know that that's a bad idea. I suppose I'm actually fairly conservative about the purpose of marriage, but liberal about relationships.
Perhaps I've offended somebody.that would be interesting.

Comments

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

I have no doubt that the intention was otherwise, but, well, this looks like a good way to start a flame-war in the comments section of your livejournal. Indeed, your last sentence seems to indicate that you wouldn't mind if it happened.

My opinion in part (and probably in the most relevant part) is as follows: Regardless of one's political/philosophical/religious affiliation, it is not practical (and I can't see it being desirable either, from a legislative standpoint) to enact legislative differentiation between heterosexuals and homosexuals. That being said, gay marriage is not the same thing as marriage is under the traditional definition. Perhaps it should be assigned to a perfectly good word looking for a meaning - perhaps "kwyjibo"?

[cnoocy]

I'm not too worried about my 24 readers starting too much of a flame-war, and I enjoy people conversing about ideas, which is what I would find interesting.
I certainly would agree that there is already a lot of baggage on the term "marriage" and I'd be just as happy if the term was stricken from civil law to be replaced with a term like "kwyjibo" or "civil union," (meaning "a union of two [polyamory argument skipped for now] people, permanent in intention, in terms of the law") leaving the definition of the term "marriage" to society and religion. However, I can't say I personally have any semantic issues with the application of the terminology of marriage to single-gender couples. We didn't have to come up with a new word when it became legal for people of different races to marry.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Kwyjibo already has a meaning.

For that matter, so does "marriage." I'll cite a few relevant, and extremely interesting, dictionary definitions in a moment, but for the time being, let's say that the word means something like "the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of the law and society for the purpose of forming a family." In that case, you're correct that "gay marriage" does not fall under this definition, and is indeed something of an oxymoron...but are you right in saying that it "is not the same thing as" marriage? Because I would beg to differ: I would say that in fact "gay marriage" is the joining of two people in the eyes of the law (once it is legally accepted) and society for the purpose of forming a family.

[Side bar: what counts as a family? Gay couples can't have children. Well. Except that lesbian couples can. And gay couples could adopt children. And of course some straight couples can't have children because one of them is infertile. And some choose not to. I can't see anything that makes 'this man and this man who will not be having children but who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together' any different from 'this man and this woman who will not be having children but who love each other and wish to commit to a lifetime together' in terms of what counts as family-forming. Sidebar over.]

So yes, we could just define a new word such as "civil union" that would apply equally under the law to gay and straight couples (and perhaps some day to groups larger than couples). But "civil union" is a sterile legal term, and "marriage" is a seven hundred year old word which carries much more societal meaning to it. It's becoming a part of that meaning--indeed, becoming a part of that society--that (many) advocates of "gay marriage" are interested in.

---

And as promised, a few interesting definitions. Webster's Third New International defines marriage as, in part: the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family (specifically in fact leaving "polygamy" open as a possibility), and in part as the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife.

The 10th Collegiate (1998 printing) used exactly the same wording as the first quote above. The 11th Collegiate (2003 printing) defines marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, and after that as the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.

Interesting, isn't it?

(Split into multiple comments due to length)

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

Tahn/ry said:

... but for the time being, let's say that the word means something like "the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of the law and society for the purpose of forming a family." In that case, you're correct that "gay marriage" does not fall under this definition, and is indeed something of an oxymoron...but are you right in saying that it "is not the same thing as" marriage?

To which my comment is:

I think that from a sociological and psychological viewpoint, you will find that heterosexual and homosexual life-sharing commitments will turn out to be very different in their day-to-day operation. I will cheerfully stipulate that this is an opinion based in ignorance as I have yet to participate in a life-sharing commitment. I base this conclusion on the assumption that men and women, while equal, are unique and differ fundamentally in the way they think, feel, and experience things. (I am aware that research bears this out at least partially.) A committed relationship where there is fundamental similarity between the two partners in this way will of course be different than a relationship where there is mutual differentiation.

Aside from that, I think you'll find that there is some legislative value in the distinction, even for those who are the strongest advocates of these unions. For one thing, it makes it far more difficult for legislation to be challenged in court based on the long-standing definition of marriage, and far more easy to apply sensible precedents. Similarly, it would render much less complicated the procedure of adapting things like divorce statues to reflect the existence of this second kind of civil union.

Hmm.

[lilisonna.livejournal.com]

I would say here that /people/ are fundamentally different in the way that they think, feel and experience things. It falls to each unique couple -- or trio or quartet or whathaveyou -- to work out how they will balance their needs within the relationship.

As an utterly random example: I am incapable of putting away silverware. To both of the significant partners in my life fell/falls this particular task. For "putting away the silverware" you may substitute any number of other quirks, beliefs, opinions and feelings. One may, perhaps, generalize out that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples may typically find different balance points, but the same is true of any other sociological grouping. Couples from Spain are likely to be different than couples from Poland. Does this mean that their marriages should be classified differently?

As for finding legislative value in the distinction, I both agree and disagree. Yes, if we make "Gay Marriage" into a Civil Union (with all of the standard marriage trappings), you can neatly duck around any "defense of marriage acts" that may be written. However, it also puts gay couples in a different category than straight couples, and part of the entire point of this push is to get over that silly distinction. A committed relationship between consenting adults should be the same no matter who the adults in question are.

Re: Hmm.

[cnoocy]

I was about to post something rather similar. It seems to me that we dodge a whole mess of issues if we make both "Gay Marriage" and "Het Marriage" into Civil Unions, not to mention put ourselves on better church-state separation grounds (not that US Constitution amendments apply out of the country).

Re: Hmm.

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

I would say here that /people/ are fundamentally different in the way that they think, feel and experience things.

Well-put. To emphasize: Gabby claimed that heterosexual and homosexual life-sharing commitments will turn out to be very different in their day-to-day operation. Even if this is true, and even if it's true that hetero- and homosexual life-sharing commitments differ in ways that heretosexual commitments do not differ among themselves (and I'll say explicitly that I very much doubt that that is true), I cannot see how hetero- and homosexual commitments will differ in any way relevant to the issue of "lifetime commitment for the purpose of forming a family."

As far as the question of ducking the difficult issues: to my mind, part of the purpose of the gay-marriage movement is to face the difficult issues head-on and overcome them.

Re: Hmm.

[cnoocy]

Not to discount the wisdom of facing difficult issues head-on, but I worry about the hypothetical situation where the threat of legalized gay marriage is used as a lever to push through a constitutional amendment that outlaws civil unions, partner's health insurance, and other "legal affects of marriage." I think my point is that steady progress (cf. Civil Rights Movement) will often have a better long-term effect than sudden government-imposed change (cf. Reconstruction.) That said, I'd be very happy if MA's SJC came down with a pro-gay-marriage decision.

Re: Hmm.

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

As far as the question of ducking the difficult issues: to my mind, part of the purpose of the gay-marriage movement is to face the difficult issues head-on and overcome them.

I should note here that, should it not be possible for the gay-marriage movement in the short term to "overcome them" - which I am reading here as "overcoming the resistance to gay-marriage, and the various real-world implications of it" - this could be a huge mistake from a tactical point of view. This battle has very much been one of influencing public perception. If the public perception suddenly of their demands changes from reasonable (e.g. equal status) to unreasonable (e.g. unmerited special treatment), for instance, people who are content to have a "live and let live" attitude will suddenly start to rethink their approval. (Some of this is discussed in the article I wound up confirming my memory of the poll on last night.)

Of particular interest in this regard: despite the targeting of "Fundamentalist Christians" as the big bad boogeyman preventing the full societal accommodation and validation of homosexuality, my (admittedly limited) experience is that (broadly) people who endorse "traditional values" and/or ar doctrinaire right-wingers are strongly against it, people answering roughly to the description of "liberal academic" and/or are doctrinaire left-wingers are strongly for it; most other broad categorizations of people may have leanings to one direction or the other, but fail to register as a unified bloc.

It is one thing, tactics-wise to depict religion as bigoted, judgmental, intellectually inferior or what have you - this has been happening with various degrees of desrvedness since at least as far back as Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter" - but it is another thing tactically speaking, to depict Joe and Jane Sixpack this way when they have reservations they feel are legitimate.

I can see why it would be ideologicaly superior for the gay marriage movement to take the "total victory" approach, but the fact that this approach allows for little if any public difference of opinion as legitimate may be too big of a hurdle for it to overcome.

Re: Hmm.

[cnoocy]

Do you happen to know what the Sixpacks' reservations are? Do they consist of a (n understandable) desire for change not to happen so fast, or is there another side to it?

(part 2)

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

Tahn/ry also said:

So yes, we could just define a new word such as "civil union" that would apply equally under the law to gay and straight couples (and perhaps some day to groups larger than couples). But "civil union" is a sterile legal term, and "marriage" is a seven hundred year old word which carries much more societal meaning to it. It's becoming a part of that meaning--indeed, becoming a part of that society--that (many) advocates of "gay marriage" are interested in.

To which I comment:

For illustrative purposes, suppose the following: sometimes I wipe my nose on my hand or my sleeve. Whether I do this due to the effects of heredity, environment, or both, I'll leave this to scientists to haggle over (although the question will probably remain subjective forever). To many people out there, the idea of making contact with one's own mucus is gross; one has to have a certain tolerance for sliminess to be comfortable with it, for instance. People who are uncomfortable with slime and the other trappings of this are revolted by the idea (go figure).

Now, I have every legal right to do this, and even do it in public. Except for the (sometimes significant) emotional and social discomfort I am casuing others, I am conceivably hurting no-one but myself, and even that is arguable.

Given the above hypothetical situation, I ask the question: at what point does my right to not be discriminated against because I wipe my nose on my sleeve give me the right to seek, beyond mere tolerance and accommodation, the right to universal validation against of the practice of wiping my nose on my sleeve? Keep in mind that this validation is against the will and natural inclination of segments of the rest of society, and at the cost of severe distress to some of them.

As for "civil union" being a different term than "marriage", Is this really a problem. (And by the way, you suggested the term. I suggested "kwyjibo" (though I was unaware it acrtually meant something. Do you have a dictionary citation for it?)) Consider the word "adopted" with respect to children. It's a very useful word, concept, and legal distinction, and in many case its simple use has helped ease the stigma that a child may face being born out of wedlock (excuse me, familial bonding) or in other situations.

Lastly, Tahn/ry cited:

The 10th Collegiate (1998 printing) used exactly the same wording as the first quote above. The 11th Collegiate (2003 printing) defines marriage as: (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage, and after that as the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.

Interesting, isn't it?

To which my comment is:

Interesting, yes; surprising, not really. The purpose of a dictionary is usually at least somewhat descritivist, describing the meanings of a word that one can expect to find in a significant subset of citations, even when those meanings are self-contradictory. Without having access to the full bank of citations, it's difficult to ascertain who is using the word in this way.

Does this reflect common usage? It depnds which subset of people you are conversing with. I was a little surprised to hear on the suppertime news here that a recent US poll indicates that close to half of the US population does not think same-sex relations should be legal (never mind civil unions). This is still so after numerous years of openly legitimizing influences in intelluctual arenas, entertainment and the media.

(Come to think of it, I find it interesting that close to half of the population admits to essentially believing in some form of right and wrong, and particularly one that applies to the sexual mores of consenting adults, but that's a completely different debate in at least some senses.)

Re: (part 2)

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Gabby said: I suggested "kwyjibo" (though I was unaware it actually meant something. Do you have a dictionary citation for it?)

No. Naturally I have no dictionary citation for it--nor do I have one for "letter bank," a term which I think Gabby wil agree also already has a meaning. For reference to the meaning of "kwyjibo," see, for instance, http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/1011/kwyjibo.htm.

As far as the fact that ["Adoption" is] a very useful word, concept, and legal distinction, my point, which I've said in other comments, is that there is no need to make a distinction in this case. Specifically there is no need to make a distinction between homo- and heterosexual lifetime commitment; whether there's a need to make a distinction between a couple's legal commitment and their religious commitment, and whether "marriage" blurs that distinction...I'm less certain on this point. I wonder, though: is there a movement among atheists to change the term "marriage" for their unions, because of religious meanings of "marriage"?

[fuldu.livejournal.com]

I think the difficulty here is that, no matter what you believe, the implementation of any sort of pertinant law is a legislative nightmare. On the one hand, as homosexuality has become more accepted in American society (and I emphasize more, since clearly it isn't yet accepted fully), the idea of passing a law defining marriage as opposite-sex runs the risk of creating the kind of firestorm that right now looks about two days away. On top of that, the idea of passing a Constitutional amendment (which I doubt would be necessary in the short run, but see the comments in my recommendation below) is beyond ludicrous and is only going to become more difficult with time.

But, there are two prominent ways of implementing same-sex marriages that have been suggested. The first, which I would support, is just calling a marriage a legal bond of two people, regardless of their genders. The country is not ready for this, even if there are certain areas of the country that might be. The second, civil unions, opens the whole can of worms that tahnan mentions about laws differentiating straight and gay relationships. To me, any law like that has a tint of "separate but equal" and should be approached very, very carefully, even if it is, as I feel to be the case, the only one that would actually be implementable the federal level under current conditions.

My recommendation to either side would be just to leave it alone and make sure that your guy gets elected in '04. Unless a Constitutional amendment is enacted, which would semi-permanently fix the outcome, this is a question that is going to be decided by the Court regardless of what legislation is enacted. Don't bother wasting time, energy, and political capital on pushing the legislation through when the Justices will be making the final decision. Use those resources in making sure the Court has a balance that will make the decision you want to see.

In another vein, I really like Ballad of Mary Magdalene, cnoocy, but I prefer the cover by Dar Williams on the Cry, Cry, Cry album she did with Shindell.

[cnoocy]

You're right about this being an issue that will eventually go away. And I certainly don't think that my tiny journal is going to suddenly convert the Pope. I do think that use of the word "marriage" makes this issue more difficult in some ways, and that a more useful (but still impossible) legislative solution would be to remove the word from the civil sphere entirely.

[cnoocy]

On the musical side, I agree a bit about the version. I actually got to see Kaplansky and Shindell perform "By Way of Sorrow" this weekend, with Tracy Grammer standing in for Dar. I've been listening (via iTunes smart list) to our entire music collection, and that just happened to be up when I was finishing the post. Since I still have about π days of music to listen to, and I think the Cry³ version has already played, it'll be a few more weeks before I end up listening to it while blogging.

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

The more I think about Fuldu's prognostication, the more I am convinced he is right (about the issue or issues involved being settled by the Supreme Court). I'm willing to prognosticate even further: I expect the legal issues being decided will eventually involve freedom of religion. Also, due to the US constitution's protection of freedom of religion, the court will be forced to decide whether (from a legislative standpoint) homosexuality is determined from heredity, environment, or a combination of both. As this is an open question from a scientific point of view and it is likely to continue to be, the idea of it being decided from a legislative standpoint is a little ludicrous, but that's what this is going to come down to.

belated response

[(Anonymous)]

why does the "cause" of homosexuality have any bearing on the subject of gay marriage? under the us constitution you are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or religion. under the americans with disabilities act you are not allowed to discriminate against handicapped people.

race is genetic. religion is environmental. those both have equal protection. some handicaps are genetic. some are environmental. same protection.

do people really like the idea that society can tell you who you can get married to? sure, it's just a man and woman now - but maybe it should only be a fertile man and woman? statistically, more black people end up in jail. maybe they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

if alice wants to form a commited relationship with eve, and adam wants to hook up with dave, good on them. they should be able to get the same rights from the state as frank and gertrude.

poly was mentioned above and i think the legitimate complaint about that is that it overcomplicates the courts when the partnership breaks down. marriage as a civil institution (which grants a couple certain rights two single people on their own lack) is logically justified to assist in childrearing. one or two parents are sufficient to raise a family so the state only goes that far. the costs (in terms of court time and expense) of a civil union of 3 or more people breaking up would be too high compared to the benefit society might gain from their child rearing.