John and I might not be providing that most descriptive example or valid facts (there IS only three tiny panels, after all) but I would like to throw out the question here to all of you; is “marriage” what we really want?
Now, I’m a little bias, and I’m not even beginning to deny that, yes, in any and every context, there are gay men and women who want marriage. I am not one of them.
What it really comes down to is one of those extremely silly language debates — but for me, “marriage” has a lot of history and cultural expectations to it already that don’t jive with what I see as a healthy relationship. Maybe two different types of unions, say “marriage” and “civil union” is just what we need: one is more conservative, the latter is more liberal, modern, and not limited to homosexuals. What if marriage was reserved for those who LIVE for their partner, believe in monogamy in its fullest (and there for, adultery is an automatic grounds for divorce), and all that other feel-good stuff that been around forever. Civil unions, on the other hand, are just that: unions that are civil (crazy, I know). The couple is not tied to what a traditional marriage might expect; maybe different living situations, no strict monogamy, all the legal benefits, and obviously, same sex is allowed. Now, this probably sounds a little too willy-nilly at first, allowing people to “civil union” over and over with no consequences, but I don’t think it would be so bad. The fact is, marriage is already a sham, so why not be, well, civil about it.
Now, again, the term marriage could be all encompassing and include both of these…but it just doesn’t sound good to me. Let the conservatives have their marriage — we’ll just be over at the cool party next door.
Now discuss.
In most respects I agree with you: I’m all for secularizing marriage and setting civil partnerships on equal playing with marriages. The problem I have is that ideology and language DO matter in this debate. As long as both civil unions and “real marriages” exist together, there is an inherent value judgment in the rhetoric, there is the implication that since you can’t have the real thing, frozen yogurt is almost the same and pretty much as good as ice cream. “I, mind you,” say’s Larry Lawmaker, “will be enjoying my fill of delicious, natural, god’s honest ice cream over here. No, you can’t have any. It’s only for me. Have your frozen yogurt–yuk frozen yogurt. But since it’s the best you can get, I guess you’ve got to eat it.” I’m not a fan of marriage (I hate it when people get married, actually, I think it’s silly), but separate rules for separate groups has never turned out fairly. Let me choose ice cream or frozen yogurt. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.
Hmm i myself have always been hopelessly romantic at heart and wanted to grow up and find the person i want to spend the rest of my life with and have a dream wedding etc. But through the last 2 years i have matured alot, become much more sexually active and started to question this. As i write this i am happily sitting next to my boyfriend who i have been with for 5 months. But i don’t know if i could marry him and be with just the same person for say 10 years. I’d feel like i needed some freedom. So I do agree maybe there should be a more liberal alternative as you suggest…
Although i do also agree with Andrew on the whole name thing, if you have two seperate terms it will be seen as the ‘lesser’ thing :S
The problems associated with having both civil unions and marriage are compound. First, would you maintain that civil unions and marriages should be granted the same legal rights, status, and privilege? If so, then I would argue that there is no point in separating the two. To have two different legal contracts available, which provide the same exact protection and legal status, seems awfully reminiscent of the “separate, but equal” doctrine that governed race relations in this country for so long. History has shown that, when it comes to legality, “separate” is rarely, if ever, “equal.”
Second, even if we could get past the separate but equal notion that providing both civil unions and marriages would create, we must recognize that creating another legal contract (which is all marriage is in the eyes of the State) would only add a level of bureaucracy to an already inscrutable system of government. What benefit would exist in adding further governmental control over the lives of citizens?
Third, and perhaps most glaring, is the fact that you argue that asking for same-sex marriage is just a “silly language debate,” yet you engage in the same thing yourself. By arguing that “marriage” should be for traditional relationships who value monogamy, yet “civil unions” should be for more liberal relationship (which, to me, sounds like advocating open relationships and non-cohabitation), you are basically setting yourself up for a hypocritical stance against the “silly language debate.” What is to stop someone from having an open relationship in a “marriage?” Adultery is grounds for divorce, yes, but one must remember that divorce is a decision of the parties involved in a marriage, not an edict from the State. Many couples have open relationships in a marriage, and it works fine for them.
Please note that I am not calling you a hypocrite. I am merely pointing out the inherent contradictions in advocating for separate legal contracts while taking a stance against those who want the same word, “marriage,” to apply to all.
In the end, there is no inferred, nor implied, benefit to a couple choosing a “civil union” over a “marriage.” Allowing such separation of contracts merely adds a further level of governmental oversight and control, while providing no tangible benefit to those involved. If it is merely a matter of terminology, then call your relationship what you will. We can both enter in to the same legal contract with our significant others, yet one of us call it a marriage while the other calls it a civil union. There is no need for the government to legislate what terms we use in daily vernacular.
it’s not about the definition of marriage though; it’s about not being discriminated against in terms of legislation etc.
Getting two commitment phobic men to marry. I mean we should have the right, but come on.