Why Don't We Accept "Marriage" Under a Different Name?
Dear Lesbian Life:
I am a 31 year old first generation heterosexual (but bi-friendly) Mexican woman. I grew up here in Venice California and I currently live with my boyfriend. I am a choir director and music teacher at two different Catholic parishes. I am very surprised that Proposition 8 passed and I am so touched with the peaceful protests that have been happening. Especially the one at the Mormon temple, it's about time someone stirred up their bubble!I am curious to know if the gay community has ever proposed making civil unions equal to marriage, or to create a new "word" for their "marriages." I seem to find that many religious people are hung up on the actual word, and not the union, or so they say.
Dear Straight Ally,
Thanks for your support and for writing in. Actually, you bring up a really good question. I will do my best to answer it.Why don’t we just call marriage something else, like civil union or domestic partnership? That’s a very good idea and some gay and lesbian people do support that. But I don’t and here’s why.
Even if we did create a federal civil union that had all the rights of marriage, that would not be enough. Why? Because we would be creating a separate class of citizenship.
In fact, a study from the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission found that even with the same rights, civil unions are not equal to marriage. The report found civil unions "perpetuate unacceptable second-class legal status." ...keep reading...
©Audra Albrecht
I think the best way to answer that question is to ask it of your relationship-would you be happy if you were told that you could only get a domestic partnership with a man? I actually support making that what the government gives to everyone, but as things stand, you’re asking one group of people to be happy with less than what you get. why is that fair?
I am a lesbian and I think EVERYONE, gay, straight, whatever, should have civil unions under the law, and whatever they want to call it (marriage, etc) under their church or other religious institution. If marriage is too loaded of word religiously, I think we need to get it out of the government alltogether. Separation of church and state please!!
I would love to hear others comments on this idea! Anyone?
oops, lol, i didnt read all of what kb(1) said — I clearly agree.
I think the simplicity of your response, was brilliant, Kathy. Straight friends can’t seem to understand that it doesn’t matter whether I want to get married or not, it’s being able to choose, that is important. Here in Australia they have just change the laws so that “same-sex partners” can be legally recognized as de-facto relationships. This now means that in government and legal matters our partners are recognized and entitled to the same benifits as a married couple. Is this enough. My straight friends seem to think so. They are surprised when I say No. While it is a huge step forward it still doesn’t give me the same rights that my friends take for granted, the right to choose.
I just wanted to let other readers know that I personally wrote the email in response to the all the people who come up and me stating that they have a problem with the marriage word (besides other things). I want to give them a reply from the mouth of a gay person, because I am not gay. I have never thought twice about the marriage word and I personally do not feel as if I, being a hetoro, am the only one who has the right to marriage. I can’t wait until this country catches up with other parts of the world that recognize gay marriage.
Please don’t make me feel unwelcome, I support the cause, thanks.
I totally agree with kb2’s comment. The government should be giving out civil union licenses, not marriage licenses. If a couple then wants to follow up with a religious ceremony, that’s their prerogative. There are churches and synagogues that marry same-sex couples. Under the current system, these houses of worship are not equal under the law. How is their marriage somehow less valid? The holiness of their service less sanctified?
Let’s have true separation of church and state here–civil unions for all.
You know, I have been thinking about this and I do have a few other thoughts.
I completely understand not wanting to be “separate but equal”, and completely agree that this is ideal. But I wonder if maybe we are asking for too much too quickly?
For God’s sake you can still be fired in Texas for being gay, I know different parts of the country are in different places on this issue, but maybe if we ask for a little bit at a time, it will be easier for people who dont understand.
Plus, my gay friendly/supportive best friends, didnt even know you could get fired in Texas for being gay!! They are surely opposed to that. And I was talking to some friends in a gay bar about it and this gay boy overheard and was like, “really?” People clearly arent aware this is an issue and I think ALOT of people would be supportive if they simply knew it was a problem…
I dont know, maybe we need to rethink our strategy? Use the old tactic of “ask for something small, once people are invested in that, they will give you something bigger”?? Its like that experiment:
Foot-in-the-door or the “sequential request” theory means using a person’s self-perception to motivate them to partake of the desired action. When an individual complies a first time, they perceive themselves to be helpful. If they are asked to comply a second time in an even greater way, she is likely to consent. In an effort to maintain consistency with the first impression and with their own self-perception, they agree to give even more of themselves.
A1966 study by psychologists Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser highlights just how effective FITD is. In their study, a researcher posing as a volunteer canvassed a California neighborhood, asking residents if they would allow a large billboard reading “Drive Carefully” to be displayed on their front lawns. So they’d have an idea of what it would look like, the volunteer showed his recruits a picture of the large sign obstructing the view of a beautiful house.
Naturally, most people refused, but in one particular group, an incredible 76 percent actually consented. The reason for their compliance was this: Two weeks prior, these residents had been asked by another volunteer to make a small commitment to display a three-inch-square sign that read “Be a Safe Driver” in their windows. Since it was such a small and simple request, nearly all of them agreed. The astounding result was that the initial small commitment profoundly influenced their willingness to comply with the much larger request two weeks later.
Maybe the gay movement should take a lesson from this experiment?
It is just a thought…obviously there are alot of people who work on this day to day, so maybe they have a better strategy…
I know its not perfect, but I would prefer a long term solution that sticks instead of it being such a push and pull, one step forward, two steps back all of the time…
I dont know. I am definitely no expert.
I do hope we have total equality one day
We can’t accept anything less than marriage. Why should we? Just because some people don’t like us. Regardless of what you call it. Those people will never accept Homosexuals, on any level.
I am an American citizen. I pay my taxes and I am a Californian. So, on June 21st…I got married. It is soooo nice not to be labeled “single” in the eyes of the law.
I just can’t believe that a “liberal” state like California has voters who voted “yes” to prop 8. I personally think that the campaign was misleading and a bit confusing. Its almost as if they wanted people to think that “yes” vote meant yes to gay marriage and not “yes” I oppose it. Very misleading with the adds too!