resurrectionsong

August 05, 2003

Civil Unions

I've made my support of gay marriage pretty well known both in this blog and in comments around the 'sphere. I stand by that support, and I stand by calling it "marriage."

The reason I support calling it marriage is simply for the reason that calling it by any other name is a bit of a social lie. Social lies have their place.

Oh, yes, that is a lovely new hairdo. Yes, you do seem to be losing weight. No, that isn't fido flambé--where did you get that idea?

I think you see what I mean.

This, though, isn't an area where we need the lie. Calling it a gay civil union, but allowing that it has all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage is simply a way to duck the acceptance of a changing social standard in society--and a way of desperately trying to keep that change from occurring. Civil unions are, to my mind, a revival of the "separate but equal" concept that informed many peoples' attempts to keep racism alive and legal.

Embracing civil unions may seem like a big concession from my fellow conservatives (and, in a sense, it is), but to my way of thinking, it's a final ploy to hold off the inevitable change in social acceptance of sexual identity that has been occurring over the last few decades.

A prediction: Reject the supposed peace offering that is civil unions, fight tooth and nail against a marriage amendment, and within a decade a majority of states will recognize gay marriages. Whole hearted acceptance of the civil union, though, might relegate gay relationships to second-class status in perpetuity.

Update: Jay has some great thoughts on the subject, too. Check it out.

Posted by zombyboy at August 5, 2003 07:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Zomby, we share the same position: why give a de facto state of marriage a different name de jure? A marriage by another name isn't one, methinks. Shameless plug

Posted by: O. F. Jay at August 5, 2003 09:58 PM

Actually, a well-placed plug. I don't mind at all.

Posted by: zombyboy at August 5, 2003 10:52 PM

Zombyboy –

I must respectfully disagree. Marriage is not just a social construction. Marriage is tied closely to religious belief and its definition has always relied on that religious dimension, i.e. complementarily of the sexes, procreation, etc. Whether anyone likes it or not, marriage is in fact the union of a man and a woman. This is intrinsic to marriage. If you reject this definition of marriage then what you are asking for when you say you want gay marriage is that you want to create something other than marriage for both gay and straight people. That is change what marriage is. The focus on legalities and inheritance, visitation and all that stuff is not what marriage is about. Those are some of the modern legal benefits of marriage, but are not intrinsic to it. (For instance in the event of a man’s death inheritance used to automatically be the privilege of the eldest son, not the wife.)

Two men or two women do not have the same relationship as a man and a woman. The interaction is different. The physical connection is different, the psychological connection and the emotional need that is filled are different. The gay relationship, while perhaps equal in dignity and worthy of equal treatment under the law, is not the same as a heterosexual marriage.

So yes, have “civil unions” or whatever you want to call it. However, it’s not marriage. It doesn’t mean it is less to not call it marriage, it just means it is different. The separate but equal argument usually gets a passionate reaction form most Americans because of what it means for us historically., I just do not think it applies here.

Whaddaya think?

Posted by: Patrick at August 6, 2003 09:34 AM

Or, reject the entire concept of gay unions (civil or otherwise) altogether and let them realize that society doesn't have any responsibility whatsoever to recognize their living together as anything but that - living together.

In case you haven't guessed, I disagree with you on this one.

Posted by: bryan at August 7, 2003 10:17 AM

Heheh. I might have missed it if you hadn't pointed it out...

Posted by: zombyboy at August 7, 2003 10:20 AM