They say birds of a feather flock together. It’s been 10 years as of today Lynne and I have rankled differently winged relatives.
Now if only everybody were free to enjoy legal marriage. I’m a little disgusted how long it is taking.
Ask just about anyone. They’ll all tell you they’re in favor of equal rights for homosexuals. Just name the situation, and ask. They’ll all say, yes, gays should have the same rights in housing, jobs, public accomodations, and should have equal access to government benefits, equal protection of the law, etcetera, etcetera.
Then you get to gay marriage.
And that’s when all this talk of equality stops dead cold.
Nearly seventy percent of people in the U.S. oppose gay marriage, almost the same proportion as are otherwise supportive of gay rights. This means that many of the same people who are even passionately in favor of gay rights oppose gays on this one issue.
More thoughts on the arguments and excellent resources (links) for further research here.
Congratulations! May you enjoy many more years together!
<
p>Thank you for your thoughtful post.
<
p>On a side note, the Democratic Dispatch is also celebrating it’s Tenth Anniversary this week! More on that in tonight’s Dispatch.
<
p>Kate
I thought sure I had seen polls with more optimistic numbers on merriage than a 70% opposition rate. Also, they can’t really claim they favor equal protection if they don’t favor marriage because from a legal standpoint the word “marriage” basically constitutes a whole package of legal protections. I suspect that many are still hung up on “marriage” as a religious term and that if you asked do you support marriage and/or civil unions with ALL (not most) of the same protections you’d get close to majority support.
… this letting them get away with this hang-up on the term represents a mis-framing of the issue. “Marriage” is certainly a term used in many religions. It is also a term used by the state with a legal definition. Similarly, “Church” is a term used in many religions and is also used by the stat with legal definitions. Claiming that same-sex couples’ use the term “marriage” is legally offensive is no more justifiable as to make the same claim for the use of the term “church” for any particular religion. Objections to just the term are tantamount to claiming religious ownership of language. Backing that up with the force of law is very problematic to say the least.
Mr. Lynne, I’m sure that the converse of your penultimate sentence there is also true: Insistence on the term are (at least viewed as) tantamount to claiming exclusively secular ownership of language, which is why the word itself seems to generate so much more heat than the legal concept it describes.
<
p>This would be a great reason in my mind to jettison the term from government outright. It would be quite beneficial for the word marriage to describe a ritual or celebration, religious or non religious, that has legal effect whatsoever. That way, the word will mean to everyone whatever they wish. Government Could then deal only with civil unions, which simply describes a legal arrangement with tax, inheritance, and other legal connotations. “Civil union” is itself dry legalese, devoid of emotional content–perfect for use by government and in statutes, and to be ignored outside those contexts.
<
p>
The state doesn’t claim exclusivity of language. There is now rule or law that says any religion (or anyone at all) is bared from their own personal definition of “marraige”, “citizenship”, “person”, “brother”, “sister”, etc. The state simply makes no claim. That one might have personal definitions that disagree with legal definitions for the same terms is just par for the course.
<
p>The state of affairs now is that a word can mean whatever you wish. There are no dictionary police out to enforce a particular definition.
<
p>I agree that taking the word marriage out of the legal contract for all couples would fix the problem, but I don’t think it should be necessary – it cedes ground to religious authority dictating the language of secular government. Wrong message. Placating a hissyfit is not the way to go.
I don’t think it is so unreasonable to conclude that the term is a religious one, that has been usurped by secular government, and has been for a very long time. Yes, people should be able to distinguish one word with multiple similar meanings, a phenomenon not otherwise unknown in English, but yet do not, in this context and in others.
<
p>
Insofar that the secular government had an interest in marriages (even if it’s only taxes), then it is right and proper for the government to enact for itself a legal definition. It’s not improper unless there isn’t a good reason for the government to make a distinction. Truth is that historically, religion and government weren’t really separate for a long time. Showing up on the festival of Saturnalia wasn’t just your religious duty, it was a civic one as well. As this religion/government thing split, it is only natural that terms and ideas needed representing on both sides. So I think usurpation isn’t an apt adjective.
First off…congrats on the anniversary!
<
p>I just wanted to throw some more recent stats into the mix. Gallup actually polls annually on opinion regarding equal marriage. They recently released their 2010 poll and the numbers were 53-44 (oppose-favor). Back in 1996 when Gallup first polled about equal marriage, the percentage opposed was 68% (perhaps that’s where the above number comes from) and only 27% were in favor.
<
p>The silver lining in the above is that the 53% number ties for the lowest opposition to equal marriage recorded by Gallup.
<
p>And a fascinating tidbit from the poll:
<
p>”In the most recent poll, Americans who said religion is “very important” in their lives opposed legal same sex marriage by 70 percent to 27 percent. Americans who said religion was not important supported gay marriage by a similar margin, 71 percent to 27 percent.”
Do you happen to have links to those polls?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128…
<
p>Another interesting tidbit in what Gallup calls the bottom line:
<
p>Bottom Line
<
p>Over time, Americans have become more accepting of legal same-sex marriage, and a growing number of subgroups now show majority support for it. However, religious and conservative segments of the U.S. population remain largely opposed — even though their support for gay marriage has also increased in recent years. Because religious and conservative groups are larger than nonreligious and left-leaning groups in the United States, overall, more Americans remain opposed to, rather than in favor of, same-sex marriage.
…religious people are NOT monolithicly opposed to marriage equality. The United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Association both favor marriage equality, then there is the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry. I’m not suggesting that you were suggesting religious people were monolithic on this issue, but given how public discourse works it’s so easy to assume that to be the case that it’s worth the reminder.
It is likewise not accurate to treat specific denominations as monoliths, as views on matters such as this may vary, official positions notwithstanding.
…but right now the point was to stand up for the religious in general and Christians in particular who DO believe in marriage equality.
Congratulations, y’all!
… for the sentiments.
and thanks for both of your truly awesome contributions to this site — and to the state!
<
p>And we forgive you for the times you use each others’ screen names. đŸ™‚
Separate laptops now. I don’t have to steal his!
Lynnux?
… finally noticed this comment. We’re both running windows, but my brother runs Linux exclusively now (3 or 4 machines).