OK, I’ll admit it: I’m really irritated with the headline currently on the home page of the University of Texas–”Gay Couples View Marriage as Legal Protection, Not Commitment Symbol, Study Shows.”
The story describes a study undertaken by researchers in the Department of Sociology, and includes this little tidbit:
According to the study, more than half of the respondents deemed commitment ceremonies as unimportant and pointless. However, all except for one of the participants said they would legally marry if they could, indicating the importance of legality for same-sex couples.
“Although trends regarding acceptability of ceremonies have shifted, most of the couples in our sample find at this point in their lives, formal public ceremonies are not practical or substantial enough in legal and social meaning to warrant their participation,” Reczek said. “However, if legal marriage were accessible, nearly all couples would participate for the legal, financial and social benefits.”
That may be the most romantic thing I’ve heard since a long-departed colleague married her longterm fiance because they were moving to another state and it would have been too much trouble to prove their common-law status so that she could get on his insurance.
I know that the spirit of the article is basically this: because of the newness of the idea of gay marriage, most couples have made a committment to each other in some way, either formally or informally. Ray and I haven’t ever done anything formal, and we don’t wear rings, but I feel like we’ve made some sort of commitment to each other (haven’t we, honey?). So, yes, among a certain subset of the gay population who’ve already made that commitment, the act of marriage really is just about making it official in the eyes of the law.
However, I’m waiting for someone out there–let’s say, a Bauer or a Dobson–will pick up this survey and wave it around as “proof” that gays are just trying to “redefine marriage” for the insurance benefits! (I have the same problem with the phrase “redefine marriage” that I do with right wing Christians who proclaim that “Islam is trying to take over the world”–their real concern isn’t that gays will redefine marriage or Islam will take over the world; it’s that they’ll do it first, before they have a chance to do it themselves.)
Fortunately, Michael Steele (dear God, is that a porn star name or what?) has already decried gay marriage as a threat to small business for that very reason, so we don’t have to worry about the Republican party pushing civil unions anytime soon.
While, I suppose the survey isn’t saying anything that a lot of us don’t already know–but it doesn’t take into account the next generation who aren’t partnered up yet (the survey specifically looked at couples) who are looking at the gay marriage movement and are planning their lives accordingly. I guarantee that a good number of them aren’t going to be looking at marriage solely for the insurance benefits. Perhaps the next time our Sociology Department does a study on gay marriage, they could do well to remember that.
As it is, I have to wonder if they’ve done a bit of a disservice to the gay marriage movement. Marriage may be about formalizing a relationship and gaining legal status before the law, but let’s not discount the notion of “relationship” in that equation. After all, it’s the foundation upon which everything else is built.
Tags: art, bla, cat, gay, god, Home, ice, islam, law, love, marriage, me, men, michael, moving, news, party, Ray, sex, SHE, texas, university, university of texas, Will
But, Chris, that’s exactly why I want gay marriage: legal protections ARE the main reason that Daniel and I are wanting to get married. Sure, the public proclamation of love is a nice thing and shouldn’t be discounted (and we do plan to have a very nice ceremony/reception at some point in the future), but of far more urgent concern are the issues of joint property ownership, taxation, spousal benefits, medical decisions, etc. The far right can cry and whine all they want to about God-mandated this and that, but historically, marriage has always been a business contract.
It’s just ridiculous to me that I can only choose a business partner that has breasts and is missing a penis. And in response to the question that this is sure to generate: domestic partner benefits don’t apply on the federal level, because of DOMA. I don’t think Dobson would have a leg to stand on with the hypothetical argument you have inserted into his mouth (raunchy double entendre intended).
We DO care about marriage for all of the right reasons. As long as the feds say that domestic partnership is not equal to marriage, then we are left out in the cold with our quaint little state-mandated unions. If we could do it my way, ALL marriages would be legally redefined as civil unions, with the sacrament of “marriage” left up to religion to handle as it best sees fit.
I’m not denying the importance of the legal protections–what irked me about the article in question is that it made it sound like that was the ONLY reason gays were pushing for marriage–to the point where it seems to discount the notion of the relationship behind it. Like I’d just go find a random guy on the street and, “Hey, I don’t have insurance. Can we get married?”
I want those, too, but the point is that the marriage is based on the relationship between the people getting married — inn’it? Otherwise it is, as you say, just a business contract.
P.S., I completely agree with the idea of civil unions for all. That’s the way the French do it — ‘course, as we Texans all know, the French are evil
I definitely see your point and I mostly agree with you. But, instead of arguing that marriage is necessarily based on the relationship between the people getting married, I would say that while that is certainly good enough a reason to warrant marriage, it shouldn’t be the only reason or even the main reason. I argue that there are many good and valid reasons for getting married that arise from the many different types of relationships that exist in our society. If we’re allowing that a civil unions method is what best serves a secular society (for ALL of its citizens, not just straight or gay), then why shouldn’t two old straight widows or widowers who want to pool their resources be allowed to do so under the contract? My belief is that it shouldn’t be founded upon sexuality or religious beliefs or procreation at all. It should be about what is best for the two people involved. Now this is DEFINITELY a redefinition of the institution. But, my question is, “so what?” What’s wrong with fixing something that is exclusionary and broken and opening it up to the rest of us? I don’t think that we should shy from admitting that the family values camp is on the wrong side of the issue when it fights gay marriage while ignoring straight adultery and divorce. Let’s get together and start being real instead of reactionary.
I find it amusing that it’s even an issue whether gays want marriage for it’s more culturally traditional (not actual traditional) meaning or whether they just want it for an iron-clad legal preservation of certain rights and benefits. Why? Because that’s what heterosexuals have been doing for decades (at least the ones that I’ve been on this planet).
Marry me for a tax break, marry me to guarantee claim on money, marry me so I can stay in this country, marry me for insurance coverage. Why is it when a group wants the same thing everyone else has, that group’s use of it seems to be so much more subversive than the people already entitled to it yet who are doing the same exact thing?
I don’t expect them to separate civil from religious marriage anytime soon, but I’d like them to stop pretending that every heterosexual everywhere respects it. [8/5/03 cartoon by Ward Sutton]
brian’s last blog post..food: lick a lolly, indeed!