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