Saturday, November 15, 2008
Homo / 2008 Husband and Wife vs Spouse
Posted by Jonathan Golob on Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Why are so many voters opposed to same sex marriage, while generally in favor of granting same-sex couples all the rights inherent to marriage?
Richard Thompson Ford, over at Slate, makes a fairly compelling argument: It's all about the desire to have someone at home cooking you dinner and cleaning up the house on the part of elderly and conservative voters.
After all, traditional marriage isn't just analogous to sex discrimination—it is sex discrimination: Only men may marry women, and only women may marry men. Same-sex marriage would transform an institution that currently defines two distinctive sex roles—husband and wife—by replacing those different halves with one sex-neutral role—spouse. Sure, we could call two married men "husbands" and two married women "wives," but the specific role for each sex that now defines marriage would be lost. Widespread opposition to same-sex marriage might reflect a desire to hang on to these distinctive sex roles rather than vicious anti-gay bigotry.
(For the record, I cook, do laundry and clean up for my girlfriend already. If I depended upon her to do so—fulfilling traditional gender roles—I would be hungry, naked and living in filth.)
Share via
1
It's weird how helpless old guys are. The older men in my extended family are totally helpless when faced with - gasp! - something like a washing machine or dishwasher. Sometimes I just want to scream the following at members of the "Greatest Generation": What? You took the beaches of Normandy, defeated Hitler, but you can't learn how to use a damn stove?
2
I totally just finished making dinner for my girlfriend who's coming home from work in a few minutes.
3
One thing that always stuck in my head from growing up was my mother telling me that whoever cooked didn't do the dishes. It always seemed perfectly balanced to me, and I still find it surprising when other families don't do that. (Although Mom does do pretty much all the laundry. Dad hems her pants, though.)
4
I don't buy it. People vote against gay marriage because they fundamentally believe that gays are not their equals. There have yet to be any compelling and legitimate non-religious arguments against gay marriage, and I've looked hard. It boils down to the belief that gay sex is condemned in the Bible, and if we as a society condone it by allowing gays to marry, that we're all going to burn in hell for eternity. If you really press people who are anti-gay marriage, and you're able to scratch the veneer of "I'm not anti-gay, just pro-traditional family", you'll find a lot of bile and bigotry underneath.
5
So I can marry my boyfriend, as long as one of us agrees to wear an apron and pearls around the house? Well, why didn't you just say that in the first place?
6
a gay guy @4:
I agree with you.
What both this post, and the Slate article attempt to figure out are those people who actually vote for rights for same-sex couples, but then vote against marriage.
If this hypothesis is true--and it makes a lot of sense to me--then you can imagine a strategy where you can split off these voters from the bigoted core of opposition, granting marriage equality a plurality at the voting booth.
I agree with you.
What both this post, and the Slate article attempt to figure out are those people who actually vote for rights for same-sex couples, but then vote against marriage.
If this hypothesis is true--and it makes a lot of sense to me--then you can imagine a strategy where you can split off these voters from the bigoted core of opposition, granting marriage equality a plurality at the voting booth.
7
A big part of it is the belief that being gay is a choice. And a tempting choice at that. And that gays can recruit you, and that they are quite successful at it unless stopped. And that conversely, you can be cured of the gay, if you want to be.
Given all that, and that gay marriage normalizes being gay and explicitly accepts gay people into society, it would follow that more people will be turned gay if gay marriage becomes legal.
In truth, more gays would come out of the closet, and end their sham marriages, and never enter into them in the first place. So in a sense, they're right. Gay marriage leads to more gays.
Given all that, and that gay marriage normalizes being gay and explicitly accepts gay people into society, it would follow that more people will be turned gay if gay marriage becomes legal.
In truth, more gays would come out of the closet, and end their sham marriages, and never enter into them in the first place. So in a sense, they're right. Gay marriage leads to more gays.
8
"It's all about the desire to have someone at home cooking you dinner and cleaning up the house..." and I would add "someone to show you the link for the film by the beautiful homosexual Derek Jarman about the beautiful homosexual philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=…
9
I keep asking myself why being able to marry is so important to me. And I can't quite explain it. But it feels permanent in a way that a relationship otherwise isn't. It also feels public in a way that a civil union/ a commitment ceremony/ a domestic partnership isn't.
To me, a civil union just has no social meaning. And it feels like people are trying to stop gay relationships from having social meaning and public meaning by giving us civil unions and not marriages.
Anyhow, I feel like Richard Thompson Ford concentrates only on what straight people fear they will lose by allowing gay marriage. But he sort of ignores the fact that a lot of people are motivated more by a discomfort or dislike of gay people than by anything they'll actually lose. This is what makes prejudice and intolerance so irrational.
To me, a civil union just has no social meaning. And it feels like people are trying to stop gay relationships from having social meaning and public meaning by giving us civil unions and not marriages.
Anyhow, I feel like Richard Thompson Ford concentrates only on what straight people fear they will lose by allowing gay marriage. But he sort of ignores the fact that a lot of people are motivated more by a discomfort or dislike of gay people than by anything they'll actually lose. This is what makes prejudice and intolerance so irrational.
10
I got a really shiny toaster oven and a $50 gift card when I signed up, but I have to say the guy that recruited me really oversold the benefits, and failed to mention that I'm now condemned to hell. I did try that stuff they advertise on the teevee, "Gay Away", it's a lotion, but all it did was give me a rash.
12
Judging by the reports of an upsurge of racial violence since Barack Obama was elected president, there are still a lot of white people who think people of color are les than equal (ie. human).
It makes me sick and very sad.
It makes me sick and very sad.
13
Interesting but weird. First decade of our male-female marriage was spent as homemaker husband and work-outside-home wife. Then again, we only paid up for the marriage license and judge because the wife's employer didn't cover spousal benefits for domestic partners (of ANY gender) and we didn't want half the partnership going benefitless. If not for the government- and employer-conferred benefits, hey, marriage is in your heart anyway, so we shouldn't even have to be going through all this.
14
ALL the marriage licenses I've seen say, "WIFE, for cooking and cleaning" "HUSBAND for mowing lawn and fixing car". Is it ANY wonder str8 folk are afraid of us redefining the roles, "SPOUSE 1, for fabulous meals served with style and love" "SPOUSE 2, tasteful wardrobe which flatters the form yet is not expensive nor pretentious". I can just see it now.
15
Richard Ford is making shit up out of whole cloth. It is a novel hypothesis, but nothing more. He has, of course, no data to support his idea.
In fact, I think he has it backwards.
He thinks fear over traditional gender roles cause a segment of the population to support employment rights and civil unions for gays, but fight actual marriage. I think those people are more likely the hard-core homophobes. The people that are viscerally squigged out over buttsex, and think it threatens their masculinity (or whatever). These people are probably the ones that don't want us to have any rights of any kind.
I think it is the twisted religious people who are the ones who support employment rights and civil unions for gays, but fight actual marriage. The people who say "hate the sin, love the sinner". God tells them to have pity on the gays... as long as the gays don't try to mess with their church. To certain religious people, the word "marriage" is a religious one, and make no distinction between CIVIL marriage and religious marriage. They don't see civil unions as an attack on their church. But they see gay "marriage" as an attack on their church.
No, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't logical. But then religion isn't logical in the first place.
In fact, I think he has it backwards.
He thinks fear over traditional gender roles cause a segment of the population to support employment rights and civil unions for gays, but fight actual marriage. I think those people are more likely the hard-core homophobes. The people that are viscerally squigged out over buttsex, and think it threatens their masculinity (or whatever). These people are probably the ones that don't want us to have any rights of any kind.
I think it is the twisted religious people who are the ones who support employment rights and civil unions for gays, but fight actual marriage. The people who say "hate the sin, love the sinner". God tells them to have pity on the gays... as long as the gays don't try to mess with their church. To certain religious people, the word "marriage" is a religious one, and make no distinction between CIVIL marriage and religious marriage. They don't see civil unions as an attack on their church. But they see gay "marriage" as an attack on their church.
No, it doesn't make sense, and it isn't logical. But then religion isn't logical in the first place.
16
As a woman planning to support my partner as a stay-at-home dad a few years down the line,I can testify that non-traditional gender roles are a big part of what freaks the traditionals out. Once I reveal that, people often ask me if I'll let my hypothetical sons run around in tutus and lipstick. Answer: yes!
17
I have to agree. Opposition to gay marriage is inherently sexist, to both men & women (although just one party was considered property in "traditional" marriage...). What do I, as a woman, bring to my marriage that my spouse, a man, does not? What about that is a compelling interest to the state? Denying gay marriage is a threat to my marriage. What do I not bring to the marriage that my husband does? Whose business is it who does the damn dishes or mows the lawn?
18
Gay marriage is a major social gender shift, another effort to redefine gender roles in our society.
Women changed dramatically in the past 100 years - women today would be barely recognizable to women of the in 1908, but men haven't really changed a lot. The social definition of "man" has had a few roles added to it, but nothing like the complete reconstruction of femininity.
Men are expected to be in charge, to know, to be strong, athletic, dominant, sexually aggressive, confident. Since no one can live up to these standards men are fundamentally insecure, and therefore react with hostility to anything that challenges their identity.
In the minds of people who subscribe to this outdated notion of masculinity, gay marriage redefines the role of husband and father, and its hardly surprising that they would find it difficult to integrate into their consciousness. So they reject it.
Its time that we addressed the underlying problem here - the totally fucked up construction of masculinity in our society.
Women changed dramatically in the past 100 years - women today would be barely recognizable to women of the in 1908, but men haven't really changed a lot. The social definition of "man" has had a few roles added to it, but nothing like the complete reconstruction of femininity.
Men are expected to be in charge, to know, to be strong, athletic, dominant, sexually aggressive, confident. Since no one can live up to these standards men are fundamentally insecure, and therefore react with hostility to anything that challenges their identity.
In the minds of people who subscribe to this outdated notion of masculinity, gay marriage redefines the role of husband and father, and its hardly surprising that they would find it difficult to integrate into their consciousness. So they reject it.
Its time that we addressed the underlying problem here - the totally fucked up construction of masculinity in our society.
19
Thanks for the link, Jonathan. Very interesting article.
Come to think of it, it does seem strange that certain (male) gay activists are so intent on comparing their cause to the Black civil rights movement rather than the women's movement. But I don't think it's surprising. The women's movement isn't as glamorous as the civil rights movement for a lot of people. Afterall, the women's movement involved angry women, and angry women are just silly, as opposed to angry Black men, who are either scary or inspiring. I think Richard Thompson Ford has a good point, but I don't think male gay activists will like it very much. I'm a long time reader of Dan Savage, and I've always felt that he was mostly unsympathetic toward feminists' concerns. Maybe this will convince him to care?
Come to think of it, it does seem strange that certain (male) gay activists are so intent on comparing their cause to the Black civil rights movement rather than the women's movement. But I don't think it's surprising. The women's movement isn't as glamorous as the civil rights movement for a lot of people. Afterall, the women's movement involved angry women, and angry women are just silly, as opposed to angry Black men, who are either scary or inspiring. I think Richard Thompson Ford has a good point, but I don't think male gay activists will like it very much. I'm a long time reader of Dan Savage, and I've always felt that he was mostly unsympathetic toward feminists' concerns. Maybe this will convince him to care?
20
This, by the way, is the single reason that the Mormon Church went ape-shit crazy in California about Prop 8. Mormons are very invested in gender roles. In particular they have a male-only priesthood that is conferred upon every male. Women play only a weak leadership role in the church and are expected to subject themselves to their husband's leadership as he "presides" over the family.
If gay marriage were to become legal, Mormon women would start to ask what's so special about having a penis. Scary, scary, scary.
If gay marriage were to become legal, Mormon women would start to ask what's so special about having a penis. Scary, scary, scary.
22
CCSea @20:
You hit it right on the head.
Lady_cow @19:
About your comment: "it does seem strange that certain (male) gay activists are so intent on comparing their cause to the Black civil rights movement rather than the women's movement."
We've rehashed the argument about gay men comparing themselves to the African American civil rights movement on these boards over and over. I'm not sure it gets us anywhere.
And no, I don't think society sees angry women as "just silly." The stereotypes aren't great, but that doesn't seem to be one of them. Society might see assertive women as angry and angry women as threatening. But I don't see that as much different from any other minority group. People also seem to see assertive black men as angry and angry black men as threatening.
You hit it right on the head.
Lady_cow @19:
About your comment: "it does seem strange that certain (male) gay activists are so intent on comparing their cause to the Black civil rights movement rather than the women's movement."
We've rehashed the argument about gay men comparing themselves to the African American civil rights movement on these boards over and over. I'm not sure it gets us anywhere.
And no, I don't think society sees angry women as "just silly." The stereotypes aren't great, but that doesn't seem to be one of them. Society might see assertive women as angry and angry women as threatening. But I don't see that as much different from any other minority group. People also seem to see assertive black men as angry and angry black men as threatening.
23
Michael @22: Sure, maybe it's a little simplistic to say that everyone sees angry women as "silly". But I do feel that feminists, and women concerned with women's issues, are mocked more often and more openly than civil rights activists. Then again, I'm a white woman, so maybe I'm more sensitive to it.
I won't be the first to point out that sexism often takes a back seat to other noted "injustices". Women who are involved in activism (for example, for minority rights) might feel, or be told explicitly, that they should keep quiet about sexism in order to avoid divisiveness or distraction from the main cause. "We can worry about sexism after we get justice for [fill-in-the-blank]." The Ford article and the comments here bring up the interesting idea that feminism might actually benefit the gay marriage movement.
I won't be the first to point out that sexism often takes a back seat to other noted "injustices". Women who are involved in activism (for example, for minority rights) might feel, or be told explicitly, that they should keep quiet about sexism in order to avoid divisiveness or distraction from the main cause. "We can worry about sexism after we get justice for [fill-in-the-blank]." The Ford article and the comments here bring up the interesting idea that feminism might actually benefit the gay marriage movement.
24
It's about self esteem. There are two ways to improve your self esteem: either achieve something yourself so you can be proud, or demean others so you can feel better. The idea that LGBT people can be good spouses or parents or even better spouses or parents stings them. They can't stand LGBT people who are more successful than them. It's the same thing that racists do - most racists are uneducated, unemployed, losers. So they think, "I may be uneducated, I may be unemployed, but at least I'm not black!". Similarly these people think, "I may be uneducated, I may be unemployed, but at least I'm not gay!". We need to show them that they're losers, and we are smarter, better, more successful than them.
25
I guess its the same kind of thinking that goes along with pointing out the absurdities of many associations. For example, religion isn't the cause of morality, its just associated with morality, so when confronted with an atheist the traditionalists go, yikes! they must be totally amoral! Um, no, still moral, just no religion. Similarly these old guys are like, if you don't have a wife, who's gonna cook and clean! Um, whoever needs to do it is gonna do it. Your point?
26
A good chunk of the anti gay marriage vote in the religious crowd has nothing to do with gay people living together, or having legal rights.
It's because marriage is a sacrament of their church. The believe - against all rational thought, and despite the pro-gay marriage rulings that ALL explicitly say that gay CIVIL marriage does not impact religious ceremonies - that their churches will be "forced" to sanctify gay marriages.
This misconception is pushed by clergy and religious special interest groups who need hot button issues to use as fund raising tools.
It's all so dumb: In a few generations, churches - who have a track record of changing "inflexible" theological points when there's a buck to be made - will have embraced gay marriages, and it will be no more controversial than interracial marriages.
But in the meantime, I'd like to see the government out of the sacrament sanctioning business. I support civil unions for all - gay, straight, whatever. If you want to get married, you go find a religion that will marry you.
It's because marriage is a sacrament of their church. The believe - against all rational thought, and despite the pro-gay marriage rulings that ALL explicitly say that gay CIVIL marriage does not impact religious ceremonies - that their churches will be "forced" to sanctify gay marriages.
This misconception is pushed by clergy and religious special interest groups who need hot button issues to use as fund raising tools.
It's all so dumb: In a few generations, churches - who have a track record of changing "inflexible" theological points when there's a buck to be made - will have embraced gay marriages, and it will be no more controversial than interracial marriages.
But in the meantime, I'd like to see the government out of the sacrament sanctioning business. I support civil unions for all - gay, straight, whatever. If you want to get married, you go find a religion that will marry you.
27
Crow @24:
You make a very good point. My dad used to tell me that there was one thing that almost every person wants more than anything else in life: to feel important.
If you remember this, it explains a lot.
Why religion? Partly because people feel less small. They feel like they have a purpose.
Why prejudice and discrimination? Because it's about exerting power over others -- no matter how irrational the basis.
You make a very good point. My dad used to tell me that there was one thing that almost every person wants more than anything else in life: to feel important.
If you remember this, it explains a lot.
Why religion? Partly because people feel less small. They feel like they have a purpose.
Why prejudice and discrimination? Because it's about exerting power over others -- no matter how irrational the basis.
28
Lady_cow @23:
I'm not sure exactly how to respond here. Because I'm not a woman, and so I just don't have the same experience as you.
I do agree that the feminist movement is more openly mocked than the african-american civil rights movement. But that's at least in part because it's considered so much worse to be racist than sexist.
That may be because the history of racism has been publicly violent in a way that sexism hasn't (slavery, lynchings, etc). It's so terribly ugly that nobody wants to rhetorically get close to it.
For some odd reason, people view sexism as more benign than racism. I'm not sure why this is. I can't explain it. Except maybe to say that racism was something that was very recently boiling over, as it were -- while sexism has been simmering for ages (and still is).
As for sexism and women's issues taking a back seat to other causes, you're probably right. But it's at least because of the fear that if we acknowledge the elephant in the room, it'll totally take over, and we'll lose our way.
I'm not sure exactly how to respond here. Because I'm not a woman, and so I just don't have the same experience as you.
I do agree that the feminist movement is more openly mocked than the african-american civil rights movement. But that's at least in part because it's considered so much worse to be racist than sexist.
That may be because the history of racism has been publicly violent in a way that sexism hasn't (slavery, lynchings, etc). It's so terribly ugly that nobody wants to rhetorically get close to it.
For some odd reason, people view sexism as more benign than racism. I'm not sure why this is. I can't explain it. Except maybe to say that racism was something that was very recently boiling over, as it were -- while sexism has been simmering for ages (and still is).
As for sexism and women's issues taking a back seat to other causes, you're probably right. But it's at least because of the fear that if we acknowledge the elephant in the room, it'll totally take over, and we'll lose our way.
29
Does anyone here who supports gay marriage oppose polygamy? If so, why? What are the distinctions which make you comfortable with one or the other?
30
Honestly Curious @29:
Perhaps the main problem that I have with polygamy is that it seems to only be a practice in paternalistic cultures -- where only men are allowed to have several wives. I've yet to ever see an example of a polygamous society where the women are the only ones allowed to have polygamous relationships. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any example of a polygamous society where women have same right to have other partners as men.
So, it's not so much that I oppose polygamy, per se, but historically (and presently) it has presented itself in ways that generally have hurt women. Perhaps there are isolated examples to the contrary. But this is the general rule.
And on a practical level, polygamy just doesn't seem to work. Because it's hard enough for two people to work out a complex relationship, let alone three or four or five people. Unless, of course, one of those people is the boss. Which is basically what happens, so I've noticed, in polygamous cultures that are paternalistic; the man is in charge. When that happens -- when one person is in charge of the others in the relationship -- then at least the relationship probably can stay together. But I still think it only works for the man.
Just my opinion, of course. I reserve the right to be wrong.
Perhaps the main problem that I have with polygamy is that it seems to only be a practice in paternalistic cultures -- where only men are allowed to have several wives. I've yet to ever see an example of a polygamous society where the women are the only ones allowed to have polygamous relationships. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any example of a polygamous society where women have same right to have other partners as men.
So, it's not so much that I oppose polygamy, per se, but historically (and presently) it has presented itself in ways that generally have hurt women. Perhaps there are isolated examples to the contrary. But this is the general rule.
And on a practical level, polygamy just doesn't seem to work. Because it's hard enough for two people to work out a complex relationship, let alone three or four or five people. Unless, of course, one of those people is the boss. Which is basically what happens, so I've noticed, in polygamous cultures that are paternalistic; the man is in charge. When that happens -- when one person is in charge of the others in the relationship -- then at least the relationship probably can stay together. But I still think it only works for the man.
Just my opinion, of course. I reserve the right to be wrong.
31
I think the question is more, do you support modern polyamory type relationships, but would oppose a legal structure for those same relationships?
32
Just to add to that. Civil marriage as it stands right now is designed with two people in mind. Everything from inheritance to power of attorney, from divorce to child custody and support, is based on the assumption that only two people are entering the relationship. In order to extend marriage to larger groups, practically every automatic benefit that comes with marriage (HRC estimates the number at over a thousand) would have to be rewritten or revised.
I don't necessarily believe that polygamy should be illegal, but giving it the recognition of civil marriage would be a hell of a lot more difficult than the very simple rewriting of the law to allow same sex couples to marry.
Because it's hard enough for two people to work out a complex relationship, let alone three or four or five people.
Just to add to that. Civil marriage as it stands right now is designed with two people in mind. Everything from inheritance to power of attorney, from divorce to child custody and support, is based on the assumption that only two people are entering the relationship. In order to extend marriage to larger groups, practically every automatic benefit that comes with marriage (HRC estimates the number at over a thousand) would have to be rewritten or revised.
I don't necessarily believe that polygamy should be illegal, but giving it the recognition of civil marriage would be a hell of a lot more difficult than the very simple rewriting of the law to allow same sex couples to marry.
33
Karey @ 31:
A very good question.
But what's the difference between polyamory and polygamy? This is what I came up with:
Polyamorous relationships: Generally non-exclusive, non-marital, and (usually) bisexual/ bi-flexible.
Polygomous relationships: tend not to be bisexual/bi-flexible, they tend to be oriented at marriage, and the tend to be exclusive — no sex outside of the polygamous marriage.
So, to ask whether we should have a legal structure for marriage with respect to polyamorous relationships seems to turn my own definition of polyamory on its head a bit. Because, in my experience, polyamorous people -- and I have only known a few -- have considered being non-exclusive and non-marital critical to their identities as polyamorous. Marriage, on the other hand, is about a public commitment between people to a relationship together.
You see why I'm having trouble with this? I mean, I'm not really saying that philosophically I disagree with the idea of polyamorous marriage -- but I just think that the very idea of it contradicts what it seems to mean to be polyamorous.
A very good question.
But what's the difference between polyamory and polygamy? This is what I came up with:
Polyamorous relationships: Generally non-exclusive, non-marital, and (usually) bisexual/ bi-flexible.
Polygomous relationships: tend not to be bisexual/bi-flexible, they tend to be oriented at marriage, and the tend to be exclusive — no sex outside of the polygamous marriage.
So, to ask whether we should have a legal structure for marriage with respect to polyamorous relationships seems to turn my own definition of polyamory on its head a bit. Because, in my experience, polyamorous people -- and I have only known a few -- have considered being non-exclusive and non-marital critical to their identities as polyamorous. Marriage, on the other hand, is about a public commitment between people to a relationship together.
You see why I'm having trouble with this? I mean, I'm not really saying that philosophically I disagree with the idea of polyamorous marriage -- but I just think that the very idea of it contradicts what it seems to mean to be polyamorous.
34
When I was younger, I suspected that having a wife at home slavishly providing logistical support gave men an extra edge on the career ladder.
Now, I suspect that wives are expensive.
Now, I suspect that wives are expensive.
35
I've appreciated the respectful discussion available here--this is a different tone than many other forums on this topic. I'm from a very conservative background (which I'll concede can raise suspicions about me as "the enemy"), but I'm honestly and deeply curious about seeing and understanding other's perspectives. Unfortunately, the passion raised by this topic occassionally circumvents the open sharing of ideas.
Karey @ 31
I tend to lean more libertarian in thinking the gov't should just get out of the marriage business entirely. However, I am forced to recognize that there is public value in encouraging the creation of stable family structures. I'm not at all familiar with polyamory--does that lifesyle intend to provide structure for the support and development of individuals, esp. children? If not, I don't see what business it is of the government's to be involved one way or the other.
Karey @ 31
I tend to lean more libertarian in thinking the gov't should just get out of the marriage business entirely. However, I am forced to recognize that there is public value in encouraging the creation of stable family structures. I'm not at all familiar with polyamory--does that lifesyle intend to provide structure for the support and development of individuals, esp. children? If not, I don't see what business it is of the government's to be involved one way or the other.
36
Mike @31,
Though the definition of marriage between one man and many women is far more common than marriage between one woman and many men, both have existed, in different cultures and periods in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
Though the definition of marriage between one man and many women is far more common than marriage between one woman and many men, both have existed, in different cultures and periods in history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry
37
The gender revolution (a strong Equal Rights Amendment) is the holy grail. We could skip the entire gay marriage struggle if we'd just get an ERA. It's ridiculous that the government is still in the business of defining gender roles.
38
Hopeless pedant @ 36:
Very interesting -- thanks for that link. That's the first time I'd ever heard of Polyandry.
That said, I can't help but think that this is one instance where the exception might prove the rule. The instances they talk about are simply so rare and not very well understood. Nonetheless, there you have it. It does certainly exist.
Very interesting -- thanks for that link. That's the first time I'd ever heard of Polyandry.
That said, I can't help but think that this is one instance where the exception might prove the rule. The instances they talk about are simply so rare and not very well understood. Nonetheless, there you have it. It does certainly exist.
39
@35: Thank you, also, for your respectful tone and for raising a good question. I won't get into the polygamy question--this post will probably be long enough as it is--but you ask why the government is involved in marriage at all.
Catalina @26 makes the point that all marriages, same sex or opposite sex, are civil unions (please advise, Catalina, if I am misrepresenting your position). This is correct according to what I learned in seminary. The church (temple, tabernacle, whatever) does not pronounce a couple legally married, the state does. A marriage requires both parties to consent to the union by A) signing the license and B) declaring their vows to be lawfully wedded in front of a qualified witness. In the US states will vary about blood tests, residency requirements, waiting periods and the like but both the signature and a public declaration is required everywhere. A member of the clergy is recognized as a qualified witness, but so also is a judge or justice of the peace. Therefore a couple could be married in a church with Bible readings, the invocation of God, Jesus, the Blessed Virgin, the heavenly host of saints, blah blah blah if that's what the couple wants, but the couple could also go to a JP if religion is not part of their lives. A ceremony conducted by a member of the clergy is no more or less valid than one conducted by a judge or, for that matter, some guy in Vegas wearing an Elvis costume--it's whether or not the officiant is legally recognized by their state to conduct the ceremony. He or she may or may not be religious.
The reason the government is involved is to give the spouse legal protections and rights, which is precisely why gay people want to be able to make the same decisions about their life with the person they love as straight people. The various issues that have come up, e.g. hospital visits, power of attorney, insurance benefits, inheritance rights, etc are legal issues. If Mary is injured in an accident, say, then the person who knows her the most intimately, whether that person is male or female, should logically be the one to make decisions regarding her medical care. Legal recognition of Mary's relationship with the person she has chosen to share her life with protects her from those who may not be acting in her best interest by giving the person she trusts the most final say over important decisions. If marriage as a legal institution doesn't exist, as is the case for same sex couples in most states, then the partner may be entirely left out of the process. Individual hospitals may allow visits by same sex partners, but they don't have to. Companies may provide same sex partners of their employees the same benefits as opposite sex partners, but they don't have to. Legal marriage provides these legal rights. The couple's religious beliefs or lack thereof is completely irrelevant. A straight couple, of course, could decide to forgo marriage even though their committment to each other is just as real as a married couple. But they would be on their own with no legal protection if any of these issues come up. But they have the choice to either accept the rights and responsibilites of marriage or go it alone, legally speaking. Gay couples don't have that choice, and that's what needs to be changed.
More...
Catalina @26 makes the point that all marriages, same sex or opposite sex, are civil unions (please advise, Catalina, if I am misrepresenting your position). This is correct according to what I learned in seminary. The church (temple, tabernacle, whatever) does not pronounce a couple legally married, the state does. A marriage requires both parties to consent to the union by A) signing the license and B) declaring their vows to be lawfully wedded in front of a qualified witness. In the US states will vary about blood tests, residency requirements, waiting periods and the like but both the signature and a public declaration is required everywhere. A member of the clergy is recognized as a qualified witness, but so also is a judge or justice of the peace. Therefore a couple could be married in a church with Bible readings, the invocation of God, Jesus, the Blessed Virgin, the heavenly host of saints, blah blah blah if that's what the couple wants, but the couple could also go to a JP if religion is not part of their lives. A ceremony conducted by a member of the clergy is no more or less valid than one conducted by a judge or, for that matter, some guy in Vegas wearing an Elvis costume--it's whether or not the officiant is legally recognized by their state to conduct the ceremony. He or she may or may not be religious.
The reason the government is involved is to give the spouse legal protections and rights, which is precisely why gay people want to be able to make the same decisions about their life with the person they love as straight people. The various issues that have come up, e.g. hospital visits, power of attorney, insurance benefits, inheritance rights, etc are legal issues. If Mary is injured in an accident, say, then the person who knows her the most intimately, whether that person is male or female, should logically be the one to make decisions regarding her medical care. Legal recognition of Mary's relationship with the person she has chosen to share her life with protects her from those who may not be acting in her best interest by giving the person she trusts the most final say over important decisions. If marriage as a legal institution doesn't exist, as is the case for same sex couples in most states, then the partner may be entirely left out of the process. Individual hospitals may allow visits by same sex partners, but they don't have to. Companies may provide same sex partners of their employees the same benefits as opposite sex partners, but they don't have to. Legal marriage provides these legal rights. The couple's religious beliefs or lack thereof is completely irrelevant. A straight couple, of course, could decide to forgo marriage even though their committment to each other is just as real as a married couple. But they would be on their own with no legal protection if any of these issues come up. But they have the choice to either accept the rights and responsibilites of marriage or go it alone, legally speaking. Gay couples don't have that choice, and that's what needs to be changed.
40
@1 This is the reason widowers will typically get remarried in less than a year after the death of their wife. They can't take care of themselves. My father is a boomer, one of the most respected and accomplished lawyers in his state, wealthy, and completely helpless without my mother. She came to pick me up at the airport one year, and my father had to call her to have her tell him what order he took his medication in. He's never done a load of laundry in his life; he lived with my gramma til he was 27, then on weekends, drove three hours to his house, where she did his laundry and cooked him enough food to last the week. He never changed a diaper.
I think the fact that my husband cooks for me and cleans the house made him understand gay marriage a lot better.
I think the fact that my husband cooks for me and cleans the house made him understand gay marriage a lot better.
41
Rainman, let me break it down again: Quite apart from your rambling description, religious people - many of whom are religious in the sense that members of the Elks club are actually elks - think "gay marriage" means their church will be forced to marry gays. Regardless of their feelings about two people of the same gender living together, they don't like the idea of the government tampering with their religion .
So, to sum it up: It's both much more complicated, and acres more simplistic than many proponents of gay marriage think. Trying to get people to change their religious beliefs is like banging your head against a brick wall. The argument either has to be reframed, or we settle down for a long drawn out fight.
I'm up for either one.
So, to sum it up: It's both much more complicated, and acres more simplistic than many proponents of gay marriage think. Trying to get people to change their religious beliefs is like banging your head against a brick wall. The argument either has to be reframed, or we settle down for a long drawn out fight.
I'm up for either one.
42
I'll admit that I can't bring myself to read Rainman's post -- to long and painful to try to figure out what he's saying.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
"Let his days be few... Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS