Magiver, ultimately marriage is what society as a consensus says it is and builds framework around. Some societies view it less as love between two people and more a contract between two families. Some allow multiple marriages. The varieties are as diverse as humans themselves. However, as others have pointed out, interracial marriage opposition once used the exact same “slippery slope” argument in its toolbox. Has such a slope occured? Not really, except that it opened up avenues of discussion about why this relationship but not that, which is hardly a bad thing. If the discussion goes further to polygamous relationships, I don’t see that as a dangerous slope to slide down either. Let the pros and cons be weighed openly and decisions made on that basis.
It would be rather stupid to reject a civil union merely because it’s not identical to marriage. This is because, dare I say it, some differences make a certain amount of sense.
As an example, I shall refer to part of the Swedish law about registered partnerships. The translation is mine, and I’m not lawyer, so I can’t guarantee it’s 100% correct, but it should be serviceable (the Swedish text can be found here).
(I’m pretty sure the word ‘decision’ is the wrong word for translating ‘bestämmelse’ in this context, but I don’t know which one is the correct one. There are probably other errors.)
Now, §2 is stupid and shouldn’t be there. However, accepting such an exception does not mean it will remain forever; that paragraph used to be about adoptions as well, now it’s not. That’s what the law (2002:603) was about.
§3 is trickier. It’s quite simply a recognition that certain laws assume spouses to be of different sexes. If it was not there, these laws would make no sense whatsoever when applied to same sex unions. One could try to get those laws changed to use gender-neutral language (as they should) before recognizing same sex unions, but that would take a long time, and with this paragraph these laws will instead apply to registered partnerships as they get changed. Personally, that sounds like a much better solution to me…
§4 concerns an international agreement with Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland. At the time this law was passed, not all of these countries recognized same sex unions. The agreement can not feasibly be changed until all nations involved do (we do now, I think, but I guess adoption is still an issue), and for Sweden to hold off on legalizing same sex unions because of this agreement would quite neatly insure that this agreement would never be changed. Which would have been unimaginably stupid.
I’m not saying any kind of civil union should be accepted. But such a union being not quite identical to marriage should not be a disqualifier in and of itself. The specifics of the proposed law matter.
I’m not aware of any laws against interracial marriages (although I’m sure there were at some point in history). I am aware of the OPIONION of interracial marriages because I spend a lot of time researching old newspapers (currently turn of the 20th century papers). I never read anything about a slippery-slope scenario. The op-eds centered on the revulsion of such marriages. From that standpoint I would agree that social consensus is a significant factor in the modifications of laws that involve social standards.
I’m not a lawyer but IMO the legal standards of marriage were changed when adoption laws were altered to include homosexual couples. It effectively changes the classification of the sexual acts of gays from abnormal to normal. This would correspond to the findings of today’s psychiatric standards. Organizations such as the American Psychological Association state that it is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem.
What I noticed in me search through mental health organization sites is the lack of the word “normal” in any discussion of homosexuality. Maybe it’s too vague a word to use in this discussion. I’ve also gotten nowhere with the word when discussing the topic with a Psychologist. If this could be addressed on a professional level it would go a long way to bridging the thought process that says homosexuality is abnormal.
Yes it does, and thank you very much for the description of the difference. Much appreciated!
I’m seriously out to sea on your post, Magiver, and the point you’re now pursuing.
-
Laws banning interracial marriage were on multiple states’ books until struck down in a Supreme Court case in (Loving v. Virginia). As for quotes used in its defense, I quite like this site although it is biased.
-
There are no national adoption laws which specifically include gay couples in the USA. I am unaware as to whether any state-level laws do, but many do not ban gay people adopting. A few allow couples to adopt as co-parents, but that’s only a handful to my knowledge. Florida specifically bans gay folk from adoption.
-
So far as I am aware, psychologists rarely used the term normal when referring to anything. It implies a value judgement and bias against anything which does not fit that definition, something I believe many in the mental health field are really struggling to divest themselves from.
I think accepting limited rights now will make getting full rights later, more difficult. There are too many “straight” people who actually feel somewhat ambivilant about gay rights, but are very uncomfortable with the whole gay lifestyle. Those people will not stand in the way of a civil union, with partial rights. But, later on , when attempts are made to turn this into a legal, equal union, a regular marriage; these same people are going to resent being approached again to do something more. Their attitude is going to be, “Look, we gave them civil unions and now they just want more. Why can’t they be satisfied with that?” “Why did they agree to it, if it wasn’t okay?” I have heard too many straight people saying they’re tired of these issues always being “in their face.” They’re not really interested in the solution. This is sad, but true.
I don’t believe it’s wise to compromise on what is truly right, only to get part of what’s right. I think it will put off equal rights by at least one or two more generations. Not a stepping stone, a brick wall. Hopefully I’m wrong.
If Mental Health Organizations would shy TOWARD the subject of normal vs abnormal behavior I believe it would cure a lot of legal woes. Marital laws are based around social behavior. This behavior is deemed “normal” by society. If an MHO can use the word “normal” in a sentence, instead of dancing around it, then more people will understand the behavior has no distinction.
With the usual proviso that I Am Not a Psychologist (or Psychiatrist), I’ll attempt to tackle this based on the college Psych courses I’ve taken while considering a minor.
The only thing texts like the DSM and organizations like the APA can deem is whether behavior causes distress or harm to the individual or others and even that can be dicey. A behavior can be outside the norms of a society yet still remain non-pathological in a human being, like say a small uncommon fetish. So long as the behaviors or desires cause no harm to the individual or others, a psych-person has no need to intervene. Thus, while remaining an anomaly, it is a mentally sound one with no need for tinkering. This is a hands-off approach.
However both the APAs, the AMA, and I believe the Bar (lawyers) have issued official statements on various subjects from adoption to civil rights to marriage in support of queer folk. If this isn’t a statement of “normal” as you use it, its pretty close.
They pretty much skated over this when I was in college but what you are saying is what I get from my discussions with Psychologists.
Yes, the arguments are pretty close to describing “normal” but they are also pretty close to describing any behavior that doesn’t bring harm to either party as being “normal”. That seems too broad a definition.
Which brings us back to the ability of laws to limit social behavior based on public perceptions of decency. Oiy, my head hurts.
That’s because marriage doesn’t happen, legally speaking, when you take the vows in the ceremony. It happens when the marriage license is signed by yourself and your witnesses. The ceremony is irrelevant. You can be married without a ceremony, even without an officiant. Quakers, for instance, do not have someone marry them with the whole “repeat after me” thing, they simply make their vows to one another in whatever form they wish. So long as the license is duly signed and filed, their marriage is valid and is a marriage because of the legal documentation which corresponds.
Now, I’ve not seen Vermont’s documentation for civil unions, but presumably it functions in the same way – your union is civilly recognized when the paperwork is duly signed and filed.
Which differences? Which rights should gay couples be willing to give up in comparison to hetero couples? Next of kin status? Qualification for insurance coverage and similar kinship benefits? Immigration rights? Marital privilege in court proceedings? Inheritance rights? Automatic presumption of custody of children? Social security survivorship? Incusion in investment rules? This article says it much better than I can – anything less than the full deal is apartheid.
As for the normalcy argument, who really cares? Do we demand an imprimatur of “normalcy” for heteros who wish to marry? For interracial couples? For anyone else? Then why for gays? More apartheid. Feh.
Interesting article. Two paragraphs I thought were relevant:
The article seems to be implying that accepting less than full rights will get us stuck in a system of inferior treatment for gay civil unions, and that this system will not easily be undone or upgraded; it is a severe disagreement with the notion that limited rights is the springboard for full rights. I was a little disappointed in that it didn’t really address the reasons for this view; after all, the fight for black rights did go along in an incremental basis, and it did start with a ‘separate but equal’ phase that eventually did turn into full rights.
However, the case could be made that if the black rights movement had not settled for separate but equal, they may have gotten full rights sooner than they did…
But we have to remember, these are people’s lives at stake right now; I am sure many gay couples would love even limited civil unions now so that they can at least gain access to some of the rights right now, instead of waiting for years to see anything.
As for the second paragraph that I quoted from the article, it seems to be implying that gaining full benefits would not be that much harder to get than partial benefits, but I don’t believe that. There seem to be many people and politicians who would support civil unions but not marriage; I believe that in this nation, partial rights would be a lot easier to get than full equality…
So, hypothetically speaking, if the timetable is:
Partial Rights in 2 years, Full rights in 15 years
vs.
No rights in 2 years, Full rights in 10 years
I am sure the gay community would be very split on that, no?
Would it be worth sacrificing partial rights from year 2 to year 10, to get full rights 5 years earlier? This is grossly simplified I know, and makes the assumption (as the article seems to) that accepting partial rights would hinder rather than help getting full rights. So insert whatever numbers or complications you want and let us know: which would be better for the gay community?
I gave examples, you know :). A union lacking many of the above would certainly be a bad deal.
My guess is that the best strategy is to grab any partial victories that are within reach, including a marriage-by-another-name with limited rights, as long as it’s not so gutted that it’s meaningless. I think it will be easier, not more difficult, to get more rights added to an existing marriage-by-another-name than to get a completely equal marriage launched some time later. An almost-but-not-quite-equal marriage will allow people to get used to the idea, to see for themselves that there aren’t any big, dramatic differences between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages (even the divorce rates seem to be similar), and hopefully more and more people will see that there aren’t any good reasons to treat marriages differently depending on the genders of the spouses.
The experiences from Norway are similar to those Sofis described from Sweden. The Partnership Act (more info) started off in 1993 with most but not all the rights, duties and (dis)advantages of marriage. The main exceptions were no right to adoption, and no right to be married in a state church. The law was changed in 2002, so now it’s possible to adopt your partner’s children. The remaining adoption restrictions are under discussion, and will probably go in time. (All other reasons aside, it goes against every Norwegian instinct to let the Swedes beat us 
) The church restrictions will probably last as long as the state church, but hopefully that won’t be very long. And meanwhile, a few thousand people have married who wouldn’t be able to if we’d been waiting until there was political support for perfect equality.
Ideally, there should be full equality in marriage legislation for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Realistically, in most of the world we have some way to go before that will happen. Meanwhile, I’d rather live in a society where same-sex couples have access to most of the advantages of marriage, than one where they have none of them.
In the realm of the ironic, [url="this story in Atlanta’s Southern Voice produces some information worth contemplating:
The link to the story that was supposed to be in the first paragraph:
I think this has already been mentioned, but since this is a poll, I’ll add my “Me, too.”
I do not support the term “civil union,” because as things stand in my country, those words have a less equal status. Quebec already has “civil unions,” and they are not portable to any other province. Even if the federal government of Canada were to give them all the same federal rights, they would not be portable to other countries that generally recognize a Canadian marriage.
From what I understand of US law, the situation is comparable. What I want to know is, why are some people’s religious beliefs allowed to impose on the law so strongly as to define terms for everyone? I mean, when both our countries have protections for freedom of religion?
Polycarp, under the law, a marriage is a type of contract. Now, even a lot of your hard core libertarian types will acknowledge that it is appropriate for the government to enforce contracts. But I don’t see why it is necessary for the state to put a particular label, such as “marriage”, on any particular contract.
Though if it were to do so, but not favor or disfavor a contract so labeled in any way, say with tax breaks (which of course would be anathema in a proper libertarian government), I don’t see what the problem would be, either.
Priceguy, straight people like to have sex with members of the opposite sex. Guy people like to have sex with members of the same sex. Sounds like a big difference to me.
Allowed by whom? If you were to call it “marriage” this minute, would the police come knock on your door?
Like I said to Priceguy, the difference is that a committed straight couple consists of two people of the opposite sex, and a committed gay couple consists of two people of the same sex.
I addressed this issue at length in this thread. It does, in fact, make all the difference in the world…
I don’t agree with these sentiments either, though I admit I could be wrong. I went into why in the above mentioned thread.
I really think that a practical solution, that everyone could be happy with, would be for the government to stop referring to “marriage.” This is a private function. If someone is religious, they might want their church to marry them in a ceremony. Others might call their living-together relationship a marriage. Either way, I don’t see why it’s the state’s business to say who can use the term.
What the state does care about is that two people who may want to enter a contract where they get survivorship rights, etc. This set of legal provisions could be bundled together and called “civil union.” The civil union contract is not sex-specific.
I really believe that this is not only the proper way, but is practical. Right now, social conservative seem to be upset that the term “marriage” can be used by a homosexual couple, with the state recognizing it. We can give them an acceptable solution, and make everyone happy it seems to me. Get the state out of the marriage business.
These differences that you keep pointing out; how are they relevant to a marriage contract. I don’t recall making any disclosures or seeing any limitations as to the “nature” of my sex life, when I got married. I’m obviously missing what this has to do with a marriage contract? This is only about equal rights for two people desiring marriage. It’s not about what it’s called or what sexual practices people engage in. Who cares!
Not to me. How is it relevant to the subject at hand?