Maybe I should address this explicitly: if folks are looking for legal rights and obligations, that’s one thing. If they’re looking for the moral imprimatur of marriage, that’s another thing. I consider these separate issues.
Daniel
If such a measure were on a ballot, how would you vote?
Of course it’s not the same (I don’t think anyone is actually arguing that is is the same). But then a similar thing could be said about the fight for sexual equality; nobody was/is ever saying that men and women are the same, just that there was no reason to deny them equal rights
Which measure? Same-sex marriage? Big surprise here: I’d vote for it.
Civil unions with domestic partnership rights for consenting adults? I’d vote for them. Unless there were some weird stipulation snuck into the initiative, I’m all for it. Anyone who says that the man I love and I should stick with a civil union because it’s just as good as marriage, I’d tell him to stuff it, and keep fighting for marriage.
An initiative specifically legalizing polygamous marriage, or removing the restrictions on multiple simultaneous marriages for consenting adults? I’d vote against it. Because I’m personally opposed to the idea of polygamy, I have never seen or heard of a polygamous relationship that works for all the parties involved, I was not raised iin a society with a long tradition showing that polygamous relationships are beneficial or satisfying for everyone, I believe that polygamy is about behavior, and I have yet to hear an argument actually in favor of polygamy, instead only “it’s our business, so stay out of it.”
I’m not going to speak out against it, and I’m not going to stand in anyone else’s way in their movement to convince other people to think the way I do. But for now I’m personally against it. I believe in marriage – monogamous, exclusive marriage – and I believe it’s important, and I believe it should be available to those who want it, even if they both shave, and I haven’t exactly been quiet about it.
Sol, I know we’ve exchanged friendly email, and I have explicitly pointed out (in response to your harping on monogamy) that I am in a multiple-adult relationship.
Which means you have heard of a polygamous relationship system that works for all the parties involved. You may not remember, you may not think that my family is worthy of consideration or my orientation worthy of recognition, but you have heard of us.
I’m also not the only poly person on the board, but I do think I am one of the more vocal ones in support of your right to marry. Not merely out of the self-interest of LHoD’s “Those people who want to establish legal rights & responsibilities should have equal access to the mechanisms to do same”, but because it’s the right thing to do.
Thank you for an honest answer - and, yes, it was the polygamy issue that I was inquiring about; I was pretty certain I knew your answer to the same-sex marriage question.
I believe your answer may be taken by some as evidence of a double-standard: that is, someone else may come along and say: "I’m personally opposed to the idea of homosexuality, I have never seen or heard of a homosexual relationship that works for both of the parties involved, I was not raised in a society with a long tradition showing that homosexual relationships are beneficial or satisfying for everyone, I believe that homosexualityis about behavior, and I have yet to hear an argument actually in favor of homosexuality, instead only “it’s our business, so stay out of it.”
Please note that I do not advance this argument. I HAVE heard of same-sex relationships that give every indication of working out, at least as well as opposite-sex relationships do, I believe that same-sex partners are entitled to legal benefits in the smae way that married partners are, and I have come to believe that “marriage” is the right term to apply to such relationships.
- Rick
I definitely remember that e-mail conversation, and I still feel that I’ve respected it. Your complaint was a completely valid one, and I acknowledge it as such. I had made a post in which I was listing the unrelated things that are frequently lumped in with the same-sex marriage debate, and I listed polygamy along with pedophilia, beastiality, necrophilia, and whatever else. You quite correctly pointed out that you don’t appreciate being associated with those things any more than I do, and if I remember correctly I apologized. And since then I have made it a point in all of my posts to acknowledge the difference between the actions of consenting adults that I may personally not agree with, and that which is clearly wrong.
I also recall that you closed with the sentiment that while I may not support you in your fight to have polygamy recognized, you would hope that I show you the same respect. And I believe that I have done that. I was not “harping on monogamy,” I was responding to a direct question from another poster for my opinions on the topic. I have never spoken out against polygamy on these boards, and I will not do so again unless I am directly asked for my opinion on it. That is how I show you respect, and that is how I hold to my claim that “I won’t stand in anyone else’s way in their movement.” But still, I am a firm believer in monogamy, and I make no bones about it. I definitely and sincerely appreciate your support for my right to marry, but I simply have to point out that that doesn’t automatically imply that I’m going to return my support.
I’ve claimed many times that it’s not the ones who are vocal about their opposition to homosexuality who are the biggest opponents to same-sex marriage. It’s those who are opposed to it personally but say nothing or worse, act as if they support you while they secretly vote or speak out against you so as not to offend anyone, or so as never to have to challenge those personal beliefs. So I would be a complete hypocrite if I were to do the same thing, claiming that I’m in support of LHoD’s definition of marriage, when I’m personally not.
You say that I have heard of a polygamous relationship system that works for all the parties involved. I haven’t. I have only received a very polite and forceful e-mail from a polygamist. That tells me nothing more than it would for me to send an e-mail to someone who believes homosexuality is wrong saying, “Hello, I’m gay. Sincerely, SolGrundy” and expecting him to suddenly be okay with it. You claim that that means I don’t find your family worth of recognition or deserving of consideration. I claim that that’s not the case at all. It only means I still don’t know anything about your family.
I grew up in a household with monogamous parents. Every family I’ve come into contact with was, as far as I know, monogamous. I know what that kind of marriage is like. I’ve seen it. I know the realtionships involved. I know how it works. I’ve seen how it’s good. That’s where I stand, and I’ve said it ad nauseam on these boards. I know what kind of relationship I want, and I’ve described it and described my attempts at it in various posts. I’ve heard other same-sex couples sacrifice their privacy to describe their exclusive, long-term, monogamous relationships, so I’ve heard accounts of how they work.
Is that type of monogamous relationship the only kind that can ever work? I don’t know. Should my personal beliefs on mongamy keep other adults from being able to enter into any kind of consensual legal relationship they care to? I don’t know. I haven’t thought about it in any depth, because I haven’t been arguing for or against polygamy at all. I haven’t been arguing for LHoD’s definition of “marriage.” I have been arguing for my definition of marriage, which is not limited to sex but is (in my opinion) limited by exclusivity. That’s the issue at hand now; the bills and initiatives being voted on are specifically targeted to prevent homosexual marriages.
That’s not to say that my opinion of polygamy is the “right” one, or that I couldn’t be convinced otherwise if I gave it any thought at all; I’m only saying that it’s a separate argument.
Yes, I think you’ve remembered the conversation more accurately than I have; thank you for the corrections as necessary.
I do feel that you do “harp on monogamy”, though, and I don’t think it’s necessarily a good idea from a tactical standpoint – setting aside my personal feeling that, as Bricker mentioned, it’s a double standard.
I would tend to agree with you on this; too many people who don’t think they “have a dog in the fight” are willing to act to oppose rights rather than allow them.
Feel free to ask, if you want to know. I’m not gonna hijack the thread for it. I’m very open about my life in general.
But here’s where I think there’s the tactical problem – I would find it very easy to read your forceful writings on that subject in such a way as to suggest that only monogamous gays are worthy of having marriage rights.
Now, on one hand, I can understand this; you strongly want a monogamous relationship, and you’re trying to assert that you can have them in the middle of a set of stereotypes that paint you as promiscuous and unable to formulate a commitment. Pointing out that the stereotype does not hold is important; it’s a strong foundation for your part of the argument.
But at the same time, it runs the risk of promoting the anti-stereotype as essential, as something vital to the cause of marriage access. It makes it possible for someone to present as a “compromise” something to the effect of, “Okay, if all you gay folks are going to be monogamous, the ones of you who want to get married can do so.” I don’t believe that any large subset of humanity is capable of being perfectly monogamous (or poly, or much of anything else); setting up an argument that can get readily sidetracked that way is risky at best. (And it makes it easy for people to use my family as a political tool to attack yours, which makes me feel sick on a number of levels.)
So I say yes, it’s important to fight the stereotypes, and to do so thoroughly. But I think it’s also important to make it possible for those people who aren’t interested in monogamy but who still value marriage to not be excluded from the discourse, because otherwise you’ve got a weakness, a place that your enemies can divide your community. I think it’s important to frame the discussion so that all arguments for marriage can be heard, rather than pre-emptively silencing some voices.
Also, at the same time, I know a fair number of polyfolks who have or want same-sex primary relationships (many bi, some gay). Some of these people have been active in the marriage-rights struggle; most of the ones I’ve seen, however, have given up and declared that marriage itself is dead and worthless, because not only does it discriminate against them as queer, it discriminates against them as poly. (Some of them not only find it worthless for them, they try to persuade others that marriage has no value. Even to the point of suggesting that those people who are married get a divorce. I think marriage does have intrinsic value; that’s why I argue with them.) These people aren’t supporting marriage access anymore – they’re opposed to anyone having it, because they’re twice-screwed-over (at least in most places; I had most of these conversations before marriage in Massachusetts got more sane). Encouraging that community to get larger doesn’t help either of us in our practical goals.
My basic feeling is that when discussing families, it’s important to cover basic similarities while acknowledging the range of differences. Marriage doesn’t depend on a single vision of family; it depends on family.
If I may ask, Sol, how do you reconcile this statement:
with this statement:
?
The first is saying that I will not go around being vocal in my opposition to polygamy or shouting down those who would speak out in favor of it. I will not argue against it until I feel that I understand it, but will offer my opinion of it when I am asked directly.
The second says that if a measure or initiative specifically referring to polygamy were put to me today, I would vote against it, based on what I know of it and how I feel.
I have more to respond to Lilairen’s and Bricker’s posts, but no time to right now…
It seems to me that you’ve merely restated your assertions. If you vote against allowing polygamous marriage, then you are standing in the way of people who want that as much as you want homosexual marriage. You may not be vocal about it but you are using the state as your proxy to obstruct people which is actually more obstructive than simple vocalisation is anyway.
It looks like you are worried that the prospect of polygamous marriage further endangers the chances for homosexual marriage. Since you aren’t polygamous, you feel it’s OK to oppose it. I think this makes you as selfish as any homophobe who wants to deny marriage to you.
Lil, with my experiences in life I can – barely – grasp what a relationship such as you describe might be, emotionally, which for me is a requirement in doing the sort of identification that makes me into an advocate. With the purely odd experience of a “love at first sight” experience with the boy who became my son in spirit, I can find it much easier to grasp how two men – and by extension two women – could form a monogamous loving relationship.
I know we offended KellyM and lee with the idea that a “staged” approach, getting rights recognized as established in sequenced stages, might be wise – and while I never want to stand in the way of anyone’s due rights, I suspect that might be the wise course here as well. Enabling monogamous gay marriages would be a fairly simple process, requiring only that laws which presume that a marriage is one member of each sex be rewritten or reinterpreted to cover same-sex couples. Figuring out a legal means of identifying the sex of a transgendered person – not meaning making the law reflect what they formally declare they identify as, but rather the problem of dealing with what they “are” as they go through the discernment process – and Eddie > Gwen Araujo’s tragic case history points up what I mean here; from all reports, she had an extensive period of being unsure before clarifying on her inner femaleness – is just a trifle trickier. (Certainly it’s the easiest thing in the world to take a formal affidavit that Jack has determined to become Jacqueline, and order that official records be changed to reflect that fact; it’s the legal questions associated with the idea that people are taking time dealing with the recognition of their inner self being at odds with their genes or exterior plumbing, that creates problems.)
Structuring a marriage law that deals with three- and multi-person marriages, how they are contracted, the rights and responsibilities of each member, and how to deal with one or more members withdrawing from them, gets a bit tricky. Remember that family law does not deal with reasonable people in ideal situations, but rather with how to resolve problems when people are not being reasonable and situations are not ideal.
That’s not a statement in opposition to polymarriages; it’s a frank recognition of the legal problems inherent in recognizing them legally. (Translate that to “when we recognize polymarriages, we’ll need to resolve these questions” – so that it doesn’t come across as an argument against them.
But in the interim, we have a bunch of people who are firmly convinced that pure and simple same-sex monogamous marriages are beyond the pale. So the necessity, before fighting everyone’s battles at once, is to cross that bridge, and make it clear that you’re not talking about the guys with buttless chaps from the Pride parade two states away, you’re talking about Fred from the pharmacy and Joe the accountant, who love each other just as much as you love your wife/husband. When people have begun to deal with putting human faces to those they’d thrown into the gay grabbag (please, no bad puns), then maybe we can make some progress on the other concerns.
While we’re on the topic of gay rights generally, since matt_mcl hasn’t seen fit to raise the issue lately, and he and I (and lissener) seem to be the people concerned about it, can I bring up the fact that we have a lot of alienated gay teens in emotional trauma and often suicidal, living lives of quiet desperation, or sometimes ending them? Every so often, I run into a story somewhere that kicks me in the head about that, and I did again recently. (Details are confidential, but poignant.)
So, bottom line: What strategy is going to get everyone the rights they want to have guaranteed? How can all us people of good will work together on that strategy? I’m not necessarily pushing the phased approach – but it seems to me to be the one most likely to succeed in reasonable time; that’s why I addressed it at length above.
Thoughts, comments, rebuttals?
Honestly, if we Outer Space Alien Reptilian Homosexual Jews chose to seriously answer these questions we’d just be legitimizing your suspicions. Why do you think we don’t allow these discussions? It’s because we already control you. Duh.
The Black Helicopters will be paying you a visit tonight. Be a dear and don’t resist, will you?
P.S., bring lube.
There are live passionate people on both sides. It is a sign of strength that one displays dignity and respect in the face of hatred. You can lather hate speech in 'passion" all you want, but hate speech is hate speech no matter who’s saying it.
First of all, I don’t hate them, I hate their hatred.
Secondly, are you implying that my passion for securing my rights is somehow equal to their passion for denying me those rights? If I’m guilty of what you call “hate speech,” then so be it.
You’re still treating this as some kind of abstract, hypothetical debate. But for some of us it’s much more personal than that. We haven’t chosen our sexual orientatiion, but the people who damn us **have **chosen their beliefs, and they have to be held accountable for that choice.
And I agree with you on that entirely.
Getting rid of the state’s unreasonable interest in the sexes of the parties to a marriage contract is simple, from the standpoint of sorting out the contracts. Nothing changes except the prurient interest.
A friend of mine suggested that working through the structure of multiple marriage is really something that has to come from the common law, rather than the legislature; I wonder if he might be right about that. Decriminalising polygamy (I consider bigamy to be marriage fraud, and thus a legitimate state concern, like any other form of fraud) and seeing what happens without building a structure for it first doesn’t strike me as terribly likely, though.
No kidding! When I was working in a law office, I spent a fair amount of time studying legal documents and how to prepare them (obviously; I prepared a lot and picked up a fair amount about how they get put together). I read about alternative structures for putting together some sort of coherent structure for a family, property ownership through trusts and LLCs, all kinds of things.
It’s hard, even in a simple case, and with the benefits of some legal marriages established. My family is lucky; we’ve got a pretty well-established setup at the moment even with only half of the interrelationships recognised by law, and additional legal documentation can probably patch most of it, since we don’t have the risk of first decisions going to unfriendly in-laws or out-laws instead of partners.
But at the same time, I think it’s important to avoid suggesting that only those people who aren’t wearing assless chaps get access to marriage.
There are a lot of people who are willing to try to get their rights by a process of “We’re normal, just like you aside from this one thing, not like those guys over there. Those guys over there, you can screw over all you want, it’s no skin off my nose.”
Nah, I agree with you. Except for my concern about building the phases on the families and lives of “those guys over there”, whether “those guys over there” are the polyfolks or the drag queens. (I’ve seen the distancing thing used with both groups as its target.)
I guess I have trouble reconciling the idea that you wouldn’t speak out against it if you didn’t understand it, but you’d be willing to vote against it with that same level of understanding. If you don’t understand it well enough to articulate a reason to vote against it, shouldn’t you not vote on it all?
And I think you’re wrong with just about every point you make there. Of course it’s true that by voting against polygamous marriage, I would be standing in the way of its legalization. But it’s only trivially true. To the best of my knowledge, there’s no such initiative or measure being proposed anywhere, and I haven’t heard of the issue’s coming to any kind of resolution in the near future.
Whether or not I would vote for or against such a measure is irrelevant except to those who wish to show that I’m getting tripped up in my web of lies and double standards. I’m not. I’m saying that the same thing that Polycarp and Left Hand of Dorkness have said, although they worded it much more clearly – supporters of polygamous marriage still have their work cut out for them (in other words, the movement that I’m not standing in the way of) to explain to people how it works.
As for the rest of your comments: no. I am not “worried” that polygamous marriage endangers the chances for homosexual marriage. I am pointing out that they’re not the same issue, and that people should stop talking as if acceptance or rejection of one automatically implies acceptance or rejection of the other. I don’t feel that it’s “OK to oppose” polygamous marriage solely because I’m not polygamous; I feel that it’s okay for me to oppose it because I have an understanding of what marriage is, and polygamy as I understand it is fundamentally at odds with the institution of marriage as I understand it.
And when you hear me make the claim that polygamists have no capacity for understanding what love is, that they are perverts, that they are deviants, that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Rachael and Isaac,” then you can compare me to a homophobe. Until then, I’ll thank you to respond to what I actually say, instead of what you think I said.
What do you say to those people who say that they have an understanding of what marriage is, and it is between a man and a woman, and same-sex marriage as they understand it is fundamentally at odds with the institution of marriage as they understand it?
What should I say to you?
Sorry if this is a bit of backtracking. I have seen it touched on here and there but not fully explored.
Why is the religious institution of marriage and the civil aspect of marriage constantly mixed in these arguments?
As I understand it the gay community wants access to the same legal protections any married coupld enjoys (inheritance, control over medical decisions for their SO, etc.).
What is wrong with calling these Civil Unions and be done with the whole, “You are destroying the institution of marriage,” bit?
Separation of church and state and all that anyone?
In my view the two aspects can and should be separated.
A Civil Union should be allowed. The concept of such obvious, overt discrimination (not saying that hidden discrimination is ok) should be abolished and gay couples should have access to the same protections and benefits the law grants to heterosexual couples.
As for marriage, the religious ceremony of marriage, it is between you and your chosen religion. That is not a question for the state to decide. Some religions are more tolerant of it than others. If you are in one that is intolerant that is really your own issue…take it up with your priest/rabbi/witchdoctor/whatever.
In short…why does the link between religion and the legal aspects of marriage persist?