SERIES ON CIVIL UNIONS: Gabriel Rosenberg

part one, excerpts: "A number of occurrences have prompted me to revisit the issue of civil unions. First there was a discussion in the comments here between Mark Miller and me. I had posted about gender discrimination, and Mark implied--I think--that it would not be gender discrimination to have gendered terms, provided legal consequences did not hinge on the term. An example used was a king and queen. A monarchy which referred to the monarch as king if male, and queen if female, wouldn't necessarily be discriminating provided that all the rules and powers were the same. ...So the analogous question with regards to civil unions is would it be acceptable to use 'marriage' as a gendered term referring to a male and female, but 'civil union' to refer to two males or two females with the understanding that regardless of the term the rules and regulations would be the same? Might one even suggest distinct terms to differentiate male-male and female-female unions?

"More recently I was discussing the recent vote in Missouri with some friends and family there. (I grew up in Missouri). There were many with whom I talked who opposed the amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, but there were also some who supported it. One in particular said I had convinced him that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights, but it was important for him that marriage keeps its gendered definition. This position is not uncommon--think John Kerry--and I have certainly heard it often. Gendered terms seem to the most common, most enduring, and most emotionally tied to us when it comes to familial relationships. That is why I have opined that even with same-sex marriage the words 'mother' and 'father' will not disappear. (Nor do I believe, 'husband,' 'wife,' 'brother,' 'sister,' 'aunt,' 'uncle,' 'bride,' 'groom' or others will vanish--although 'bridegroom' which I prefer for some unknown reason to 'groom' seems to be on the decline). It is also for this reason that I think even many supporters found the replacement of 'bride' and 'groom' on the Massachusetts marriage applications (pdf) with 'party A' and 'party B' to be disturbing. (Personally, I think checkboxes beside each name with 'bride' and 'bridegroom' would have been preferable, simply allowing two brides or two grooms. Part of the problem, I think was the Massachusetts legislature and administration spent more of the six month stay trying to fight the Goodridge decision than figuring out how to best implement the changes.) It has thus been observed that it might be far easier for 'civil union' legislation to be passed. In fact one Connecticut legislator observed that a majority there supported either marriage or civil unions, but the marriage supporters have delayed action in the hopes that marriage itself can get a clear majority."

more

part two--the problems with civil unions--excerpt: "...Even before, though, I had noted some problems with civil unions from a policy perspective. Much of the power of marriage comes from our common understanding of the word. Of course this is precisely why some oppose changing the term. I think, however, that it is our understanding of the commitment and obligation involved which is critical when we use the word 'marriage.' If I say that I need to get home to help care for my sick wife it is not understood that the reason it is so important is because we can procreate. Nor do I believe it is recognized that the reason it is important is because it is my masculine duty to care for her. I think people would recognize the same responsibility if it was she who said she must get home to take care of me. Rather it is the understanding that is a duty that comes from marriage. That duty exists regardless of gender. In some aspects there is a legal duty to care for one's spouse, but there is an even wider duty recognized by others. I think if the word 'marriage' is used, then people--both within and outside the marriage--will be more likely to recognize the responsibility it entails because we are already familiar with it. It is in this area that I am most worried about civil unions. Will people recognize the same extra-legal responsibilities in a civil union?"

more

part three--what people who support civil unions should do

posted by Eve at 3:17 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home