There are so many different things to talk about in relation to redefining marriage to encompass same-sex unions, but I just want to comment on this one common sentiment in this post. Since the NY law was passed, I've seen people I follow on Twitter saying things like "who cares who gets married?" and "why do you care? mind your own business."
As I commented to one, that's so deliciously paradoxical. Setting aside the rights--rights and privileges that can be enjoyed without extending the meaning of marriage, as exemplified in "civil unions"--the reason that marriage is recognized as a social construct, and indeed why the advocates of same-sex marriage say that "civil unions" are not enough, is they want their unions to be recognized and accepted in our society, just like heterosexual marriage.
In other words, the crux in changing marriage to include same-sex unions is because same-sex couples care what others think about their unions. They want others to care. They want us to recognize. They want us to accept.
So telling opponents of same-sex marriage to "mind our own business" and saying "who cares" just makes no sense at all. Marriage is not a private matter. It is a public matter. That's the whole friggin' point of all this brouhaha.
People who get married want to declare their intent formally, publicly, and legally to their society. They want us to care, regardless of their orientation.
So who cares? Me. And you should, too.
So? What's your point? Let's replace the issue of gay marriage with civil rights for black people. The point was also to be recognized by society, and to achieve equality of rights.
ReplyDeleteThe "mind your own business" attack is not saying you should not care about the issue, it's saying that you should care about who else than you gets onto the bus. You should care about the fact that some people care about who gets on the bus.
You managed to flip the issue on its head by conflating two things that have nothing to do with one another.
There is a "not"missing in that comment. Left as an exercise to the reader ;)
ReplyDeleteI am not the conflater. You are! :)
ReplyDeleteFirst, I do not buy the analogy of the 60s civil rights movements, though I know it brings comfort to proponents to make it.
More specifically, getting on the bus is in no way equivalent to marriage. There are those who say "why do I need a piece of paper from the government to say that we're married/committed?" The point is not the paper but the public statement--you want others to know, appreciate, value, etc. your commitment.
I'm not talking about denying same-sex couples the legal benefits like visitation, burial, etc. rights. I can accept extending these to other "consenting adults" (and frankly I don't think sex should matter at all on this point).
But same-sex couples aren't satisfied with this. They want the title "marriage" precisely because it is a public statement that they want to be recognized. They're asking us to pay attention. And we do.
No you are! (this is going to get us far)
ReplyDeleteYou are saying that getting on the bus is in no way equivalent to marriage but you don't say how so or why. I certainly don't see the difference. There is a right that people want to have. Some people are getting excluded from that right because of who they are.
You are not the one desiring the right in question, and you are not in a position to tell people what they desire. Yes they want the title "marriage". Why should they not have it?
That leaves us to really wonder why you think they should be excluded.
On the contrary, I did describe the crucial difference. It is the nature of marriage to be a public recognition of a private commitment. That is not so of getting on the bus, which is just an activity you do to get from A to B.
ReplyDeleteMarriages are recognized by the state only because they are seen to provide value to the state (as I have written elsewhere on this blog). If the same benefit cannot be said to be had, the state is not discriminating unfairly to say that some marriages will be recognized by it and others not.
The burden of proof is on those demanding change. Prove that same sex marriages provide the same benefit to the state. So far, I've seen no such proof.
You need not wonder why I think the way I do. I've written on it here (http://dotnettemplar.net/On+The+Good+And+Right+Of+Marriage.aspx) and here (http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/marriage-must-be-strengthened-not.html) and here (http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/speaking-of-abominations.html) and here (http://www.facebook.com/SheckyS/posts/1848926427683), in addition to this post. However, this post was very focused on the untenable position that we should "mind our own business" or say "who cares who gets married."
If you really want to go there, we can compare gay marriage to marriage between white and black people then. Would that work better for you? Is it literal enough for the analogy to register?
ReplyDeleteSo now marriage has been redefined by "provides value to the state"? That's news to me. And I thought it was a social institution representing the love, union and commitment of two adults. So now it has to "provide value"? Why?
I suppose now I'm off to those other posts of yours then. See you there.
(by the way, you may have the most annoying comment system on the planet: having to re-authentify for each comment? Really?)
You're not the first to make that comparison. I don't buy it.
ReplyDeleteYes, there is no reason for the state to get involved in two individual's love or commitment unless it has some bearing on the common good. It's not me who's redefining things here..
Saying that the state won't formally recognize love and commitment between two people is in no way denying them that love--they are free to be as committed, unified, and loving as they want. There is no human right that the state sanctions two people's love; that's just ludicrous.
The reason states recognize marriage is because it brings benefit to society--the common good. Civil marriage is not free. There is a cost to the state in dealing with marriage--registration, filing/recordkeeping, and then there's all the divorce costs with judges, clerks, etc. There has to be a perceived value and justification to incur all that cost.
Put briefly, that good has been recognized in 1) the normal (as in the norm--not without exception) good is the perpetuation of the society (and its values) through children and 2) the raising of children to carry on that society through a stable relationship. Is marriage more than that? Absolutely. But we're talking about the reasons for *civil* marriage, the reasons states should license it, and try to uphold it.
Same-sex unions certainly do not bear children as the norm, nor do they raise children as the norm. Ergo, there is little benefit to society and they should not be granted the same status as unions that do. To do otherwise would be unjust in the most basic sense of equity--giving things their due.
Sorry this system bugs you; it's standard blogger. It doesn't ask me to sign in every time.
This was getting way too long for a comment so I moved it to a full post. Thanks for your hospitality.
ReplyDeletehttp://vulu.net/i-care-that-everyone-can-get-married