Civil Unions or Marriage? What is the difference between these two? Does it matter? What is at stake? State by state or federal? Discuss.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This is a blog where we can share our experiences being queer. It is a chance for us to express the diversity within the LGBTQIQ communities by sharing our own stories. If you would like to add your story please email it to closetsnomore@gmail.com
About Me
- ClosetsNoMore
- Your Hometown, Everywhere
- This is a blog where we can share our experiences of being LGBTQIQ people. Though we are all often lumped into one group, we know that our stories and experiences are diverse. We come from different races, classes, religious and backgrounds; we experience, express, transgress and embody a variety of sexes, genders; we have different experiences and opinions. This blog is a collection of some of our stories. To whoever is reading this, just know-You are not alone.
Labels
- 1970's (1)
- 2000's (3)
- Christian (6)
- civil union (1)
- Comic (2)
- coming out (5)
- Day of Silence (1)
- Discussion (4)
- election (2)
- LGBT rights/inclusion (1)
- marriage (1)
- Performance Art (1)
- politics (2)
- Queer (1)
- Terminology (1)
Posts
6 comments:
in my opinion there is no essential difference between the terms "marriage" and "civil union" except for two things. marriage is a civil contract and a religious rite. civil union is solely a civil contract. the other difference is that in the mind of most marriage means two people of the opposite sex, and civil union refers to two people of the same sex.
since religious bodies are not extensions of the state, churches and other faith communities are not bound to expand their definition of marriage. those within those communities may wish to open there communities to more inclusive understandings of love and relationship, but it is not up to the civil government or queer activists to impose change on them. it is that fear that causes some who might otherwise be open to change to recoil instead with trepidation.
on the civil front it also doesn't make a difference, because a word is not equality. equality rests in the legal recognition of queer relationships, with all its rights and responsibilities. fighting over a word misses the point.
and there is much more important matters that still plague the queer communities. like anti-queer violence, and discrimination in employment and housing. these issues have not been solved. also important to note, sodomy is STILL illegal in many states. it is a misnomer that the supreme court banned sodomy laws. what they banned was discriminatory sodomy laws, meaning laws that only targeted same-sex lovers and ignored oppose-sex lovers. so in states that have sodomy laws which are applicable to all they are still legal. that they are not in practice applied equally is another subject, one not addressed i believe by the court. therefore, it is kind of putting the horse before the cart to fight for laws that recognize same-sex relationships in places where it would still be illegal for them to express their love in physical terms.
so what i am saying is essential i think a lot of divisiveness is caused over the fighting of a word, and lots of other important matters are being swept aside.
This question is both simple and complex for me to answer. On one hand, I have an unwavering commitment to the idea that what is available for heterosexual couples should be equally accessible for any partnership between two people. Different rights or even different language implies inequality, and that is unacceptable. "Separate is inherently unequal."
On the other hand, I have very serious practical concerns. Take the current situation in Iowa as an example. The Iowa Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the constitutionality of marriage only for heterosexual couples. I am very hopeful that the court will come down in favor of equality for all. However, I am also incredibly fearful about the consequences. Democrats currently control all branches of government, but Governor Culver and a majority of legislators are opposed to same-sex marriage. If the Supreme Court would allow marriage, I am afraid that efforts to amend the constitution to define marriage between a man and woman, previously thwarted, might prevail. While I hope with all hope that the Supreme Court sides with equality, part of me is not so certain that a decision similar to the one in New Jersey might be more feasible for the time being. If the legislature is instructed to make marriage available or another system with the same rights, I think the conversation would be pushed forward; however, if the constitution is amended before any rights are in place, we are knocked back with perhaps an even bigger hill to climb.
I would love to hear other thoughts on this. It absolutely pains me to accept anything that makes LGBTQIQ people second class citizens in a way, but I sometimes wonder if it would be better to take the steps forward that we can if it means not being set back another twenty years. Civil unions in Iowa would be a big deal, and at least partnership rights would be in place even if future efforts to define marriage as between a man and a woman succeed.
And so it comes down to that difficult question we face in politics -- is it better to celebrate something over nothing while always working toward full equality, or do we demand and accept only the complete realization of our goals.
On a general note, I have no reverence for the notion of marriage in civic life. I believe that only civil unions should be available for any couple, and marriage should be a matter for religious communities.
i agree with both hal and tyler on many points that they've addressed.
1. language - i feel conflicted because, as tyler has mentioned, all people should be eligible for civil unions, and marriages should be things that churches endorse...and while i see what tyler is saying when he says that separate does not mean equal, i do believe that even if we were to make language equal, it would still take a long time for people to change how they conceive 'marriage' period.
in other words, regardless of what we call it, it will still be 'othered'...much like that of what affirmative action has done for how people understand racism and white privilege...
2. legally speaking - it used to be really frustrating for me to talk about 'gay marriage' because i saw it as just a replication of a part of heterosexuality that i did not want to be a part of...something that should be challenged, so to speak. therefore, i felt like queer activists were wasting their time trying to fight for it...when if you think about it, if we put our heads together and fought for things like universal health care for all, then we wouldn't have to worry about some of the legal issues that arise...
however, it still wouldn't change the fact that in order to find out how your spouse was doing, see her/him in the hospital, be involved in the decision making, etc., you would need to have legal rights that are afforded to couples who's relationship is legally recognized...
i suppose what i'm trying to say is that, regardless of my personal feelings toward the institution of marriage all around, which is ever changing, unless everyone can be seen as equals under the law, there will be no way we can move forward in terms of how people are viewed on all aspects of identity...and once these legal protections are made, it's going to take a long-ass time for all people to be viewed as equal citizens...
because all oppressions are connected and until we can create a world that is free oppression, we will all be slaves of the institution...
but we gotta start somewhere, right? (sorry this sounds so pessimistic...it's really not meant to be!)
In a perfect world, all legal unions of two people would be considered civil unions because it is the civil government that is endorsing the rights, benefits, and protections under the law. Marriages should be up to religious institutions. I like this for two reasons.
1. I think it is a more accurate understanding.
2. I think that the use of civil unions by the government also separates the government from religious institutions. The idea of marriage, though perhaps not entirely Christocentric, does not respect different peoples beliefs about "marriage". Hand binding, soul union, etc.
In theory and in conversation this may seem like an argument of semantics but the difference in words has real and tangible consequences. Unless the words that are used for hetero couples is the same as all other couples, it is just leading the way for court battles over semantics and defining what company considers marraige and civil union.
I also think that NJ and Mass, to an extent, have proven how faulty a state by state civil union legislation is.
many good points have been made. i would like to address a couple.
i don't think a word makes for full equality. i am thinking do i need to be called a heterosexual in order to be equal to heterosexuals? are queer relationships the mirror image of heterosexual relationships? or is there a different dynamic because of the difference in genders involved in the relationships?
which leads me to point two. m-e-g-g-o makes a think an important observation, and i don't think it is just her personal opinion. marriage, historically, is not the sealing of a relationship of equals inspired by love and confirmed by either civil and/or religious authority. marriage, historically, is a social/economic agreement between families. the woman is not the equal of the man. law and not love are the bonds that tie. the love aspect of historic marriage is a love born of obligation, not as we understand it as love that is personally inspired and freely given. give the reality of the history of marriage, which is still in practice in many parts of the world, do we really need to participate in the enslavement of our love partner in order to claim equality?
I personally think we should go for the government to make civil unions, with all the legal benefits of what straight couples get when they marry. Then, if people want to feel "married," they can consult with their religious organizations, because "marriage" seems to fall more in that realm. Does that make sense? They are really two different things, one is a more religious thing and one is a governmental thing.
But in any case, I really wish "gay marriage" weren't the big focus of the modern queer movement. It really bothers me that people are so caught up in the individualistic issues and not in the larger societal issues. Like, why don't we queers fight for free universal health care?? Why should health care be dependent on employment and/or marital status anyway? Let's fight for the good of ALL people, not just us queers.
Anyway, those are my two cents, as a queer person who is "unpartnered" and has absolutely no plans to settle down.
Post a Comment