Comments on: Marriage is Still Not Assimilation

By: Sara Burke

Sara Burke — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:12:40 +0000

RE: Your essay on gender – I read it when you posted it. I disagree with some of its points, but that is a conversation that should be held elsewhere. Someday I’ll post something here that may be more pertinent.

By: Sara Burke

Sara Burke — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:08:59 +0000

Ha – it’s preferable in the world of fiat, you mean?

That depends on whether our frame of analysis includes the public debate. Because eliminating “marriage” from law would require a more drastic legal change, it might spark more controversy during the process. If we ignore the whole process of legal reform, though, I would agree with you, not because of the backlash argument, but because the new phrasing would set a good precedent for more clarity in separating church and state – not just legally but also linguistically.

By: LHosphord

LHosphord — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:08:27 +0000

Perhaps, but not as much as infringing upon traditionally religious concepts, at least as I would expect, they still have it in social settings. Regardless, it’s still a program of change targeted at equality, easing into solutions can contribute to wider spread social change. You never get all your demands at first, trying to get them all is inevitably going to produce resentment.

It’s only preferable in an analysis that excludes any sort of notion of political capital or public support. In reality I’m willing to settle for compromises like what you’re advocating. What I said is what I would implement if I was the government.

On a side note though, you may enjoy an essay I wrote on gender for school, it can be found here: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/note.php?note_id=252809847806

By: Sara Burke

Sara Burke — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:52:54 +0000

I think there would be more social backlash to eliminating the word “marriage” entirely than there would be to including gays. Plus, the word “marriage” contributes to the progressive symbolic effect that I talked about.

If you admit it’s less pragmatic, then why is it preferable?

By: LHosphord

LHosphord — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:47:43 +0000

I found this post interesting and I agree with most of the ideology in it. However I disagree on one critical point. We should not extend the right of marriage legally to everyone, rather we should withdraw the right of marriage from everyone. Marriage has traditionally been a social construct, hence the distinction between civil unions and marriage. The question should be posed as to why the government ever got into the job of marriage. Traditionally the role of marriage has been legislated by the church, hence the religious backlash induced by the very notion of homosexual marriage. Any attempt to legislate equality outside of the civil realm will be seen as infringement upon the church’s right to retain their institution. Removing the notion of marriage from the law and providing universally available civil unions ensures the same benefits as extending marriage by providing that same institutional equality without the social and ideological backlash. I’ll give you that my solution is far less pragmatic.

By: Sara Burke

Sara Burke — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:58:48 +0000

General note: I have added a footnote with some citations about the effects of laws on attitudes.

By: Sara Burke

Sara Burke — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:07:04 +0000

“Laws can be used to shape social perceptions” is imprecise. Laws DO shape social perceptions. That effect is not in the control of the lawmakers. The existing laws which contribute to social bigotry are unethical and un-American.

By: jonolan

jonolan — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:03:39 +0000

Regarding 1:

Marriage isn’t the key. A legally recognized union is the key. Some states offer civil unions identical rights, privileges, and duties to those of marriages.

And you’re somewhat right. Laws can be used to shape social perceptions, but doing so is close to the depths of un-American and unethical behavior.

Regarding 2:

31 out of 32 times that gay marriage has been actually put to a vote by the people it failed, normally by large numbers – though those numbers have been steadily dropping and it did finally pass once at last.

By: Sara Burke

Sara Burke — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:21:29 +0000

Regarding “1″
- Marriage is key to legal rights in most places
- It’s still unethical for the law to create a distinction
- I’ll repeat for the third time that laws do NOT just reflect society – they also shape social perceptions. Denial of marriage can hold back social acceptance.

Regarding “2″
That’s an assumption the right tends to make. I doubt Americans, as a whole, agree about anything.

Regarding the overall philosophy:
The idea that the majority can override the rights of a minority just because they’re “non-normative” is an active force for the status quo. It does not mean “I don’t particularly care myself.” It means “I actively push for things to stay the way they are.”

By: jonolan

jonolan — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:58:04 +0000

Why not civil unions then with all the rights, privileges, and duties of marriages? California had that and it wasn’t enough for the gays as Prop 22 and its counterpoint Prop 8 show.

Due to everyone’s behavior I’m left with two thoughts on matter:

1 – Gays don’t care about legal rights, just forcing pro forma acceptance.

2 – Americans, as a whole, don’t want to give in to that.

I don’t particularly care myself except that I have issues with any small, non-normative group that tries to use the Legislature or the Courts to violate the sensibilities of the People and to force laws that are directly contrary to the will of the People.

Essentially, I think gay marriage should have been a “social battle” for the hearts and minds of the people, not a legal battle.