(Parts of the following were originally posted on the Los Angeles Moms Blog, and this issue isn’t going away for awhile.)
I celebrated my wedding anniversary on October 21 – the second anniversary of my second marriage, which is also the second marriage for my second husband. I’ve heard the saying that getting married again, particularly after divorce – which is what ended both of our first marriages – is a triumph of hope over experience. Rarely have I claimed to be an optimist, but so far this second-time-around experience has been just what I’ve hoped it would be.
But even during the waning days of my first marriage, I believed that eventually I would want to be in a serious long-term relationship again. However, I had serious doubts about whether I’d marry again, because I was quite certain I didn’t want to get divorced again – and like it or not, with a 50% failure rate in this country for first marriages and an even higher casualty rate for subsequent ones (so much for hope triumphing over experience), it’s a possibility that can’t be disregarded. If a couple is strong in their commitment to one another, does “a piece of paper” really matter all that much? And if that commitment falters, will “a piece of paper” keep them together?
Legally speaking, it absolutely DOES matter. As a legally-recognized institution, marriage confers certain rights to partners – hospital visitation, property and inheritance, and filing joint taxes (woohoo!), among others – that don’t apply to other forms of relationships. Even though I’d been married nearly eighteen years before I turned 40, I don’t think I fully grasped this until I was single again and had moved to California. That was when I became aware of how fiercely gays and lesbians were fighting to obtain those legal rights for their own relationships, and it was reinforced by my friendship with a gay man who was raising three adopted children with his registered domestic partner. If people like my friends thought marriage was so important, who was I to dismiss it?
California’s courts granted gays and lesbians the right to marry earlier this year, but that decision has been rescinded by the passage of Proposition 8 in last week’s election, a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman (so it would also officially outlaw polygamy, I suppose). The vote calls the legal status of 18,000 gay marriages into question and has spurred daily protests by opponents of the ban; even our state’s Republican (although socially moderate and married to a Kennedy) governor thinks it should be overturned.
My conservative suburb was full of “Yes on 8” signs in the weeks leading up to the vote, bearing the tagline “protect marriage.” (While California as a whole has a flaming-liberal reputation, it can be quite surprising to realize just how much red dots this “blue” state.)
I fail to grasp how anyone in a “traditional” marriage is personally threatened by gays marrying. We have enough struggles in maintaining healthy, strong marriages as it is. If marriage really needs “protection,” make it harder for anyone to get married in the first place. Many churches require pre-marital counseling before a wedding ceremony; make that a legal, secular requirement in order to be granted a marriage license. How about a test before licensing – not a blood test, which most states no longer require anyway, but a written exam? If it’s important enough to have a test for driving, what about for something else you’re intending to do for the rest of your life? Afterward, marriage could also be “protected” by making divorces harder to get, although as someone who has been through not just divorce but the personal pain leading up to it, I don’t think I would fully support that myself; sometimes the individual needs protection more. But I really don’t get how marriage is being “protected” by denying it to gays and lesbians.
I think that this IS a question involving the “definition” of marriage – not who can participate in it, but what it is and who confers it. (On a related note, this BlogHer post by Gena Haskett surveys several “traditional” definitions of marriage.) Many of the supporters of the ban are religious conservatives who are concerned about their churches, but churches have always been able to decide who they would or wouldn’t allow to marry under their auspices, and even if the ban had failed, that would not have changed. (Ask any Catholic who ever wanted to marry a non-Catholic, or marry after a divorce – another thing not allowed or recognized – and was denied a church wedding.) Although ministers and priests are legally authorized to perform marriages and sign licenses, the church ceremony is separate from the legal license to wed, and a wedding doesn’t have to involve a church at all. And a church wedding ceremony without that properly executed “piece of paper” isn’t going to be recognized by the law as producing a married couple. Legally speaking, it’s a civil procedure. Although my second wedding was performed by a nondenominational minister, I’ve never been married in “the church,” so technically both of my marriages could be called “civil unions.”
I think that for me, two things matter here: a level playing field as far as the legal status of relationships, and not revoking legal rights that were already granted (the Prohibition lesson). I should have been concerned about one more thing, though – separation of church and state. While the state is not permitted to make laws for churches, the involvement of religious institutions in getting the amendment passed suggests that churches find it permissible to shape the law. With Prop 8, a question of legal rights became a referendum on morality.
Tall Paul and I moved in together with the idea that “we’d see” about eventually marrying, but when he proposed to me three months later, I happily accepted. We had batted around the idea of not marrying as a political statement, considering our friends who weren’t able to marry, but decided to go forward and exercise the legal right that we were fortunate to have. My gay friend was the master of ceremonies at our wedding reception, which he attended with his partner and their daughters. I’d be very happy to have the chance to attend their wedding one day. I think that day just got further away, but it could still arrive.
well done!
We lived in Alabama when gay marriage was on the ballot there. I was in the minority who voted to allow it. I cannot understand why people think gay people shouldn’t have the right to marry. They deserve this basic right as much as straight people do, in my opinion.
Alisonwonderland and Kathy (Bermudaonion) – Thanks! I don’t expect everyone to agree with me when I post on controversial topics like this, but validation is nice.
Check out some of the later comments on my LA Moms Blog post about this from two weeks ago – some people have been quite happy to take me to task for my position.
Prop 8 was poorly written. By defining “marriage”, you take away the separation of church and state. This is why the word “marriage” should be left out of it completely.
For me and for many, marriage is a religious sacrament. Yes, my husband and I did have to take a test to get married in the Episcopal Church. A psychological test where the results were so weird based on our upbringing, one priest actually refused to marry us because she said we’d never make it (10 years and counting thank you very much!)
I would have voted for a proposition that promoted civil unions allowing two people (of any sex) to share the same fundamental rights. The whole issue here is the use of the word marriage. Instead of trying to convice those with religion to change the definition, they should instead “protect” marriage and keep it out of the state constitution and try to promote the government to stop using the word marriage and instead recognize all civil unions.
I voted Yes on 8 for many reasons, but not because I am anti-gay, or because I like to discriminate against others. Sometimes these propositions are written poorly, and we need to stand our ground until our law makers can get it right.
Kelly – Thanks for your thoughtful response. While we voted differently on Prop 8, I think we both see it as a civil-rights question AND as a separation-of-church-and-state issue.
The word “marriage” has certain connotations that “civil union” doesn’t, and that may be why “marriage” is what’s being argued over here. IF a “civil union” offered ALL of the same rights and privileges legally associated with “marriage” (which is currently not the case), I think a lot of people – gay and straight, regardless of current relationship status – could be satisfied with that. (I may be naive and wrong about that, though.) If you’re suggesting that maybe “civil union” is what should be redefined legally, and not “marriage,” I don’t think I would disagree.
This is a good and informative post Florinda.
I tend to agree with Kelly (as you know)
But because I am a “religious” person I do want to say that it wasn’t only religious people that voted for Prop 8. I have a student that registered to vote just to vote for it. (I also have another student who thinks we shouldn’t have an African American president–neither of these students are religious or Caucasion or American born)
I think that the this battle was fought in the ads and both sides did a terrible job of addressing the real issue.
Gay marriage will be made legal. But sometimes the courts act more quickly than the collective conscience of the people. When that happens, we end up with these kinds of battles.
I just read a article about Bill Cosby, considering whether “the Huxtable effect” helped to elect Barack Obama. He said no, but I do think there’s a case to be made that the more people are exposed to the scary “other” as individual people, the more likely they are to see that we’re all just people, regardless of physical features, religion or sexual orientation. Discrimination against LGBT folks is probably a little harder to get rid of because of the religious angle, but we’ll get there. Meanwhile, figuring out what’s likely to win people over instead of making them feel more threatened is a good discussion to have.
Amy – The biggest push to pass Prop 8 came via organized religious groups, but they weren’t the only ones who were for it (and not all church/religious folks were for it, either) – thanks for noting that. I also agree with your observations about the ads – fearmongering on both sides, really; the “yes” side just did it more effectively.
Good point about the courts being ahead of the “collective conscience” (good term) of the citizens. It’s happened before – desegregation being just one example – and I think you’re right about it happening with this issue as well.
KFB – I read something about the “Huxtable effect” in the election yesterday too.
I think one of the challenges with this issue is getting a big portion of the public to see it in terms of discrimination and civil rights, as opposed to morality, in the first place. You’re right, I think, about the religious angle complicating things in that respect.
I’m finding it frustrating that it seems like the “no” forces weren’t really galvanized until they lost. But it’s all going to end up in the courts anyway.
Very thoughtful post and civil responses 🙂 I voted NO on Prop 8 for several reasons (many of which you noted, Florinda). I’m a Christian, but I really don’t see what religion has to do with civil rights. In California this ban on same sex marriage was previously OVERTURNED by our courts because it was found to be unconstitutional. How is it that Californians can turn around and put it right back on the ballot and vote yes, once again, despite it already being found unconstitutional? I know that THIS proposition sought to actually change our constitution…interesting. Anyway, it will go back to court, and most likely be overturned again (as it should be). What a colossal waste of time and money. I hear the argument all the time that “a majority” voted against same sex marriage and therefore the courts have no right to overturn the “will of the people.” Um, wrong. Actually, if that were true, people could vote in all kinds of discriminatory ways against all kinds of minorities and our laws would be useless. We have courts to protect people’s rights…just because a majority want something, does not make it legal. Now I’ll jump off my soapbox 🙂 By the way, Florinda…I’m also in my second marriage and I think I actually got it right this time 🙂
Wendy – I think I may have gotten the marriage thing right the second time too :-). It’s good to learn from the first time.
Yes, it’s headed back to court, will probably be overturned once more, and then it will probably get on the ballot yet again. Sigh. It’s a civil-rights question being framed as a moral issue – and if it IS about morality, I don’t think it belongs on the ballot, period.
Thanks for joining the conversation!
This is awesome—oh so glad you did it and so well-done!
Julie P – Thanks!
Well said, Florinda!
I agree with the whole “civil union” vs. “marriage” label-maybe we just need to change what we call things, and everybody will be happy…but I don’t think so. There’s just something about, “Oooh! When are you getting married?” that has a better ring to it than, “Oooh! When are you getting civilly unioned?” Civilly bound? Civilly sanctioned as a couple? How unromantic is that??
I have so many other thoughts on this, but I just can’t put together anything coherent right now!
It is unfortunate that civil rights are being mixed up with religious values.
My issue with civil unions is that separate but equal does not work. And I don’t think civil unions are recognized from state to state the way that a marriage license is.
I’m buying poster-board later for the girls to make signs for tomorrow’s protest.
Dreamybee – Exactly. “Marriage” has certain connotations that other terms don’t, and that relates to social perceptions that would take a long time to shift. I suspect people would still use the term anyway.
April – As it stands now, civil unions are not recognized across state lines or federally, so they don’t confer certain rights (like joint tax filing – which, depending on your financial situation, can be overrated, in my experience). If the “civil union” were re-defined so that it operated in the same way as a marriage license – it just wouldn’t be called marriage, and would apply to a legal procedure – it might satisfy those who feel that “marriage” is a church thing. Or it might not. As it exists now, it’s definitely a separate and less-than-equal thing.
Looking forward to seeing you on Sunday and hearing all about your experience at the protest!
Thank you so much for this post. It was so refreshing to read an open minded view on this issue.
I am gay and I have been with my girlfriend for over a year and I plan on spending my life with her. However, since we live in Oregon, we are not allowed to marry.
I understand the pros about civil union and(in Oregon’s case) domestic partnership, but they are just not the same as marriage. Marriage is so much of what makes up our culture and society. Little girls plan their weddings and single women are thought of as “old maids”. What woman hasn’t fantasized about being proposed to? I did. And after all of this I finally find someone who I want to live my life with and I am denied it? How is that fair?
I understand the religous side of it, I really do. I was raised in a christian household. What I don’t understand is why people care so much about an issue that doesn’t hurt anyone. We just want to be happy, we aren’t asking the people that disagree with us to change their lives in any way. We are just asking to be given the same rights as them. What is so wrong with that?
Wow, I guess I had alot to say on this topic.:)
Again, thanks for the great post.
Amy (not to be confused with My Friend Amy who commented earlier) – Thanks so much for weighing in. I appreciate the feedback from someone who IS personally affected by this controversy.
Your comments emphasize a couple of points: that “marriage” just has a meaning that alternative arrangements don’t – which is likely part of what gay-marriage opponents want to “protect” – and that it also does have a different standing legally.
Best of luck to you and your girlfriend.
For me this was a separation of church and state issue as well as a civil rights one. Prop 8 isn’t constitutional and I do hope that the courts will overturn it.
And you are right, Florinda. Civil unions do not afford the same rights that marriage does at this point in time.
Wendy (Literary Feline) – The courts have basically overturned it once, and probably will again.
Maybe it’s civil unions that we should be thinking about redefining…