Recent discussions of various civil-union proposals have revived some familiar questions, including "Why limit such recognition to couples, as opposed to larger groups?" and "Why limit it to romantic/sexual couples, as opposed to other interdependent relationships?"
Such questions come from various quarters, including both friends and foes of marriage equality. Although they're sometimes offered as "gotcha" challenges, they deserve serious reflection.
I was mulling them over recently when two events occurred that hinted at an answer.
The first was a phone call from my home-security monitoring company about a false alarm I triggered with smoke from a minor kitchen disaster.
"While we have you on the phone," the operator suggested, "can we update your emergency numbers?"
"Sure," I said, remembering that some of my listed neighbors had eliminated their land lines.
After going through the numbers, she said, "So, you've given me your community patrol number, and numbers for Scott, Sarah, and Mike-all neighbors. But this Mark person-what's your relationship to him?"
"He's my partner."
"Um, roommate?"
"No," I replied, "partner."
"I don't have a box for 'partner,'" she retorted. "I have a box for 'roommate.'"
"Fine," I said, "roommate." Then I hastily hung up and returned to the kitchen, since I didn't want my "roommate" to come home to a burned dinner. (Later, I regretted not asking for, and insisting on, the box for "husband.")
The second event occurred not long afterward, when my high school called asking for a donation for their "Torch Fund" endowment.
Some background: I attended Chaminade, an all-boys Catholic prep school on Long Island. For years I notified them of my various milestones for their newsletter, and for years they declined to publish anything gay-related-publications, awards, whatever-despite their regular listings of the most insipid details of my classmates' lives.
So now, whenever they ask me for money, I politely tell them where they can stick their Torch. I did so again this time.
"I understand," the caller replied. "But while I have you on the phone, let me update your recordsâ¦"
Here we go again, I thought.
Eventually she came to, "Any update in your marital status? Can we list a spouse?"
"Well, you CAN," I responded testily, "but I suspect you won't. My spouse's name is Mark."
"Why not?" she replied, seeming unfazed. "And his last name?"
I doubt his listing will stand long. But what interested me was this: here was someone representing my conservative high school, and she had a box-in her mind, anyway-for my same-sex spouse.
For all I know, she might be a paid solicitor with no other connection to the school. But she illustrates a significant cultural shift toward recognizing the reality of gay and lesbian lives.
The reality is this: like our straight counterparts, we tend to fall in love, pair off and settle down. It's not for everyone, but it's a significant enough pattern to merit acknowledgement.
And that's at least the germ of an answer to the questions raised above.
Why do we give special legal recognition to romantic pair-bonds? We do so because they're a significant-and very common-human category, for straights and gays alike. They benefit individuals and society in palpable ways-ways that, on average, "roommates" and most other groupings can't match.
To put it simply, we recognize them because it makes sense for the law to recognize common and valuable ways that people organize their lives.
Of course, there are other significant human relationships. Some of these, like blood ties, the law already acknowledges. Others (like polygamy) pose serious social costs.
Still others may deserve more legal recognition than they currently receive, or may be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. (I doubt that we need to change marriage or civil-union law to accommodate unrelated cohabitating spinsters, for example.)
But none of these other unrecognized relationships holds a candle to same-sex pair-bonds when it comes to widespread mismatch between the social reality and the legal recognition.
Which brings me back to Mark. Mark is not just some dude I share expenses with. He's the person I've committed my life to, for better or for worse, 'til death do us part. We exchanged such vows publicly, although the law still views us as strangers.
In short, he is-whether the law or our home-security company recognizes it-my spouse.
We fall in love, we pair off, we build lives together. The law may be a blunt instrument, but it need not be so blunt as to call that "roommates."
11 Comments for “Why Only Two?”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Pairs, couples, two by two. This is succinct, without confusion, a clear definition.
You are an ACQUIRED relationship through choice, mutual attraction and assumed egalitarian and shared responsibility.
This isn’t true of ANY of the other relationship scenarios theorized to ban gay couples from marrying.
Blood ties and close family ARE respected in the law as one’s next of kin, but you don’t CHOOSE them.
Polygamy as assumed to be a single male with multiple female spouses.
The complications of that are obvious and should be to any other dumb ass conjecture about it.
Most of all, confusion for the state with regard to primacy.
The inherent abuse and coveting of females that requires that other males go without.
And lack of choice or consent of the OTHER female spouses. The choice of spouse is the male’s alone.
Indeed, ALL these other relationships other than that of romantic pair bond ARE without consent.
There is literally nothing about a gay couple that changes the basic laws with regard to marriage which are essentially STATUS based. Not ATTRIBUTE based as only ad hoc laws have made them with regard to gender only now.
The gay couple ARE a couple the way heterosexuals are assumed to be.
It’s creating separate, patchwork and unworkable laws for gay people that open the door for ANY kind of relationship to be ‘civilly unioned’.
And since gay couples meet the same and must, the current and assumed requirements of marriage as we have it, there isn’t a reason to change them whatsoever.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Polygamy as assumed to be a single male with multiple female spouses.
Incorrect.
Gay and lesbian organizations are already demanding recognition of households with “more than one conjugal partner”.
The ACLU and its fellow gay marriage supporters are already screaming that bans on plural marriage are “constitutionally defective”.
Furthermore, Regan, you have established that other peoples’ relationships have nothing to do with your own, and that the government recognizing anyone else’s marriage, regardless of its composition, has no impact on you.
Will you now publicly state that who the government recognizes as married DOES affect you, since you claim to support bans on plural, incestuous, and child marriage?
posted by John Howard on
Umm, so, why only two? Because there’s only two in your relationship? I don’t get it.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
NDT: since you’re chronically contrarian, let me put it this way “Beyond Marriage” is a separate entity and not representative of all or even a majority of those whose agenda is marriage equality for GAY COUPLES.
There is a difference between BLOOD relatives and blended families where several of the members of that marriage reconfiguration are blood relatives, like half siblings who are next of kin to each other and one parent.
These relationships ARE respected in the law AS close kin. The remarried couple can still maintain the benefit and respect in the law through marriage to a single spouse. The family will STILL benefit from whatever state and federal benefits and welfare required.
Considering that divorce and remarriage are about having the sort of marriage with whom you most what to be with, it doesn’t make any sense to stack your household with the very people you don’t or can’t maintain as close a relationship as possible with.
And the advocacy by beyondmarriage is more a social invention BECAUSE there is no option to marry legally at all.
As well as the sort of situations that more primitive cultures required just to enable identifying and increasing clans and their property.
There is no need for that now with the advent of DNA, IVF, formal adoption, and the more egalitarian relationships between men and women as well as longer life spans.
It’s simple NDT: there really isn’t a whole lot of demand or need to expand marriage to those already legally bound (and protected) to each other through the relationships they have.
A plural marriage might effect me because I’d like to be married again and a woman with two husbands, where I have none would be a sad thing for me to witness.
Children can’t give consent and siblings are recognized as next of kin.
This is a circular and tiresome NON argument.
Show me as many thousands (if not millions) of siblings and parent sets
and children who want to marry an adult in comparison to gay couples, then get back to me.
Besides, considering how many out of wedlock births and divorce without second marriages there are in our society, getting married AT ALL is not too popular among straight folk either.
Now, can we finally STFU about what OTHER kinds of strange marriages other than two consenting, non married non close related ADULTS will happen if gay people get married?
It’s not like the rest who gave a shit about marrying their sibling or mother, EVER had to wait for gay marriage to make the issue be one, ya know.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
I have questions for YOU, NDT
1. How does a gay couple redefine ‘two consenting, non related, non married adults to make primary kin and custodian of the other’? How does this ‘fundamentally’ change this any differently from it’s same standard for het couples?
2. Why should the state recognize a REDUNDANCY or EXCESS of a kinship already recognized and EFFECT?
Well?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A plural marriage might effect me because I’d like to be married again and a woman with two husbands, where I have none would be a sad thing for me to witness.
Then you should oppose gay marriage, because it encourages two men to marry and thus deprives you of another potential husband.
Furthermore, Regan, you previously have stated that another person’s relationship has no effect on you whatsoever. What changed?
Show me as many thousands (if not millions) of siblings and parent sets
and children who want to marry an adult in comparison to gay couples, then get back to me.
Legalize incestuous and child sex first, then get back to us. Right now, it’s hardly a surprise that people may not be clamoring for something that the mere admittance of gets you thrown in jail.
In spite of that, though, the Beyond Marriage organization is doing a fine job of stating the necessity of establishing incestuous and plural relationships, and is endorsed by literally thousands of gay people and organizations, including the NGLTF.
How does a gay couple redefine ‘two consenting, non related, non married adults to make primary kin and custodian of the other’? How does this ‘fundamentally’ change this any differently from it’s same standard for het couples?
The reason society offers marriage to two consenting, non-related, non-married adults of the opposite sex is because that is what is by far the most likely to result in the procreation, protection, and perpetuation of the very basis of society — children.
To liberals who insist that children should be secondary to the sexual needs of adults, this is an incomprehensible viewpoint. However, the encouragement of it by social liberals such as Regan is why the minority communities that have practiced it are doing such an effective job of showing what happens when adults put sex as their primary priority and use marriage only as a matter of convenience.
2. Why should the state recognize a REDUNDANCY or EXCESS of a kinship already recognized and EFFECT?
Ask Beyond Marriage. But the reason they seemingly want it is because they want whatever relationship sexually gratifies you to have identical benefits and protection to marriage. If you love and want to have sex with your sister, you should be allowed to marry her. This is the logical conclusion of the gay left’s insistence that “love” should be the primary driver of marriage and that no one should be allowed to ban marriage at all.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
A plural marriage might effect me because I’d like to be married again and a woman with two husbands, where I have none would be a sad thing for me to witness.
Then you should oppose gay marriage, because it encourages two men to marry and thus deprives you of another potential husband. You should also condemn the ACLU because they support plural marriage.
Furthermore, Regan, you previously have stated that another person’s relationship has no effect on you whatsoever. What changed?
Show me as many thousands (if not millions) of siblings and parent sets
and children who want to marry an adult in comparison to gay couples, then get back to me.
Legalize incestuous and child sex first, then get back to us. Right now, it’s hardly a surprise that people may not be clamoring for something that the mere admittance of gets you thrown in jail.
In spite of that, though, the Beyond Marriage organization is doing a fine job of stating the necessity of establishing incestuous and plural relationships, and is endorsed by literally thousands of gay people and organizations, including the NGLTF.
How does a gay couple redefine ‘two consenting, non related, non married adults to make primary kin and custodian of the other’? How does this ‘fundamentally’ change this any differently from it’s same standard for het couples?
The reason society offers marriage to two consenting, non-related, non-married adults of the opposite sex is because that is what is by far the most likely to result in the procreation, protection, and perpetuation of the very basis of society — children.
To liberals who insist that children should be secondary to the sexual needs of adults, this is an incomprehensible viewpoint. However, the encouragement of it by social liberals such as Regan is why the minority communities that have practiced it are doing such an effective job of showing what happens when adults put sex as their primary priority and use marriage only as a matter of convenience.
2. Why should the state recognize a REDUNDANCY or EXCESS of a kinship already recognized and EFFECT?
Ask Beyond Marriage. But the reason they seemingly want it is because they want whatever relationship sexually gratifies you to have identical benefits and protection to marriage. If you love and want to have sex with your sister, you should be allowed to marry her. This is the logical conclusion of the gay left’s insistence that “love” should be the primary driver of marriage and that no one should be allowed to ban marriage at all. Your argument that they already have kinship and should be satisfied with that denies them the “equality” to marry whomever they love that you insist be provided to everyone.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Once again, you turn MY opinions as a reason to accept ‘any and all’ where I am being SPECIFIC.
Two STRAIGHT men married to one woman would leave a woman without the option of a husband.
Two GAY MEN are an example of two men being with their most compatible choice.
Gay men want each other, and straight men want women.
Your comment has no merit, on it’s face.
No need to get back to you on the issue of incest and underage sex.
To the first the KINSHIP already has protection, federal and state in the law with regard to the benefits and responsibility of that kinship.
Again, children require protection they are physiologically and emotionally unable to manage the responsibilities of adults.
You didn’t answer the question as to HOW a gay couple redefines the present standards of mutual consent marriage between non related, non married adults.
The presumption of protections or standards of care for which so many legal benefits allow is ALSO for the benefit of adults FIRST.
Because children are an option AFTER, not BEFORE the state concerns itself with what qualifies an adult to marry.
Gay couples have children, some of which would otherwise be wards of the state.
The argument isn’t whether a gay couple’s marriage comes at the EXPENSE of marriage between and opposite sex couple.
What YOU should be arguing is why the opposition is making a case AGAINST the children of gay couples and those couples who never have children, because so far…marriage laws don’t discriminate against anyone BUT gay people for that reason.
And that’s what makes no sense.
And no case FOR incest or anything else.
No, I’m asking YOU. Why should the state recognize a redundancy or excess of a protection already in EFFECT?
Beyond Marriage is just another book being used by the fringe, and certainly isn’t a manifest for ANY of the cases being argued before the CA, or other state supreme courts.
No, I’m asking YOU…why and how does Beyond Gay Marriage make a good case for redundancy and ‘any and all’ relationships people happen to have?
The baby doesn’t have to be thrown out with the bathwater on either side, just because it’s gay people in the mix right now.
Which brings me BACK to the first point: how does a gay COUPLE redefine the current prescription for the ‘two consenting, non married, non related adult’ model from how it’s proscribed for opposite couples?
I can answer that.
It DOESN’T.
That basic law doesn’t change and doesn’t have to just because the COUPLE does.
Can’t you think for yourself instead of bringing up some book you read?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Two GAY MEN are an example of two men being with their most compatible choice.
Glad to see you establish that society has no right to deny people their “most compatible choice”, Regan.
So a plural marriage supporter, since their most compatible choice is multiple spouses, has the right to marriage to multiple spouses, and you may not deny it.
For pedophiles, since their most compatible choice is with children, you have no right to deny them that.
You didn’t answer the question as to HOW a gay couple redefines the present standards of mutual consent marriage between non related, non married adults.
Those aren’t the standards. The current standards are mutual consent between non-related, non-married, adults of the opposite sex.
Since you so cavalierly throw out the last, why should we expect you to respect the first two, Regan, especially when the groups you endorse like Beyond Marriage and the ACLU are demanding that those restrictions be thrown out?
Have you ever condemned the ACLU for supporting plural marriage? Why don’t you publicly state that the ACLU is wrong and that plural marriage should be opposed? Or can you only scream invective at religious people, and are terrified that the ACLU might stop liking you if you criticized them?
Tell us, Regan, do you believe there are no differences between men and women? Since you oppose treating women and men differently under the law, do you support removing California laws that grant you special protections because of your female status? Do you support eliminating laws that require preferential treatment for women? Do you support eliminating laws that recognize women and men as being physiologically different, such as the laws forbidding pregnancy discrimination?
What YOU should be arguing is why the opposition is making a case AGAINST the children of gay couples and those couples who never have children, because so far…marriage laws don’t discriminate against anyone BUT gay people for that reason.
Sure they do. Laws against incestuous marriage and plural marriage are predicated precisely on the welfare of the children such marriages might produce. Furthermore, as I alluded to above, society considers childbearing and childrearing so important that we explicitly allow legal protections for women and men to facilitate it, i.e. pregnancy discrimination laws and family-leave laws.
The fact that gay couples are utterly and completely incapable of this most basic thing that any normal, completely-healthy heterosexual couple can do is indication enough that there is a massive difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The fact that you can’t recognize that is due to your own blindness, not to absence of proof.
No, I’m asking YOU. Why should the state recognize a redundancy or excess of a protection already in EFFECT?
Good question. Since gay couples already have domestic partnerships in California, why should the state recognize a redundancy such as marriage?
Now, Regan, why don’t YOU answer: you argue that people who are already related by blood have enough protections and thus don’t need marriage, even though blood protections and marriage protections are not exactly the same. Yet you shriek and cry that the fact that gays have domestic partnerships is not good enough and that they should have marriage BECAUSE those protections are not exactly the same.
I take a very consistent tack, which is that marriage is a privilege extended by the state to encourage certain behaviors that society chooses as valuable to encourage. Society deems neither plural, incestuous, bestialist, child, or gay marriage to be valuable; so be it.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Actually, that was an error. I meant to say ‘two non related, non married consenting adults’ and how THAT standard is changed whether a gay or opposite sex couple.
I don’t shriek and cry. And I’m far from left OR liberal. I can be liberal about ONE thing, but conservative on a great deal else.
The weakest tactic of all is to claim that support of gay equality means support for any loony suggestion that comes along.
Here’s the point, and you’re simply throwing up straw men, but since you LOVE to argue so contrarily, I’ll take the bait.
In a convoluted way, you answered your own question IN FAVOR of gay marriage.
1. DP’s in CA. That’s DP’s ONLY in CA, and few other places. MARRIAGE is recognized across all state and foreign lines. The exact terms of the relationship are understood and without separate and confusing changes because of location.
That is why Dp’s and CU’s are NOT the same, workable, nor should be expressed or accepted as such.
Marriage would simplify a great deal of how others will view and respond to your relationship.
2. Incest, bestiality, pedophilia are not an issue exclusive to SEXUAL ORIENTATION, in fact they are not RELATIONSHIPS at all. Of consent, of mutual attraction, and autonomy and you’re right, they have no value in society.
However gay couples resemble straight couples in social and individual comportment. Have VERY little difference in fact, compared to the rest, so therefore DO have much valuable potential for society.
In the law, the closest of one’s blood kin is respected as such. Can be first in line of inheritance and other support IF one has no spouse or other primary custodian.
But custody of one or the other in MARRIAGE is assumed by those who are were once unrelated, but become so ONLY by marriage.
That is not excess,nor redundant as plurality expresses.
And as known from social experience with plurality:
1. It’s currently a cultural expression based in religion.
2. It requires non consent and conditioning of young people to accept disparate control in the situation.
3. Would require undemocratic imbalance of ability for others to have the option of a spouse.
4. Polygamous communities have abandoned or abused potential rivals for spouses.
So there are FAR more negative consequences to plural or other marriages that cannot be named, than when a gay couple marries.
And again, serial divorce and remarriage is plural marriage closest cousin, and that too has proven to create a chaotic situation as well for many families.
The state is already hard pressed to channel marriage into workable situations that aren’t a matter of excess.
I bet on any given essay question that asks: which of these things is not like the other?
You’d fail to pass.
You’re consistently contrary. You’re consistently argumentative and follow the party line of the most virulently anti gay people.
You’re not, however, consistently logical, nor especially enlightening.
posted by JimG on
TO Regan DuCasse:
You made a comment back on March 23rd about the decision to add another wife to a polygamous situation to be the male’s decision alone.
I am not sure that that is the case. In many situations the new wife is actually considered to be marrying not only the male but all of the wives as well. So it is not just the many wives marrying the husband, but all of the individuals marrying each other in a very collective sense.
Polygamy is often portrayed as some Patriarchal nightmare to the women involved, however the picture is certainly much broader than that.
(Just saw this thread for the first time tonight so I realize I’m a little late in the chain).