emma_goldman
28th October 2006, 23:46
Why Are They Afraid to Call it 'Marriage'?
By Ira Chernus
<http://www.commondr eams.org/ views06/1027- 22.htm>
Published on Friday, October 27, 2006 by
CommonDreams. org
'Raised here is the perplexing question -- ˜What's in a
name?" New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin got
that one right, as he wrote this week's majority opinion
denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The
majority says that the Garden State's constitution
guarantees gays and lesbians all the same rights as
married couples, whether the people like it or not --
except the right to call themselves 'married.' Partnered
gays and lesbians can use that word only if the people
of the Garden State, or at least their state
legislators, like it. Until then, same-sex couples can
act in every way as if they are married. They just can't
use the word. Go figure.
It doesn't figure at all to three of the seven justices,
including Chief Justice Deborah Poritz. She agrees with
the majority that names matter a great deal. That's why,
she writes, if gays and lesbians can't use the word
'marriage,' 'ultimately, the message is that what same-
sex couples have is not as important or as significant
as ‘real' marriage, that such lesser relationships
cannot have the name of marriage.
The majority opinion never confronts their Chief's
argument. But it does get to the heart of the issue,
which has nothing to do with equality or logic. The word
'marriage' is denied to gays and lesbians because it is
simply too much change for most people to handle. Here's
Justice Albin again, writing for the majority: 'The
shared societal meaning of marriage -- passed down
through the common law into our statutory law -- has
always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter
that meaning would render a profound change in the
public consciousness of a social institution of ancient
origin.'
Why not make a profound change in public consciousness,
if the constitutional principle of equal rights demands
it? Abraham Lincoln did it when he signed the
Emancipation Proclamation. The U.S. Supreme Court did it
by mandating school integration and a woman's right to
choose. The finest moments in American history were all
profound changes in public consciousness.
But in New Jersey, the majority decision never even
considers the pros and cons of making a change. It finds
only one impediment to same-sex marriage: It is not
'objectively and deeply rooted in the traditions,
history, and conscience of the people of this State.'
And that one consideration, the majority says, overrules
everything else.
That may be poor legal reasoning, as nearly half the New
Jersey justices say. But it is pretty sharp political
sociology. If you scratch deep enough into any of the
social issues that are contested in our political arena,
eventually you come to the same basic issue: the fear of
change and the uncertainty change brings with it.
Abortion, women's rights, affirmative action, drug laws,
and all the other social issues are ultimately symbolic
stand-ins for the truly great question of our time: Can
we live happy, productive lives in a society that is
constantly changing and unpredictable? Social
conservatives answer with a resounding, frightened 'NO.'
They yearn desperately for a society that is perfectly
stable and predictable. Every few years, they come up
with a new way to symbolize that yearning. Now their
favorite symbol is the campaign to ban same sex
marriage.
This is much on my mind because next week, here in my
own state of Colorado, the people will get to decide
about both equality for same-sex couples and the meaning
of 'marriage.' They'll vote on Referendum I (as in the
letter I), which would give gays and lesbians the right
to have the legal status of 'domestic partners.' And
they'll vote on Amendment 43, which defines marriage as
solely between one man and one woman. No one is sure how
either vote will turn out.
This year, most GLBT advocates in Colorado have given up
the drive to get the right to 'marry.' They ask only for
the right of 'domestic partnership. ' The advertising for
Referendum I fairly screams: 'It's NOT marriage. It's
just basic equal rights.' And the fact that it's 'not
marriage' is actually written into the legal language of
Ref I.
But that's still too much change for Colorado's right-
wingers to tolerate. Take a look at www.cofamily. org,
the website of 'Colorado Family Action' (CFA) which
calls itself 'part of a nationwide network of family
policy councils associated with Focus on the Family and
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.' In other words, it's the
lobbying arm of Focus on the Family, the 800-pound
gorilla of the Colorado right. And its site is devoted
solely to opposing domestic partnership as well as gay
marriage.
You won't find much in the way of accurate facts or
compelling logic on that site. But you will find plenty
of fear of change. As it says, CFA 'seeks to restore and
defend traditional moral principles in the culture.'
What principles? You guessed it. 'Marriage between one
man and one woman sustains society.' 'Marriage of
opposite-sex couples is a stabilizing institution in
society.' They don't have to say how or why. The words
'sustain' and 'stabilizing' are enough to make the
point. According to CFA, 'opposite-sex marriage has been
upheld in all societies as the most optimal arrangement
for nurturing the next generation of children.' In other
words, marriage in the future should always play the
same role that it's played in the past.
CFA also claims that domestic partnership 'harms
children by sending confusing messages about gender and
family,' and it's confusing messages that conservatives
want to avoid at all costs. That's why they worry about
confusing language. Legalizing domestic partnerships,
their website tells us, 'will necessarily lead to the
radical redefinition of terms such as marriage, family
and gender.'
But the issue goes beyond language. CFA declares flatly
that 'legalized same-sex unions necessarily mean that
gender no longer matters.' If one old familiar dividing
line is blurred, other lines may soon be blurred too.
And if the lines that separate the parts of our world
into clear distinct categories are blurred, how can we
be certain exactly where we fit, or where we are headed?
So let's keep those dividing lines firm: 'A Christian
husband leads well and a Christian wife actively and
creatively supports his lead.' And, of course, husband
and wife must be of different genders.
The CFA campaign against domestic partnerships gets to
the most basic point when its site warns, in bold
letters, 'Domestic Partnerships are a Great Leap into
the Unknown. ... We can't afford to take another leap
into the great unknown.'
What pains social conservatives most, the truth they try
hardest to hide from, is that, like it or not, every day
is a leap into the unknown. To avoid that truth, they
are spending millions to prevent same-sex couples in
Colorado from gaining equal rights. No doubt they'll
soon being spending even more millions in New Jersey to
prevent same-sex couples from gaining the right to
marry.
Ultimately, it's not the substance of the issue that
really matters to conservatives. It's the fact that a
symbolic line must be drawn somewhere -- anywhere -- to
symbolize their ability to resist social change.
Of course liberals can worry about excessive and
excessively rapid change, too. Indeed, the nation's most
liberal state, the only state that marries same-sex
couples, gave them that right out of concern for
personal and social stability. New Jersey Chief Justice
Poritz, in explaining her dissent, quoted the decision
of the Massachusetts Supreme Court that legalized same-
sex marriage:
'Marriage also bestows enormous private and social
advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage
is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human
being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of
mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and
family. ... Because it fulfils yearnings for security,
safe haven, and connection that express our common
humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution. '
So it turns out that you can support equal marriage
rights for everyone on grounds that any conservative
could champion. Maybe that's a place to begin building
some bridges.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the
University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters
To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.
[email protected] edu
By Ira Chernus
<http://www.commondr eams.org/ views06/1027- 22.htm>
Published on Friday, October 27, 2006 by
CommonDreams. org
'Raised here is the perplexing question -- ˜What's in a
name?" New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin got
that one right, as he wrote this week's majority opinion
denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The
majority says that the Garden State's constitution
guarantees gays and lesbians all the same rights as
married couples, whether the people like it or not --
except the right to call themselves 'married.' Partnered
gays and lesbians can use that word only if the people
of the Garden State, or at least their state
legislators, like it. Until then, same-sex couples can
act in every way as if they are married. They just can't
use the word. Go figure.
It doesn't figure at all to three of the seven justices,
including Chief Justice Deborah Poritz. She agrees with
the majority that names matter a great deal. That's why,
she writes, if gays and lesbians can't use the word
'marriage,' 'ultimately, the message is that what same-
sex couples have is not as important or as significant
as ‘real' marriage, that such lesser relationships
cannot have the name of marriage.
The majority opinion never confronts their Chief's
argument. But it does get to the heart of the issue,
which has nothing to do with equality or logic. The word
'marriage' is denied to gays and lesbians because it is
simply too much change for most people to handle. Here's
Justice Albin again, writing for the majority: 'The
shared societal meaning of marriage -- passed down
through the common law into our statutory law -- has
always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter
that meaning would render a profound change in the
public consciousness of a social institution of ancient
origin.'
Why not make a profound change in public consciousness,
if the constitutional principle of equal rights demands
it? Abraham Lincoln did it when he signed the
Emancipation Proclamation. The U.S. Supreme Court did it
by mandating school integration and a woman's right to
choose. The finest moments in American history were all
profound changes in public consciousness.
But in New Jersey, the majority decision never even
considers the pros and cons of making a change. It finds
only one impediment to same-sex marriage: It is not
'objectively and deeply rooted in the traditions,
history, and conscience of the people of this State.'
And that one consideration, the majority says, overrules
everything else.
That may be poor legal reasoning, as nearly half the New
Jersey justices say. But it is pretty sharp political
sociology. If you scratch deep enough into any of the
social issues that are contested in our political arena,
eventually you come to the same basic issue: the fear of
change and the uncertainty change brings with it.
Abortion, women's rights, affirmative action, drug laws,
and all the other social issues are ultimately symbolic
stand-ins for the truly great question of our time: Can
we live happy, productive lives in a society that is
constantly changing and unpredictable? Social
conservatives answer with a resounding, frightened 'NO.'
They yearn desperately for a society that is perfectly
stable and predictable. Every few years, they come up
with a new way to symbolize that yearning. Now their
favorite symbol is the campaign to ban same sex
marriage.
This is much on my mind because next week, here in my
own state of Colorado, the people will get to decide
about both equality for same-sex couples and the meaning
of 'marriage.' They'll vote on Referendum I (as in the
letter I), which would give gays and lesbians the right
to have the legal status of 'domestic partners.' And
they'll vote on Amendment 43, which defines marriage as
solely between one man and one woman. No one is sure how
either vote will turn out.
This year, most GLBT advocates in Colorado have given up
the drive to get the right to 'marry.' They ask only for
the right of 'domestic partnership. ' The advertising for
Referendum I fairly screams: 'It's NOT marriage. It's
just basic equal rights.' And the fact that it's 'not
marriage' is actually written into the legal language of
Ref I.
But that's still too much change for Colorado's right-
wingers to tolerate. Take a look at www.cofamily. org,
the website of 'Colorado Family Action' (CFA) which
calls itself 'part of a nationwide network of family
policy councils associated with Focus on the Family and
James C. Dobson, Ph.D.' In other words, it's the
lobbying arm of Focus on the Family, the 800-pound
gorilla of the Colorado right. And its site is devoted
solely to opposing domestic partnership as well as gay
marriage.
You won't find much in the way of accurate facts or
compelling logic on that site. But you will find plenty
of fear of change. As it says, CFA 'seeks to restore and
defend traditional moral principles in the culture.'
What principles? You guessed it. 'Marriage between one
man and one woman sustains society.' 'Marriage of
opposite-sex couples is a stabilizing institution in
society.' They don't have to say how or why. The words
'sustain' and 'stabilizing' are enough to make the
point. According to CFA, 'opposite-sex marriage has been
upheld in all societies as the most optimal arrangement
for nurturing the next generation of children.' In other
words, marriage in the future should always play the
same role that it's played in the past.
CFA also claims that domestic partnership 'harms
children by sending confusing messages about gender and
family,' and it's confusing messages that conservatives
want to avoid at all costs. That's why they worry about
confusing language. Legalizing domestic partnerships,
their website tells us, 'will necessarily lead to the
radical redefinition of terms such as marriage, family
and gender.'
But the issue goes beyond language. CFA declares flatly
that 'legalized same-sex unions necessarily mean that
gender no longer matters.' If one old familiar dividing
line is blurred, other lines may soon be blurred too.
And if the lines that separate the parts of our world
into clear distinct categories are blurred, how can we
be certain exactly where we fit, or where we are headed?
So let's keep those dividing lines firm: 'A Christian
husband leads well and a Christian wife actively and
creatively supports his lead.' And, of course, husband
and wife must be of different genders.
The CFA campaign against domestic partnerships gets to
the most basic point when its site warns, in bold
letters, 'Domestic Partnerships are a Great Leap into
the Unknown. ... We can't afford to take another leap
into the great unknown.'
What pains social conservatives most, the truth they try
hardest to hide from, is that, like it or not, every day
is a leap into the unknown. To avoid that truth, they
are spending millions to prevent same-sex couples in
Colorado from gaining equal rights. No doubt they'll
soon being spending even more millions in New Jersey to
prevent same-sex couples from gaining the right to
marry.
Ultimately, it's not the substance of the issue that
really matters to conservatives. It's the fact that a
symbolic line must be drawn somewhere -- anywhere -- to
symbolize their ability to resist social change.
Of course liberals can worry about excessive and
excessively rapid change, too. Indeed, the nation's most
liberal state, the only state that marries same-sex
couples, gave them that right out of concern for
personal and social stability. New Jersey Chief Justice
Poritz, in explaining her dissent, quoted the decision
of the Massachusetts Supreme Court that legalized same-
sex marriage:
'Marriage also bestows enormous private and social
advantages on those who choose to marry. Civil marriage
is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human
being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of
mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and
family. ... Because it fulfils yearnings for security,
safe haven, and connection that express our common
humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution. '
So it turns out that you can support equal marriage
rights for everyone on grounds that any conservative
could champion. Maybe that's a place to begin building
some bridges.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the
University of Colorado at Boulder and author of Monsters
To Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin.
[email protected] edu