Civil Unions: Revisiting the Issue (1 of 3)

A number of occurrences have prompted me to revisit the issue of civil unions.  First there was a discussion in the comments here between Mark Miller and me.  I had posted about gender discrimination, and Mark implied--I think--that it would not be gender discrimination to have gendered terms, provided legal consequences did not hinge on the term.  An example used was a king and queen.  A monarchy which referred to the monarch as king if male, and queen if female, wouldn't necessarily be discriminating provided that all the rules and powers were the same.  (Note that in the UK the powers are the same, I believe, but the rules of succession are not the same--hence still discriminatory).   While there are debates over whether and how gender-neutral terms should be used, the debate is far different than one over whether a person of a certain gender can fulfill the role even with a different term.  So the analogous question with regards to civil unions is would it be acceptable to use "marriage" as a gendered term referring to a male and female, but "civil union" to refer to two males or two females with the understanding that regardless of the term the rules and regulations would be the same?  Might one even suggest distinct terms to differentiate male-male and female-female unions? 

More recently I was discussing the recent vote in Missouri with some friends and family there.  (I grew up in Missouri).  There were many with whom I talked who opposed the amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage, but there were also some who supported it.  One in particular said I had convinced him that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights, but it was important for him that marriage keeps its gendered definition.  This position is not uncommon--think John Kerry--and I have certainly heard it often.  Gendered terms seem to the most common, most enduring, and most emotionally tied to us when it comes to familial relationships.  That is why I have opined that even with same-sex marriage the words "mother" and "father" will not disappear.  (Nor do I believe, "husband", "wife", "brother", "sister", "aunt", "uncle", "bride", "groom" or others will vanish--although "bridegroom" which I prefer for some unknown reason to "groom" seems to be on the decline).  It is also for this reason that I think even many supporters found the replacement of "bride" and "groom" on the Massachusetts marriage applications (pdf) with "party A" and "party B" to be disturbing.  (Personally, I think checkboxes beside each name with "bridge" and "bridegroom" would have been preferable, simply allowing two brides or two grooms.  Part of the problem, I think was the Massachusetts legislature and administration spent more of the six month stay trying to fight the Goodridge decision than figuring out how to best implement the changes.)   It has thus been observed that it might be far easier for "civil union" legislation to be passed.  In fact one Connecticut legislator observed that a majority there supported either marriage or civil unions, but the marriage supporters have delayed action in the hopes that marriage itself can get a clear majority.   (So far only Vermont has passed a "civil union" that is to be treated the same as "marriage" under the law.  Massachusetts would join them in 2006 if an amendment under consideration gets ratified.  Other states such as Hawaii, California, New Jersey, and Maine have legal relationships which are similar to marriage, but with some critical distinctions.  This would be comparable to a king and queen with different powers.  It is still clearly discriminatory and is not what I wish to consider here.)   

This topic was again brought to my mind by a discussion over at Positive Liberty (which was coincidentally instigated by the vote in Missouri).  A commenter, John Barlow, thought that it would be better to extend certain rights to other couples which "would include two homosexuals" rather than redefine marriage.  Jason Kuznicki, the author of the blog and husband in a same-sex marriage himself, noted some obstacles to securing certain rights without marriage.   All in all, I thought this would be a good jumping off point to discussing the idea of marriage by another name....

Comments

[Jason Kuznicki]

"Mark implied--I think--that it would not be gender discrimination to have gendered terms, provided legal consequences did not hinge on the term. An example used was a king and queen. A monarchy which referred to the monarch as king if male, and queen if female, wouldn't necessarily be discriminating provided that all the rules and powers were the same."

Ah... So the proper terms would always be "husband" and "wife," but it wouldn't matter if those persons were male or female?

That's great. I'd be altogether proud to call myself my husband's wife.

[lucia]

>>A monarchy which referred to the monarch as king if male, and queen if female, wouldn't necessarily be discriminating provided that all the rules and powers were the same.

But note: it's a "monarchy"! The word to describe the type of government is gender neutral. The monarch can also, as a matter or law, be referred to as monarch-- no gender problem.

There is no need, as a matter or law, to use different words when a gender neutral word exists.

[Galois]

Good point Lucia. In the current situation where there is no gender neutral word and you are faced with option of making "marriage" gender neutral or inventing a new word, one wonders why go with the latter option? As I pointed out this is not a new situation. When women began to be ordained in Judaism the decision--which I believe to be correct--was to keep the word rabbi and make it gender neutral. I beleive women ordained in the Anglican Church are still referred to as priests (even though in that case a gendered option priestess could have been used).

If we were to keep "marriage" as a gendered word in the law--and I don't believe we should--then at least the new term should be gender neutral. That is a "civil union" should be gender neutral, and marriage would just be a specific civil union, but with no legal distinciton. Again I think this is a mistaken route, but if one insists for whatever reason on keeping "marriage" as a gendered term, this would seem to me to be the best option.