Very interesting article, although I must say that I was surprised that it was about Iowa as my father is from Iowa and it would be one of the last states I would have expected to pass any form of legislation to legalize sam-sex marriages. My question is that, from what I can tell, a lot of the couples already feel as though they are married. Based on the readings for this week it seems as though marriage is really nothing more than the act of consenting to be in a "permanent" relationship with someone. If this is the case then why is it important to have a legal institution such as the state recognize any union as a marriage? I understand the desire to want recognition that two people are in a civil union, because that has legal and financial ramifications to it., but why the focus on the word marriage? Fundamentally the term is religious and connotates that some sort of religious ceremony has taken place (and no, for clarification I do not recognize a civil ceremony as a religious ceremony). Is it fair to make people shift their religious views for the whole? Several religions put limits on marriages, others don't. So wouldn't the simpler solution be to do away with trying to use the word marriage in legal documentation and instead just refer to all unions as civil ones and let the people who were brought together and a religious ceremony use the word marriage to define it?
This article kind of makes me doubt the integrity of our justice system just a bit, if they can decide to grant a group of people equal rights for a period of about 24 hours and then retract that admission of rights. This seems very odd to me. I agree with "ceh" that the problem which the couples seem to be encountering is more an issue of terminology than anything else: because of how they have chosen to live their lives, many of them feel as though they are already married. Since the majority of the people who are against the idea of same-sex marriages are from conservative, religious backgrounds, I think there should be a linguistic distinction between civil unions and religious unions. The churches could choose not to recognize the religious ties to those marriages that particular religion disapproves of, but the homosexual couples would still have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
I know that when I get married in the Catholic church, I'm going to have to go through two separate means of solidifying my marriage - getting a license signed by a legal official to make it legal for the government, and then different actions to make my marriage recognized by the church (such as having the ceremony performed by a priest rather than a judge). The church itself even emphasizes the differences of the two unions, so I would think it wouldn't be too difficult to create a distinction in legislation as well.
The Iowan couples' own recognition of their union being marriage to them reminded me a great deal of Cott's discussion on the prevalence of marriages in which the wife and husband simply declared themselves to be married and they were legally recognized as such. I realize that this situation arose out of a lack of officiates to perform the legal ceremonies and an attempt by the state to prevent children of couples who were in committed relationships to be declared illegitimate. Still, the fact that at one point in American history, "a marriage was 'sustained as valid, whenever the consent of the parties and the intention to enter into a state of matrimony, and to assume its duties and obligations is clearly shown'" (39).The fact that same-sex couples who have sustained relationships for decades cannot be recognized as legal partners seems contradictory and unfair despite the different times and circumstances that led to these common law marriages. The fact that these types of bonds once existed only substantiates the idea that marriage is not static and changes can be made in the interest of inclusion. As long as both parties consent and agree to be subject to the state's law and regulation I see no reason why marriage is not plausible. As Cott points out, "By crediting couples' private consent, the law drew them into a set of obligations set by state law" (40). Therefore by this logic, it seems as though the state would actually want to wield the power over this group which it has for so long sought to enforce and regulate. In a sense, by allowing same-sex marriage, the government would be exercising its right to power over these individuals and their bonds in a way they never before had.
As for eliminating the word marriage when discussing same-sex commitments, I find this to be not only unnecessary but mildly offensive to those couples to whom it seeks to exclude. From my reading of Cott and Hartog, I was unable to see marriage as an exclusively religious institution at any time in the United States. Although highly influenced by Christian ideals it has always been capable of operating outside religion despite the state's efforts to restrain it within this realm of monogamous, Christian correctness. Therefore, by refusing to use the term marriage for same-sex relationships, these relationships are essentially being devalued and seen as less worthy of the recognition that is so vital within our society. I feel like the word marriage is extremely important and even the same rights under a different name would be unequal. This is due to the fact that the idea of marriage is so deeply a part of our consciousness in America and so laden with meaning that when removed, the union seems somehow less complete and other. I feel like the deep and heated battle over marraige equality only proves the idea's significance in society.
The sheer intensity of the efforts by Iowan couples to become legally married further underscores their readiness for legal marriage recognition and their present belief in their own consensual hough not legal marital unions.
I think the problem of considering long term, cohabitation relationships to be marriages is that the definition of marriage has changed now. It is considered scandalous to many today if two people of the opposite sex live together, regardless of their relationship. While this cohabitation used to be considered marriage under common law, people are now more concerned with the formalities of ceremony, and of course, the term marriage itself. While the two women in the article say they have been married under the eyes of God for 3 years, the community more than likely will not perceive them that way until they actually receive a document in hand. In fact, not even a document will probably be enough proof for many communities to accept them. Interestingly, as Gillian says, people against same-sex marriage are often religious, but the Borglums are religious as well. They wanted to be married in a ceremony by their pastor after they received their license, which may be yet another reason they seek a marriage even though they already consider themselves married. The concept of marriage is important to most religions; however it is clearly interpreted differently in different sects. As "CEH" points out, it should be considered unfair for one sect of religion to supersede another, or to be considered at all, within the scope of the law.
4 comments:
Very interesting article, although I must say that I was surprised that it was about Iowa as my father is from Iowa and it would be one of the last states I would have expected to pass any form of legislation to legalize sam-sex marriages. My question is that, from what I can tell, a lot of the couples already feel as though they are married. Based on the readings for this week it seems as though marriage is really nothing more than the act of consenting to be in a "permanent" relationship with someone. If this is the case then why is it important to have a legal institution such as the state recognize any union as a marriage? I understand the desire to want recognition that two people are in a civil union, because that has legal and financial ramifications to it., but why the focus on the word marriage? Fundamentally the term is religious and connotates that some sort of religious ceremony has taken place (and no, for clarification I do not recognize a civil ceremony as a religious ceremony). Is it fair to make people shift their religious views for the whole? Several religions put limits on marriages, others don't. So wouldn't the simpler solution be to do away with trying to use the word marriage in legal documentation and instead just refer to all unions as civil ones and let the people who were brought together and a religious ceremony use the word marriage to define it?
This article kind of makes me doubt the integrity of our justice system just a bit, if they can decide to grant a group of people equal rights for a period of about 24 hours and then retract that admission of rights. This seems very odd to me. I agree with "ceh" that the problem which the couples seem to be encountering is more an issue of terminology than anything else: because of how they have chosen to live their lives, many of them feel as though they are already married. Since the majority of the people who are against the idea of same-sex marriages are from conservative, religious backgrounds, I think there should be a linguistic distinction between civil unions and religious unions. The churches could choose not to recognize the religious ties to those marriages that particular religion disapproves of, but the homosexual couples would still have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.
I know that when I get married in the Catholic church, I'm going to have to go through two separate means of solidifying my marriage - getting a license signed by a legal official to make it legal for the government, and then different actions to make my marriage recognized by the church (such as having the ceremony performed by a priest rather than a judge). The church itself even emphasizes the differences of the two unions, so I would think it wouldn't be too difficult to create a distinction in legislation as well.
The Iowan couples' own recognition of their union being marriage to them reminded me a great deal of Cott's discussion on the prevalence of marriages in which the wife and husband simply declared themselves to be married and they were legally recognized as such. I realize that this situation arose out of a lack of officiates to perform the legal ceremonies and an attempt by the state to prevent children of couples who were in committed relationships to be declared illegitimate. Still, the fact that at one point in American history, "a marriage was 'sustained as valid, whenever the consent of the parties and the intention to enter into a state of matrimony, and to assume its duties and obligations is clearly shown'" (39).The fact that same-sex couples who have sustained relationships for decades cannot be recognized as legal partners seems contradictory and unfair despite the different times and circumstances that led to these common law marriages. The fact that these types of bonds once existed only substantiates the idea that marriage is not static and changes can be made in the interest of inclusion. As long as both parties consent and agree to be subject to the state's law and regulation I see no reason why marriage is not plausible. As Cott points out, "By crediting couples' private consent, the law drew them into a set of obligations set by state law" (40). Therefore by this logic, it seems as though the state would actually want to wield the power over this group which it has for so long sought to enforce and regulate. In a sense, by allowing same-sex marriage, the government would be exercising its right to power over these individuals and their bonds in a way they never before had.
As for eliminating the word marriage when discussing same-sex commitments, I find this to be not only unnecessary but mildly offensive to those couples to whom it seeks to exclude. From my reading of Cott and Hartog, I was unable to see marriage as an exclusively religious institution at any time in the United States. Although highly influenced by Christian ideals it has always been capable of operating outside religion despite the state's efforts to restrain it within this realm of monogamous, Christian correctness. Therefore, by refusing to use the term marriage for same-sex relationships, these relationships are essentially being devalued and seen as less worthy of the recognition that is so vital within our society. I feel like the word marriage is extremely important and even the same rights under a different name would be unequal. This is due to the fact that the idea of marriage is so deeply a part of our consciousness in America and so laden with meaning that when removed, the union seems somehow less complete and other. I feel like the deep and heated battle over marraige equality only proves the idea's significance in society.
The sheer intensity of the efforts by Iowan couples to become legally married further underscores their readiness for legal marriage recognition and their present belief in their own consensual hough not legal marital unions.
I think the problem of considering long term, cohabitation relationships to be marriages is that the definition of marriage has changed now. It is considered scandalous to many today if two people of the opposite sex live together, regardless of their relationship. While this cohabitation used to be considered marriage under common law, people are now more concerned with the formalities of ceremony, and of course, the term marriage itself. While the two women in the article say they have been married under the eyes of God for 3 years, the community more than likely will not perceive them that way until they actually receive a document in hand. In fact, not even a document will probably be enough proof for many communities to accept them. Interestingly, as Gillian says, people against same-sex marriage are often religious, but the Borglums are religious as well. They wanted to be married in a ceremony by their pastor after they received their license, which may be yet another reason they seek a marriage even though they already consider themselves married. The concept of marriage is important to most religions; however it is clearly interpreted differently in different sects. As "CEH" points out, it should be considered unfair for one sect of religion to supersede another, or to be considered at all, within the scope of the law.
Post a Comment