Friday’s USA Today included an article noting that despite moves toward legalizing “civil unions” in states like New Hampshire and Oregon, “fewer gay couples are choosing to enter civil unions or register as domestic partners” (Andrea Stone, “Some say civil unions dropping off,” April 20). For example, in Connecticut, the number of same-sex couples who entered into civil unions in the first 15 months that they were legal was only 18% of the number of same-sex “unmarried partner” households counted in the 2000 census. (By contrast, 92% of opposite-sex couples who live together in Connecticut are legally married.)
The article quotes one homosexual activist as suggesting that same-sex couples are “waiting for marriage.” But it certainly undermines the argument that same-sex couples are being seriously harmed by lack of access to the legal and financial “benefits” of marriage, if 82% don’t even bother to access those “benefits” once they are granted them under state law.
The article says that in Massachusetts, where they do have same-sex civil “marriage,” about 9,000 such “marriages” have occurred since 2004. However, it fails to note that this is barely more than half the number of cohabiting same-sex couples identified in the census (again, in contrast to heterosexuals, among whom the married outnumber the cohabiting by a ratio of more than 10 to 1). These figures constitute empirical evidence that a majority of homosexuals do not “need” the “benefits” of marriage, and relatively few even want to participate in the institution of “marriage.”
What they really want is the official government affirmation that homosexuality is identical to heterosexuality—period. But by winning “marriage” and then not participating in it, they advance the “deinstitutionalization” of marriage—that is, they destroy any social norm suggesting that marriage is the preferred context for living together in a sexual relationship (even more than heterosexuals have). This is one of the ways that same-sex marriage harms the institution of marriage—yes, even for heterosexuals.
See also FRC InFocus: “How many benefit from same-sex ‘marriage’ in Massachusetts?”
Comments (5)
Gay people want their relationships to be treated identically under the law.
When SSM is recognized in every state and by the federal government, I predict you will see the percentages approach those of heterosexual couples.
April 25, 2007 3:40 PM | Comment Permalink
"What they really want is the official government affirmation that homosexuality is identical to heterosexuality—period. "
Ummm... No. I don't need the governments official stamp of approval of me and my family. Thats not worth the paper its printed on.
What I do demand for my family however is equal protection under the law.
And I make that demand, not as a gay man, but as an American.
Personally, I think marriage is a religious institution, not a government created entity. But I'd hate to inject any common sense into the debate at this point.
Whether or not you believe the U.S. Government is sanctified and holy enough to create a marriage or not, the truth is that under current law, my family is treated different from the one next door to me. In spite of the fact that we both have exactly the same qualities and obligations. And in spite of the fact that we provide exactly the same benefits to our society.
The sexual orientation of the people involved is not an issue. In fact if two straight men or two straight women want to pool resources to take care of each other and their children then yup, they are a family too and should be treated as such under law.
But the entire argument that Tony is making is erroneous in the first place. The first generation of gays and lesbians in this country that have even a hope of getting married is being raised right now. I suspect their stats will be quite different than my generation. And what will happen when gays and lesbians come under the societal expectation that they marry just like straight people are expected to today? Whats its going to be like when Moms start asking their gay sons, "When are you going to find a nice boy and settle down"?
And just as a side issue. You do know that lesbians have a higher rate of monogamy and longevity to their relationships than heterosexual couples do, don't you?
Gays and lesbians are rightly tired of being unjustly thrust to the fringes of society by such people that endorse the prejudice displayed by FRC.
Hear this. Like every other American, gays and lesbians also have a place and purpose in the fabric of our great country, and that role is not to be as your victims. Freedom is on the march!
April 25, 2007 6:56 PM | Comment Permalink
Nice use of dodgy statistics there, but I suspect what you are seeing is largely due to two effects.
First, an inertial effect: if a couple has been cohabiting for an extended period of time, they will be quite comfortable as they are. Also, civil unions or SSM do not have the same level of social respect as heterosexual, yet... its just not fair to compare a legal status that goes far, far beyond living memory to one recently made available.
Second, because you are looking at marriage as a percentage of cohabeting, there is probably quite a bias from same-sex cohabiters for whome homosexuality has nothing to do with their situation. Lots of people shareing flats to save money, espicially students.
You should try a comparison with some of the European countries that have had SSM for years. Also, dont look at marriage as a percentage of cohabeting couples. Look at it as a percentage of cohabiting couples *for which both individuals self-identify as either gay or bi*. Much harder statistics to come by, but the results would be far more usful.
Incidentially, Sprigg, I wish to repeal your right to a fair trial. I notice you havn't used it at any point in the past, so it seems clear you have no need for it. Please report to your local prison tomorrow morning.
April 25, 2007 7:05 PM | Comment Permalink
"Personally, I think marriage is a religious institution, not a government created entity. But I'd hate to inject any common sense into the debate at this point."
There are different aspects to marriage. The religious side - the holy vows, ceremony and such - are not government business. But marriage also affects taxes, shared finances, inheritence, hospital visitation rights, life insurance, access to social services... all things which are clearly government business. As soon as government started treating married couples differently from unmarried ones it raised the question of which marriages it would recognise, and that question has never gone away.
April 26, 2007 5:16 AM | Comment Permalink
What the advocates of homosexual 'marriage' really want is the destruction of the traditional family unit, thereby giving validity and affirmation to their sin. Period.
Guy Adams
May 15, 2007 11:28 AM | Comment Permalink