What’s In a Name? For ‘Gay Marriage,’ Perhaps Too Much

Last Updated on March 15, 2018

A new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows that a majority of Americans support some kind of same-sex unions, but the numbers show that what those unions are called makes a big difference.

The poll also reveals that 33% feel that there should be no legal recognition for same-sex couples at all. Let’s think about that for a second: one-third of Americans don’t want to see any legal recognition — marriage, civil unions, whatever — for couples of the same sex.

An impressive number, 38%, say gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. But 38% is not going to be enough to get a law passed. Add in the 24% who say they wouldn’t have a problem with civil unions rather than marriage, and suddenly you have close to two-thirds of people, more than enough to pass legislation if voters show up in number.

When you attach marriage to something other than a relationship between a man and woman, that’s a stumbling block a lot of people aren’t willing to try to get over.

Many conservatives are unwilling to consider any legislation that allows same-sex marriage, citing the biblical definition of marriage as being between a man and woman: anything to the contrary is unbiblical and, therefore, against God’s will. Period. End of story.

On the other hand, many same-sex couples who’d like to be able to have their relationship status officially recognized return what they perceive as blind stubbornness with stubbornness of their own, refusing the title of “civil unions,” claiming that it relegates them to the status of “second class citizens.”

I understand both sides of the argument.

But there are Christian conservatives who’ve been divorced, who’ve had children out of wedlock, and even some who’ve lived together instead of getting married. All of those could, arguably, be doing damage to the “institution of marriage.” But where’s the outrage on the right over these examples of “damage” to the institution of marriage? Homosexuals, it seems, are just too easy a target to pass up.

And while I can respect a right-winger’s stand that he’s doing what he’s doing to protect a God-defined institution, there’s a major problem: denying a same-sex couple the ability to have a relationship legally called “marriage” isn’t doing anything about homosexuality itself. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry doesn’t turn them straight. It doesn’t remove what the Bible defines as a sin.

Likewise, a same-sex couple whose argument for marriage involves legal protection and recognition of partners for major medical and financial decision isn’t acting in its own best interest when it rejects “civil unions” because the name is different. If it’s about the name, then your primary goal isn’t legal protection. &nbsp If it’s about the legal protection, it shouldn’t matter so much what it’s called as long as you’re granted the rights you seek.

If more people would be willing to accept the concept because of a simple name change, then take the name change and run with it.

For now.

Then give it a few years. Maybe more than a few. Let’s say it takes another 40 years before enough people are willing to back actual same-sex marriage. And then it gets passed.

But in the meantime, during those 40 years, those in that situation, who are in “civil unions” or whatever we call it instead of “marriage” will at least have the legal protection they say so much of this fight is about.

This is the point at which someone will shout out that argument about “separate but equal.” But the law already recognizes, in some cases, “common law marriage.” So there’s already a legal precedent for different classes of marriage. It’s not like there’s significant new ground to be broken here.

If gay and lesbian couples — for now — were willing to accept “civil unions,” they’d have a lot better chance of getting something passed. You can get a lot more over time with compromise than in one moment with an “all or nothing” mentality. Why not take what you can get as you can get it, rather than deny yourself everything over and over again?

It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me when you look at it from the standpoint of what is being given up on a temporary basis over what may take decades to achieve on a permanent basis.

Should it be that way? Should it require a long process to reach equality? Of course not. At least, not in a country that likes to pound its chest the way America does about liberty for all.

But ask women how long they’ve had to wait for equality. Ask blacks. Ask Native Americans. I suspect they’ll all tell you, quite loudly, that they never got anything all at once, but only over time as attitudes changed.

The point is, those strides have been made. Even though they took longer than they ever should have, strides have been made.