For many, marriage is the ultimate sign of commitment. Yet many Americans are still not able to marry. A new study by researchers at North Carolina State University finds that gay and lesbian couples are forming long-term, committed relationships, even in the absence of marriage rights.
The study, published in the Journal of Family Issues, found that the institution of marriage is both more and less important to gay couples than previously believed. More important in terms of legal rights- such as retirement and healthcare benefits; less important as a sign of commitment.
Forty gays and lesbians in 20 long-term cohabitating couples were interviewed on three research questions:
- How do long-term same-sex couples retrospectively explain their transition to a committed relationship?
- For couples who have had a commitment ceremony, what role do marriage and ceremonies play in commitment processes?
- For couples who have not had a commitment ceremony, how do they view marriage and ceremonies in relation to their union?
For many gay couples, commitment is ambiguous in the absences of major markers such as marriage–it makes it difficult to pinpoint when things first got serious. Forty percent of the couples surveyed had participated in a commitment or marriage ceremony, but these ceremonies were not commitment-making moments in the relationship. Rather, the ceremony served as a celebration of a preexisting commitment.
Just last week on my trip to Florida, I was involved in a discussion with some friends on the topic of marriage. Over and over again, commitment and legal rights kept coming up, and good points for and against marriage kept popping up. In truth, marriage really is stupid in terms of a sign of commitment.
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not saying I don’t want my big day with the white dress and the flowers, because I do. What I’m saying is, commitment should be in the eyes of those in the relationship, and not in the eyes of the government. If it wasn’t for the importance of those legal rights such as shared benefits, then I would say to hell with it, a piece of seagrass around my finger and the promise to love me forever would suffice. But the sad truth is that legal rights are important, and they ensure the care of your loved ones- both your significant other and your children. And those rights shouldn’t ever be denied to anyone.
Reczek, C., Elliott, S., & Umberson, D. (2009). Commitment Without Marriage: Union Formation Among Long-Term Same-Sex Couples Journal of Family Issues, 30 (6), 738-756 DOI: 10.1177/0192513X09331574
Yeah, Barry’s whole thing is that the gov’t should separate the legal from the romantic – you go to a church/friend/whatever for a ‘commitment’ ceremony under whatever your religious/not views are, and then you go to the courts and get some legal rights by signing a piece of paper.
But the second half doesn’t just go to man+woman, it goes for any two (or even more) human beings in a long-term living arrangement: two spinster sisters, a daughter and husband taking care of her aging mother, a romantic couple, whatever. Basically, you would get the legal rights for whomever you wanted to give those kind of rights to – the one person you wanted to have at your deathbed in the hospital, who shares your wages and raises your kids with you.
That way marriage – as the ‘religious’ ceremony that people claim it is – is separate from legal side: a true separation of church and state.
I gotta say, I like the idea. After all, what right does the government have in saying who gets to have a ‘religious’ ceremony anyhow? Doesn’t that violate that whole separation clause?
Oh, and just to voice a pet peeve – I really hate it when anti-gay marriage people talk about the sanctity of marriage. I mean, really? Heterosexual couples have destroyed that for centuries. If you’re keeping the ‘sanctity of marriage’, you better legally outlaw divorce and adultery, too. Those ruin a marriage way more than giving the chance to get legal marriage rights to two girls or two guys.
I think people should be allowed to marry anyone of their choosing. My issue with Bush being against gay marriage, and being against abortion, is that this is a country that was founded upon FREEDOM from religion. So whatever anyone’s PERSONAL beliefs on either topic are, they are entitled to have their own beliefs and agree or disagree. But this country encompasses people of ALL religions and people free from religion, so to make laws for the ENTIRE country, based upon someone’s religious views….well, that goes against what our country was founded upon. And marriage should most definitely have separation between church and state. Love and government and religion should not all be balled into one thing. People should be trusted to make their own decisions.
The stories below are reason enough to withhold all tax dollars UNTIL we are equal in U.S. law.
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2009/02/cruel-suffering-due-to-marriage.html
[...] This post was Twitted by ResearchBlogs – Real-url.org [...]
Allie: Thanks for your thoughts on this. Sure, as a lesbian couple who have a long term commitment now of thirteen years, the legal protections are definitely a reason to want marriage. However, I also would like to have a ceremony to have friends and family celebrate our love with us. We don’t need it for the commitment; that is there regardless. I want the ceremony, however. I am hoping that one day we can have that, although we could not be married in our church for sure. That is a good reason for the full separation of the religious vs. civil ceremonies of marriage; a lot of churches will refuse to marry same gender couples anyhow.
Thanks for this. Have a great day. Vanessa