Auros (auros) wrote,

  • Mood:

A rose by any other name...

This is something I've been curious about for a while, and it occurred to me that I have a pool of people to draw on who could help answer. Please feel free to refer friends to this post.

Poll #303264 Gay Marriage versus Universal Civil Unions

Might you want, currently or in the future, to have the option of being part of a marriage/union/whatever that did not consist of one male and one female?


If NO: Would you be upset if the government decided to stop using the term "marriage"? (That is, it would no longer recognize a heterosexual union as a marriage, and would recognize all unions -- straight, gay, poly, whatever -- under some other term.)


If YES: Do you care one way or the other what the government calls the type of union you'd like to have?


I've made the results private, so anyone can answer without concern that somebody else is going to come along and see their answer regarding whether they themselves might want a non-standard union. (I will still see the answers, of course. And I'll edit in some comments on the results in a day or two.)

ETA: I find it fascinating that the people who answered "no" on #1 all said "no" also on #2 -- that is, those who already have access to the rights they want really don't care what name they're granted under. (The one "yes" answer in #2 is somebody who actually answered "yes" on the first question, but then answered both #2 and #3. Naughty human. No quiz biscuit.) Do you guys who are answering "yes" on #3 seriously think it matters that the gov't "legitimizes" the union with the word? What do you think you win from that? The family and friends who will call it a marriage will do so no matter what the gov't calls it, and those who will not call it a marriage will not do so. What do we gain by pushing the semantics issue?
Comments for this post were disabled by the author