Montana Split On Gay Marriage Rights
The Public Policy Polling group recently surveyed Montana residents to gauge their collective stance on gay marriage.
While a majority believe same-sex couples deserve equal rights, far fewer believe we deserve holy matrimony.
ThinkProgress' Igor Volsky fills us in: "Sixty-two percent of Montana voters 'want same-sex couples to have legal equality, including 84 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of independents, and 39 percent of Republicans,' but 51 percent still oppose marriage equality."
It's incredible to me that people get so hung up on terms -- they're willing to give gay people equal rights, but want to call it something else. How about sexual segregation?
How about we stop asking people what they think and just get what we deserve? Interracial marriage was FAR less popular in the 50s and 60s than Marriage Equality is total.
Posted by: ChrisQ | Dec 9, 2011 9:58:25 AM
While we're speaking of terms, how about NOT calling legal equality for gay couples "gay marriage"? Gay couples want an equal right to marry, not an unequal right to gay marry.
Most of the people hung up on the term "marriage" when it applies to gay couples are hung up for bogus religious or bigoted reasons, but sometimes we don't help our fight when we keep using a term that shouldn't exist and makes no sense. No straight couple considers themselves "straight married."
Posted by: Ernie | Dec 9, 2011 10:01:48 AM
Montana is a pretty conservative state. It is doubtful if 51% of its residents really want equal rights for gay couples. More likely this is the Bradley effect - Americans tend to be petrified when asked any questions involving the word "equality."
And 2012 will not be a good year for SSM. It is likely that putting it on the ballot will lead to increased turnout by social conservatives. Right now the best thing for liberals would be a brief hiatus on the issue so that the public has time to get used to the idea of gay marriage. Time works in their favor here. The good arguments against gay marriage involve concerns about how it affects society long-term. Another 3 or 4 years of things as they are won't cause any dranatic change in society. But increased litigation and direct attacks on small businesses for "homophobia" will only fan the flames. The more far-reaching social change is, the more time it takes to institute without opposition. The biggest enemy of most social movements is the impatience of their members. This is true of the right as well as the left.
Posted by: Mary | Dec 9, 2011 10:18:58 AM
"Holy matrimony"? What the hell is that? Gay people aren't asking for anything "holy," even assuming such a vague, subjective term could be defined in a precise way. We are asking for full civil equality, for equal treatment under law which, in case it has missed anyone's notice, is guaranteed us by the constitution. If we let ourselves get caught up in imbecilic concepts like "holy matrimony," we'll lose every time.
Posted by: jomicur | Dec 9, 2011 10:23:45 AM
And yet we still fight to get "marriage" equality on the federal level. This is just a sign that we are a long, long time from national acceptance of "marriage".
Let's get government out of marriage all together! Then we would all, as individuals, have the same rights. Gay or straight.
Voting for Ron Paul gets government out of marriage. Voting for Obama ensures the government will continue to deny us marriage because he is a big government president. Plus, voting for Obama means more wars, bombs, and death of innocent people.
Vote for peace. Vote to get government out of marriage. Vote for Ron Paul.
Posted by: brianinla | Dec 9, 2011 10:27:12 AM
"The biggest enemy of most social movements is the impatience of their members."
Actually, Mary, the exact opposite is true, so I'm not sure how you've reached this impression, but thanks for the misguided advice.
As Secretary of State Clinton said the other day: "But progress comes from changes in laws. In many places, including my own country, legal protections have preceded, not followed, broader recognition of rights. Laws have a teaching effect. Laws that discriminate validate other kinds of discrimination. Laws that require equal protections reinforce the moral imperative of equality. And practically speaking, it is often the case that laws must change before fears about change dissipate."
The only long-term effects of marriage equality will be marriage equality. There are no good arguments against that. The right doesn't fear the long-term effects of equality; they fear the fact that equality proves all their fear-mongering wrong.
Posted by: Ernie | Dec 9, 2011 10:35:05 AM
It is possible you did this on purpose, but it is a language problem. You wrote, “Holy matrimony” not civil marriage equality. Many still think this will be imposed on churches, and the anti-equality forces use it.
Since individual celebrants must be licensed by the individual states to perform the civil part of the ceremony while simultaneously performing the religious ceremony, they are afraid to lose their licenses and the income. (Every August vacation my family took was financed by the previous Spring and Summer of weddings) Since all this has come up, many celebrants now drop the part about being “invested by the state of _____” in the language of the ceremony. It is as if the state license is not necessary or does not exist.
Culturally, many do not believe getting married at the county clerks office is a real marriage. Often in the when a heterosexual couple will announce they got married at the courthouse someone in the family will ask when the real wedding is going to be. They mean the religious ceremony. The scare quotes around the word “marriage” works because without the possibility of God’s wrath, that commitment is not as good. And it is not a marriage at all for Roman Catholics unless it is performed by a priest. Churches like owning the word, “marriage,” they are a part of the wedding industrial complex.
Until we unwed the church and state in ceremonies, the language is a problem.
Posted by: Gus | Dec 9, 2011 10:47:14 AM
"Vote to get government out of marriage. Vote for Ron Paul."
Well, the federal government has been in Ron Paul's marriage for over 54 of his 76 years, so he can't mind it too much. If he wants to go that route, he should start by ending his government-sanctioned marriage and convincing a majority of straight people to do the same. (They've got full federal marriage rights, protections, and benefits to give up, we don't.)
Posted by: Ernie | Dec 9, 2011 10:48:00 AM
Agree completely, Jomicur and Gus. It's very disappointing to see postings on a gay blog which play right into the phony arguments being advanced by our opponents. The fight for civil marriage equality has nothing to do with "holy matrimony".
Posted by: Patric | Dec 9, 2011 10:55:43 AM
We are not talking about "holy matrimony." It's civil marriage, bestowed by the government. Churches can decide what they want to do on their own.
Sloppy writing, not par for this site.
Posted by: Greg | Dec 9, 2011 11:23:52 AM
Yeah, not too sure what Belonsky's reason for changing "marriage equality" in the ThinkProgress article (or "allowed to legally marry" and "legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship" in the PPC story) to "holy matrimony." While the poll mentions many different topics (including football!), religion isn't among them.
Anyone know if I can just subscribe to Andy's posts in an RSS feed? Maybe I'll Yahoo Pipe it. I can supplement with other sources for weekend news, I imagine.
Posted by: Scot Colford | Dec 9, 2011 11:32:01 AM
say what you like: for a state like Montana these stats show that things have changed significantly - in the right direction. Can you dig up any polls gauging the feelings of Montanans about gay people 10 years ago? I'm sure the numbers would have been much less attractive.
Posted by: Danny | Dec 9, 2011 11:34:58 AM
BrianinLA, FYI Ron Paul also believes that DOMA should remain in the states that have it as long as it's legislated for. He can't have it both ways. Under his presidency, DOMA would remain in the states that want it and marriage equality in all states would NEVER happen. Be careful what you wish for. He's going nowhere fast, thankfully. You'll be singing a different tune if Obama finally evolves and supports marriage equality in 2012. He'll have nothing to lose since he'll be a lame-duck president anyway. Marriage equality under any republican presidency would never be supported, almost all in their party are against it.
Getting government out of the marriage business wouldn't work. How would a couple get access to the 1134 big government federal rights and over 400 states' rights if you don't want government involved? There isn't a western government in the world that has done this. It's an absurd and futile policy to advocate for that, not going to happen.
Posted by: Robert in NYC | Dec 9, 2011 12:30:05 PM
Ernie, exactly the point I made in my statement in response to BrianinLA. The GOP and it's offshoot the Civil Libertarian Party don't want government involved in anything. What we'll have is anarchy under their watch. It's all about the money as far as they're concerned, to hell with the rest of us.
Posted by: Robert in NYC | Dec 9, 2011 12:33:00 PM
You know, if we want to comment on how they're hung up on 'terms', perhaps we should take 'holy matrimony' out of the argument. It's completely irrelevant to the question of civil marriage. It's not an idle point. Many of our opponents can't or don't distinguish civil and religious marriage. We'd probably have marriage in CA now if they could.
Posted by: Richie | Dec 9, 2011 1:44:37 PM
Libertarians want "the govt out of marriage" because most of them are divorced and resent having to pay alimony.
Posted by: BobN | Dec 9, 2011 4:17:49 PM
Let's, you know, not get hung up on the phrase "holy matrimony". I'm pretty sure it was just used in this post.
Anyway, the bigger story here is that only 51% are against marriage equality in Montana, according to this poll. That's a ridiculously low number for a state like Montana. If we're really doing this well in red states, it seems like we're right at the turning point in this fight.
Posted by: rafi | Dec 9, 2011 5:03:59 PM
From the same poll:
Q16 If you are white, press 1. If other, press 2.
White ...................... 94%
Other........................ 6%
There's a word for that.
Posted by: Matt N | Dec 9, 2011 7:59:56 PM
One big problem comes from the "holy Matriomony biz you mention.
Some Churches manage to confuse peopel and make them think that churches could be forced to do ceremonies against their beliefs.
Most people dont realize that most marriages include two marriages. a religious marriage, which has zero legal / contractual rights re the law.
And a civil marrige which usually is simply the couples signing some papers and the religious authority acts like a witness for the state.
The best solution is to go back to separation of church and state for real. the religious groups can (under the constitution) do what they want etc.
But to get "legally married", the couple should be required to do just what couples do if they only want the legal marriage - go to the courthouse and do the paperwork and pay the fee.
Lots of luck on that one though. the right wing churches will simply spin that one at a million RPM claiming their right are being violated.
Posted by: billy wingarten | Dec 10, 2011 11:29:54 PM
btw I have no recollection of the signing the Legal contract at my marriage many decades ago.
My daughter - first to marry, had a civil ceremony with a JP and a nice dinner with about 50 family and friends.
It wasnt until my son married that I understood what I posted just above
Posted by: billy wingarten | Dec 10, 2011 11:32:01 PM