NJ Marriage Equality Part 2: A Matter of Language

This is the second article of a three-part series on gay marriage in New Jersey.
Part 1 gave a broad overview of the state of civil unions and gay marriage in the Garden State. Part 3 will focus on moral and religious issues.

It seems that we cannot even speak of the abstract concept of "equality" if we can't get beyond the issue of language.

What's in a Name?
The Star Ledger has begun providing resources to citizens who wish to speak coherently on this issue. (Not that commenters on NJ.com articles take advantage of these resources).

NJ.com [the web arm of the Star Ledger] has focused on State Senate President Stephen Sweeney in one article, noting that the now-advocate for marriage-equality legislation abstained from voting on the same issue two years ago. Oof. That contributed to its demise, even as then-Governor Corzine vowed to approve such a measure. Now the State Congress must muster enough votes to override Governor Chris Christie's all-too-certain veto.

NJ.com even gives a lesson in framing - which informs today's post. The way in which we speak about the issue of marriage equality/same-sex marriage matters because the issue is apparently perceived through a lens constructed by political language.

A fairly-useful infographic accompanied an article that focused on Sweeney [at least in the online version - I don't get the print edition out here in Boston]. The language utilized here attempts balance, but fails to deliver. And I quote:

When Jew Jersey Democrats begin their new effort in the coming weeks to allow same-sex couples to marry, pay close attention to the language both sides choose in framing the debate.

Fair enough, I say. Let's see how both sides use language in framing this:

Proponents can be expected to replace time-worn terms like "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" with "marriage equality" - and with good reason. "Marriage equality" has scored 9 percentage points higher among New Jersey voters.

Ah, the politicization of words: tailor your message to your audience. But wait, how does the other side speak about the issue? The JPEG doesn't say. Presumably opponents would favor "homosexual marriage" over "gay marriage," the former having a definite pejorative connotation. "Gay marriage" would probably be used over "same-sex marriage," the latter of which may sound too liberal. "Marriage equality" will be avoided because of its strong support. But I'm just guessing here.

The equality versus same-sex debate says a great deal about public perception of this issue. A rose by any other name, it seems, would indeed be perceived as having a different smell, depending on its name. In the very act of naming this issue we exercise political judgments.

The infographic refers to an August 2011 Rutgers-Eagleton poll that found that support for gay marriage jumped from 52 percent to 61 percent when "gay marriage" was recast as "marriage equality." The truly useful statistic is that 36 percent of the Garden State population opposes same-sex unions of any kind. The rest are either in support or are at the whim of framing. Gay marriage is largely favored when it is perceived as a civil rights issue (that is, one of equality).

What's in a name? An arsenal of political rhetoric. It is deplorable that opinions on this issue hinge not on meaning, but on phrasing.

Taking It to the Polls
Indeed, gay marriage approval in New Jersey is difficult to assess through polling, and many polls wielded as political weaponry when in fact their results are often inconclusive. Public Policy Polling reported on July 29, 2011 that New Jersey residents believe same-sex marriage should be legal, by a margin on 47 percent to 42 percent. Despite the headline that “New Jersey supports legal same-sex marriage, if one were to look at the margin of error of plus/minus 4.5 percentage points, one would see that this assertion is not mathematically reasonable. So, in fact, there can be no conclusion that New Jerseyans favor same-sex marriage based on this poll. Likewise, a November 2009 Quinnipiac University poll found that New Jersey voters opposed legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry, by a margin of 49 to 46 percent. Again, since the margin of error is plus/minus 2.4 percentage points, the assertion that New Jersey voters oppose same-sex marriage is invalid.

Numbers are less ambiguous when pollsters ask about same-sex rights in general. When Public Policy Polling and Quinnipiac asked whether respondents supported gay marriage, civil unions, or no special recognition, it was found that gay rights in some form were supported. In the Public Policy Polling report, those who support gay marriage came to 42 percent, those who propose civil unions but not marriage was 40 percent, and those who believed there should be no recognition for a gay couple’s relationship was 17 percent.iii When offered three choices in the November 2009 Quinnipiac poll, New Jersey voters responded as follows: 42 percent favor same-sex marriage; 30 percent favor civil unions, but not marriage; and 20 percent oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Voters also supported the existing law establishing civil unions for same sex couples, 63 percent to 30. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center shows that support for civil unions is at 57 percent.

These statistics are much more useful in analyzing public opinion and recommending policy because they show that many in New Jersey believe that gay couples should be afforded equal rights. These data demonstrate majority support for unions of same-sex couple that provides the benefits and responsibilities of opposite-sex marriage. The problem, it seems, is the terminology that is used to describe these rights. As we will see Friday, "marriage" is a loaded term with both secular and theological implications, depending on who wields the language. Regardless of the phrasing however, the fact is that an overwhelming majority of New Jersey and United States citizens support equal rights for same-sex couples.

The Changing Tide of Youth
Robert Putnam and David Campbell help to navigate the tension between politics and religion in their analysis of the landmark Faith Matters surveys, recorded in their book American Grace. The book analyzes in part the pull of religion on politics and of politics on religion. Putnam and Campbell make an interesting discovery about the nature of religiosity and political issues: “Religiosity has a tight connection to attitudes regarding abortion and gay marriage, and a more modest correlation – or none at all – to issues that do not pertain to sex and the family.” One’s beliefs on other issues are generally not affected by religion, but on the key issues of abortion and gay marriage there is a very strong tie. Religiosity plays a large role in these issues, but it is not a good indicator of whether someone is racist, or favors the death penalty, or believes that the United States should decrease immigration. Not only this, but politicians have built coalitions around the issues of abortion and gay marriage. After the 1980s, when these issues became tied to political parties, we see that religiosity and partisanship have come into alignment. Especially in the 2004 election cycle, Putnam and Campbell note, sex and family issues, already tied to religiosity, were tied to the Republican Party. Democrats only weakly embraced the opposite stance, but it became clear that embracing abortion and gay marriage rights were tied to lower religiosity and the left.

Campbell and Putnam’s study, however, also determined that Americans are becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, and this is especially so of younger people. They attribute the findings to pop culture and lower religiosity among younger generations. So while politics shapes the way we express our religious convictions, culture and weakening religiosity work to reduce opposition to same-sex marriage issue at a “glacially slow” pace.

I don't want to put too fine a point on this, but it was a similarly slow pace of change, of course, that Martin Luther King, Jr.so strongly against in his "Letter From Birmingham Jail."

The Question of State Versus Nation
Even if marriage equality is achieved, the relationships of gay and lesbian couples will not be recognized on the national level.

The balance between state and nation in the question of gay marriage is a peculiar problem because states maintain control over marriages, but benefits conferred from recognized marriages are granted at both the state and the national level. With the exception of some benefits for the same-sex partners of some federal employees, federal benefits are not extended to same-sex couples in America. Massachusetts couples, for example, even though they are “married” in the eyes of the state, do not receive the same benefits that married couples do from the United States government. Civil unions receive even less protection.

Steps are being made to remedy this issue in other parts of the United States. In July 2011, Cambridge, Massachusetts made the unprecedented move of pay quarterly stipends to city employees in same-sex marriages to help defray federal taxes on health benefits for partners. This move seeks to address the inequality that arises when benefits for opposite sex spouses are not taxed. This patchwork remedy has its heart in the right place, but it does not address the fundamental inequality that gay couples suffer. Changes are necessary at the national level in order to afford rights to gay couples. For now though, action is focused primarily on the state level.

These are some of the issues that will inform the third installment of the series, which will focus on moral and religious dimensions of the debate. Look for that post Friday.