Mirror Sites:
CSUDH - Habermas - UWP - Archives

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Soka University Japan - Transcend Art and Peace
Created: October 5, 2002
Latest Update: October 6, 2002
jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu

Civil Unions and Democracy

Site Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata and Individual Authors, September 2002.
"Fair use" encouraged.

1. Preparatory readings for module.

   • Civil Unions and Democracy

2. Discussion questions.

   1. Why do you suppose the alert to the opposition to laws on civil union in Vermont uses the term "civil union" instead of "gay marriage?"

      Consider the size of this country and the huge variation in mores across the continent and from rural or small local areas to metropolitan areas. Consider the probability that in some areas "gay" is still used in a pejorative sense and particularly in the conservative right Republican agenda, and that Dour Racine is a Democrat.

   2. Does marriage really matter?

      Consider how any church or religious group would respond to that question. Then try to recognize that if this is one of our answers to gay marriage we are saying that gays are excluded from our religious beliefs. That seems to me like a pretty heavy undertaking that might be better left to God. Consider also marriage as ritual in stabilizing interpersonal connections and in strengthening our solidarity. Then consider how well we non-gay folks are doing in that field. Take a quick look at divorce statistics. Should me maybe strengthen our own marriages before we decide that we can safely exclude others. In consideration of the sacraments, look at who defines the sacraments, and then look at how the Catholic Church has fared in this regard. Not that any of the rest of us have fared much better.

   3. Could you give an oral defense of gay marriage in the interest of bringing an excluded community back into solidarity with the whole community?

      Consider that difference generally revolves around the thought that somehow "we who are not different" are "better" than "them who are different." We tend in our adversarial society to turn it into an "Us/ Them" situation. That means that we turn "them" into "others." One of the things we are coming to learn about Others, is that we are all pretty much alike, right down to wanting to profit from the greed of the most blatant uncontrolled capitalism. Don't forget to relate this to the precedent need for illocutionary discussions if we are to live together in the legitimate peace of public discourse on governance.

3. Experiential activities related to module.

   1. See if you can get straight some of the illocutionary responses to civil unions. Then ask some of your friends or family how they feel about such marriages, and see if you can draw them into an illocutionary discussion. Remember, it's an illocutionary discussion we are trying to have, not a debate. Share the results with us on site or in class.

4. Self-test questions related to module.

   True or False? And explain briefly why it's true or false. (25 words or less)

   1. It is mere chance that the Democrat, Doug Racine, is in favor of civil unions.
   2. All religions accept gay marriage.
   3. Marriage is closely related to issues of solidarity in our community.
   4. Our local communities have very good records on solidarity in marriage and in social justice. (Note the trick of the question in pairing marriage and social justice together!!!)
   5. The divorce rate is of little importance as we gauge the success of formal marriage on family life.
   6. The upsurge in marriage (fashion marriages, particularly) in the last decade augurs well for our social solidarity.
   7. It is mere coincidence that secret votes and their effect on democracy comes up on the same Web Page as civil unions.
   8. Legislative and jusdicial bodies resolving non-majority votes led to election disaster in Florida in 2000.

5. Conceptual linking we had in mind as we prepared the module.

   • illocutionary discussions as precursor to reasoned public discourse (Pia Lara)
   • legitimacy as a rquirement for justice (Habermas)
   • exclusion as creating Others
   • moral and aesthetic spheres requiring awareness in interpersonal relationships (Bakhtin and Pia Lara and early Habermas)