Social Conservatives Hope What Happens in Des Moines Stays in Des Moines
Research 2000 conducted a statewide poll of 600 likely Iowa voters. I think the second question is telling of general attitudes about equal rights. 77% of Democrats and 55% of Independents believe couples should have equal rights.
QUESTION: As you may know, same-sex marriages have been legal in Iowa for over a year. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment which would over turn current law allowing same sex marriages in Iowa?
YES NO NOT SURE
ALL 39% 42% 19%
MEN 43% 40% 17%
WOMEN 35% 44% 21%
DEMOCRATS 22% 64% 14%
REPUBLICANS 66% 13% 21%
INDEPENDENTS 33% 45% 22%
QUESTION: Regardless of how you feel about same-sex marriages, do you favor or oppose allowing same-sex couples the same benefits allowed to heterosexual couples, known as civil unions?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
ALL 51% 40% 9%
MEN 47% 44% 9%
WOMEN 55% 36% 9%
DEMOCRATS 77% 21% 2%
REPUBLICANS 16% 68% 16%
INDEPENDENTS 55% 35% 10%
So why the difference between marriage and civil unions?
One explanation could be the metaphors that are associated with marriage. Researcher suggest that metaphors or mental models frame how we construct meaning and arrive at our positions on specific issues (sources #1, #2, #3).
Our mental models serve as the foundation of our thinking.
The bible gives us a model for marriage: Adam and Eve. (The bible actually gives us multiple marriage models but none more icon.) This provides a clear visual image for marriage - right down to the fig leaves. One man and one woman.
Civil unions on the other hand have no strong metaphor or visual model. Unions are associated with partnerships but there is no clear visual model for partnership or union. Civil unions are not gendered the way marriage has.
Perhaps individual positions on same-gender marriages is more about our mental models than being homophobic.
How can we create a new mental model for marriage? Or should we abandon marriage in favor of civil unions?
Comment
-
Comment by Tyler Richard on March 4, 2010 at 3:34pm -
I think most activists – everyday people who are telling their stories and trying to make change as they can – do think in terms of images. Policy wonks might not, but that's just one kind of activist.
One of the things that has been sucessful in Iowa is getting away from the concept of equality, and more talking about fairness. What I like about that, outside of the fact that its been effective messaging, is it helps to broaded the conversation beyond just marriage. I'll let someone who knows much more than I talk about why its important to not limit the conversation to marraige.
-
Comment by Heath Harding on March 4, 2010 at 10:34am -
Yes, that is the legal precedent. I am looking more at how most people think about (visualize) the issue - from a metaphor, image, mental models perspective. I think this is one of the challenges of the movement is that the legal framing is radically different than the mental models in our heads which is how most people make decisions. (e.g. Not sitting in the back of the bus is a strong mental image.)
No matter how logical "separate but equal" sounds it is not powerful enough to erase "adam and eve" and replace it with a new image or mental model. Activist may think in legal terms but the majority of people think in images.
For example, we might want to pair marriage equality with Justitia or the blindfolded Lady of Justice. Marriage as a legal contract should be blind to gender. Just some thoughts!
What do you think would be some images that would advance marriage equality?
-
Comment by Courtney Dusing on March 4, 2010 at 10:14am - Won't having civil unions while heterosexual couples have marriage create a "separate but equal" institution?
© 2010 Created by OUTLinc Admin.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of OUTLinc to add comments!
Join OUTLinc