Part of my unofficial duties as Secretary is to keep a record of things like the weather, but also things like how our members think about current concerns in queerdom. So, I posed this question to our listserve the other day, and these are the responses I got.
To protect the identity of the writers, I have substituted the names of two famous duelers: The 3rd Marquess of Londonderry and Ensign Battier. I'm sure your mother tucked you in with the story as a child, but in case you've forgotten, I'll remind you that the good Ensign's gun misfired and he declined the privilege of a second shot and left. Later he was horsewhipped by the Marquess's second. What a riveting tale.
And now, the question, based on the recent trends in New Jersey and elsewhere:
Civil unions: a step in the right direction, or a stumbling block along the way?
I begin with the good Ensign Battier.
I would consider civil unions a giant stumbling block planted firmly in the way of attaining full marriage recognition. In fact, we have already seen at least one legislature pass a civil unions law (Connecticut) in hopes of short-circuiting pending marriage cases.
Think about it - what is the government recognition of marriage? It's the CIVIL recognition of a marital UNION. They're essentially the same thing. Or they would potentially be if it weren't for the federal DOMA. This is why some groups oppose both marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples - they're seeing through the attempt to disguise our marriages with different terminology. It's also the 'perfect' compromise argument for those who believe there should be recognition of our unions, but can't bring themselves to call it marriage, generally but not always due to their religious beliefs. ("They're the same thing - let us call it by the term we're comfortable with!" said a het friend, who's against calling same-sex unions by the word 'marriage', at a party I attended a week or so ago, much to my dismay.)
I say 'perfect' in quotations because it's only perfect in their mind, not in reality. I've already mentioned the federal DOMA, which makes a mockery of the full faith and credit clause and prevents us access to over 1,000 federal laws linked to marital status. It also introduces further inefficiency into government by having it run parallel institutions that should at least in theory be providing identical benefits/protections/privileges/etc.
'Separate but equal' never is, and even if the two institutions start off being equal (which they haven't), they're unlikely to remain that way. Not to mention the giant slap in the face to same-sex couples who do view their unions as marriages having a religious component.
Civil unions are little more than an attempt to forestall the inevitable - full marriage recognition. I'm of the belief that it will take in the neighborhood of 50 years for full marriage recognition to become reality - by which time I may very well be deceased. The adoption of civil unions pushes that timetable back even further - at least another quarter century.
That's not to say that I wouldn't run out and get a civil union if it were available. My partner and I already consider ourselves married, even though we've not had a ceremony and only have a certified domestic partnership. If a civil union gets us something more than we have now, we'll take it, and we'll continue to complain that it ought to be considered what it really is - a marriage.
Thank you, good Ensign. My own thoughts are similar. I think civil unions are at best a compromise, but at worst a ploy to make us just go away.
I turn now to a response, from the Marquess of Londonberry (the 3rd).
I'm a retired member of the faculty -- retired 3 years ago after 34 years at UMLS -- and have stayed on your email list because it's proven the fastest way to keep up with national gay news. If some judge decides something wacky at 10 a.m., someone in Outlaws will howl about it in an email by noon. Thanks for your speedy news service.
I taught family law for most of the time I was at Michigan. My partner [] and I now live in [Londonberry...ok, Vermont], and have been in a civil union for 5 years. Here's my quick take on [the good Ensign's] critique of civil unions.
I think it's too soon to tell whether civil unions will prove to be a gigantic stumbling block on the way to a legal right for gay couples to marry. His guess is that states will adopt civil unions and delay much longer than they would have moving all the way to marriage. But it's just as likely, I think, that some states, and Vermont may be one of them, will try civil unions for a while and then extend
marriage to same-sex couples more quickly than they would have without the "trial" period.
When the legislature in VT first adopted civil unions (under an explicit threat from the state supreme court that marriage was the only alternative), the conservatives in the state, and there are a lot more of them in this rural state than you might think, went crazy. They wanted the legislature to propose a constitutional amendment right away. In the state-wide election a few months later, lots of legislators who voted for civil unions lost their seats. The state house of representatives changed hands to the Republicans.
Now six years and thousands of civil unions later, the Democrats have gotten back both houses of the legislature, half a dozen gay folks are in the legislature, and civil unions are not a political issue at all. Next year, a bill will be introduced by a group of Democratic house members to change civil union to marriage. It won't pass the first time it's introduced, but with any luck, it might well within four or five years.
Now, of course, if the Vermont Supreme Court had just held that marriage had to be extended to us gay folks back when it made it's original decision, we'd have gotten
marriage much faster, but many people doubt whether the court would have reached a positive decision at all for us if marriage had been the only option. Moreover, the legislature, if civil union hadn't been an option, would have been highly likely to have put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, an amendment that would probably have been adopted. (Six years ago, only about 20 percent of Vermonters favored same-sex marriage; now, according to a poll earlier this year, about half do). So, my guess is that, at least in Vermont, we are likely to have same-sex marriage more quickly because of civil unions than despite it.
The biggest obstacle to the spread of same-sex marriage is that the success in VT, Massachusetts, and now New Jersey, has fired up the far right and led to the passage of horrible constitutional amendments in over half the states. In almost all those states, undoing the constitutional amendment will be possible only by a court
decision holding that it violates the U.S. Constitution, which is possible, but not without a nearly entirely new U.S. Supreme Court, or by the legislatures and the voters in each of those states going through the process of adopting a new constitutional provision to repeal the current one, highly improbable for a very long time to come.
So, in the end, I'm really pleased with the civil union movement and hope that it spreads the rest of the way through New England and the mid-Atlantic states and then trickles westward.
A personal note: I like being in a Vermont civil union just fine. Calling it marriage doesn't matter to me at all. I actually kind of like the separate name. In my view (and [the Ensign] might not oppose this), it would be better if all states got out of the marriage business and created something like civil registration for all couples that wanted it. "Marriage" would be the business of churches or any other groups that wanted to bless unions.
Happy new year to you all. If you're ever in [Londonberry], look us up.
A fine opinion in response. That makes two fine opinions on the subject. But, unlike in the real story, our good Ensign makes his reply.
Civil unions may indeed prove a stepping stone, accelerating the move to marriage, in some states. Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey, maybe Oregon, possibly Maryland, pending further developments in the court case there. Maybe even Maine. But New Hampshire? Delaware? I just don't see it happening there. New York will prove interesting, with their incoming governor saying he'll propose that the
legislature extend us marriage recognition.
Where else might we see such a trend? Maybe a few other states, but being ever the pessimist, I actually expect most states that haven't already banned civil unions right along with marriage to do exactly that in the next few years, especially if they see other states moving from civil unions to marriage. Let's be clear here - the trend has NOT been toward civil unions. For every state pondering some sort of recognition of same-sex couples, you have at least two or three that have already firmly gone the opposite way. The trend is toward even more restrictive amendments if this past election is any indication, Arizona's defeat of its amendment being a welcome aberration.
And, if this past election is any indication, the nation as a whole isn't poised to move in a direction favorable to us in the near term. Moderate Republicans were largely defeated, and many of the newly elected Democrats are not exactly what you'd call same-sex-marriage-friendly. Did people elect 'liberals' at home while sending conservatives and right-of-center moderates to Congress? Doubtful.
I think you also need to consider the migration of same-sex couples that this contrast in treatment state by state may inspire. While it's true that some couples will consider existing careers and family ties more important than recognition of their union, many others will give up and make the move to a friendlier state. My partner and I have actually contemplated doing so, but decided we'd rather wait and
see what happens to our domestic partnership benefits first, and to see whether the newly minted civil unions/domestic partnership/marriage laws in other states actually survive various challenges. We also have two sets of elderly parents to consider in the mix.
If there is indeed a significant migration of gay men, lesbians and their allies to more friendly states, we have to wonder what the impact will be on the states they leave behind - will they be persuaded to rethink civil unions/marriage recognition, or will they say 'good riddance' and become even more entrenched?
But I do have to agree with [the Marquess] that forcing marriage on resistant states via court order will create a backlash against recognition in others - we've already seen the truth of this played out first with the threat of recognition looming in Hawaii (leading to the federal DOMA) and subsequently in individual states following the court-ordered recognition of marriage in Massachusetts.
In other words, many of us in not-so-friendly states - which is to say most states - remain trapped between a rock and a hard place. Legislative action seems preferable to court orders, but if the public around you keeps electing the opposite of what's needed to make it happen, what to do? Continue educating them has been the usual answer, but what if turns out that the majority really have no desire to learn the truth about our families and don't consider the effects of denying us recognition unfair, no matter how the issue is put to them?
I also agree that the current line-up of the Supreme Court is unlikely to rule in our favor - if they agreed to take a case at all. Which is too bad, since the federal DOMA is itself a major obstacle, even with state recognition available here and there. The full facts of the situation that led to a lifting of miscegenation
laws are different enough from our own struggle that I think it unlikely we'll see a Loving v. Virginia scenario play out on our own behalf.
Regarding [the Marquess's] suggestion that the government should get out of the marriage business and instead offer civil registration to all couples, I confess myself ambivalent. On the one hand, I think the government should call its recognition what it is - civil registration, civil union, civil partnership, civil whatever. I think using the word 'marriage' for it does indeed cause a lot of confusion for people who have trouble seeing the religious component of their marriage as separate from its civil component. I'm especially in favor of revoking the power of religious entities to act with civil authority in this matter, to help further separate the two. A church should be able to 'marry' people as a religious matter whether the government confers civil recognition upon it or not.
On the other hand, marriage is the institution already in place, and it strikes me as more practical to simply extend it than to completely change what it's called. Maybe a change either way involves so much rewriting of law that it makes little difference? I shouldn't pretend to know either way.
And what about reciprocal benefits? Should marriage really be treated different on the civil level from, say, a mutually dependent single mother and grandmother raising a child together? I think the big difference here is that we don't necessarily expect the kind of permanence to that situation that we do with a marriage. But maybe this is biting off more than the general public can chew at the moment.
In closing, let me say 'thank-you' to [the Marquess] for this dialog, and extend my sincere and warm wishes to him and his family to enjoy the holiday season, and a peaceful & happy New Year! Likewise my thanks and best wishes to those of you who have taken the time to read my long-winded opinions.
See, this story ends on a happy note. With good cheer and tidings, and not a whipping in sight. My own thoughts about civil unions are of the wait-and-see variety. When the heavens don't fall and people don't start dancing with dogs, I hope it will seem silly that we had to have this discussion in the first place.
I now bid you farewell for the semester. Whatever you're celebrating during this time of year, I hope it brings you much joy.
with love,
robert.
7 comments:
Marriage, a religious institution?
I’m having difficulty trying to understand what the people that are opposed to gay marriage mean when they say that marriage is a religious institution. Or that it will make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or a mountaintop, it just doesn’t matter. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages do a damn good job of their own making a mockery of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Saugatuck, Mi 49408 269 561 6789 www.aaronjasonsilver.com
Separate is never equal.
Two men or two women are no more "equal" to one man and one woman than two apples are "equal" to one apple and one orange. Two left shoes are both "shoes", and they are "a pair", but they can never equal "a pair of shoes" now can they? Why? Because separate is NEVER equal.
marty:
i'm not sure whether you're fer'em or agin'em, but, just because same-sex couples aren't "equal" doesn't automatically assign any value to them. it's society that ascribes that value, and there's a fair amount of disagreement on what that value is. some people say same-sex couples are no good, but they normally cite social science to back it up. other people say same-sex couples are just like everyone else (with their problems and their happy moments), and they usually point to friends they've known in their lives.
the truth is that relationships, whether a man and a woman, two men or two women, are HARD. they take a lot of work, compromise, and love. and i hand it to all the same-sex couples pushing for marriage right now, because they're fighting harder than most to hold onto a relationship that they cherish.
through thick and through thin, huh?
"Two left shoes are both "shoes", and they are "a pair", but they can never equal "a pair of shoes" now can they? Why? Because separate is NEVER equal."
Two left shoes "can't be a pair" of shoes not because separate is never equal but because most people need a left shoe and a right shoe in order for a pair of shoes to be useful. If you can show me a statistic that shows that "marriage" needs a man and a woman in order for the marriage to be "useful" (and don't start in on the child-bearing thing, because plenty of straight couples who can't have children exist out there, married as can be). In addition, I just don't understand what you mean by linking the phrase "separate is never equal" with the analogy to shoes. Somehow, we treat two left shoes differently, and that is separate but not equal treatment? The words have strong connotations, which I'm sure was your goal- go to a law school blog and spout "separate but equal", but the argument makes little sense.. whatever it may be.
With regard to 'equal'...
Are any two marriages absolutely equal (as in identical)?
I would have to say 'no'; each marriage is as unique as the individuals comprising it.
Marriage isn't based on the idea that one couple is the same as the next. This was alluded to by respondent Aaron Jason Silver in his description of the many settings and ways in which individuals exercise their liberty to unite by their mutual consent in marriage.
We recognize a marriage based on the equivalencies that exist from one relationship to the next, those being the mutual agreement to thus unite and to declare the formation of said union, generally accompanied by the couple's mutual caring and support for one another on a number of levels.
When we talk about the 'separate but equal' we're talking about the suspect idea that parallel institutions can be maintained to provide equality of recognition between them.
Are same sex couples different from opposite sex couples? I would have to say 'yes', but with the disclaimer that whatever those differences might be, they're insignificant in comparison to what we share in common.
And it is what we share in common - the equivalencies that exist between our relationships - that makes our unions recognizable as marriages and calls for their equal treatment under the law.
i think the right response to the "two left shoes are never a pair" argument is that they ARE a pair if you have two left feet. it is the assumption that gay people aren't already in committed relationships that is getting in the way of this discussion. just like the assumption that gay people aren't in the military, the assumption that gay people aren't in the boyscouts, churches, your family, etc.
we do exist, and we'd rather not get shit on anymore.
In every life sometimes miracle are happened.
All the problems are faced by human beings.
That's the policy. Both of them have adjust themselves.
The proverb like "slow and study wins the race".
---------------------------
Michigan Drug Addiction
Post a Comment