First published in I Do/I Don't: Queers on Marriage (Suspect Thoughts Press, 2004)
In 1968, Spence Silver, a 3M research scientist, accidentally created an adhesive with properties that were then novel. It was spherical; it had the thickness of a paper fiber; it did not dissolve; it did not melt; each individual sphere was very sticky. But when many spheres were brought together onto a tape backing, they didn't adhere very well.
For five years, Silver pitched his discovery to folks at 3M, but no one thought much of his creation. Finally, in 1973, an application was found: movable bulletin boards. But it was hardly an earth-shattering application.
Enter Art Fry, a new-product development researcher at 3M. He had learned about Silver's adhesive, and he thought to himself: If I could put some of that adhesive on the back of a piece of paper, I could create a more reliable bookmark for my church hymnal instead of the scraps of paper that keep falling out. He brought his idea to 3M. Some initially tried to kill the project; why compete with something that already exists and works so well already? But Fry and others persisted. They eventually went to Richmond, Virginia, to see if they could sell this notion of scrap paper with an adhesive edge. People were interested, and in 1980-a dozen years after Silver's discovery-3M launched the Post-it Note.
With all the hue and cry about civil union and its alleged inferiority, I ask myself: Do the people who accidentally created this new adhesive have any idea how powerful their invention is? I don't think they do.
So let me offer an application for their creation. Since October of 2001, I've been proposing a different way to move forward in our struggle toward marriage equality. The dominant voices from our community have demanded marriage for gays, and marriage has been the rallying cry ever since we came so close in Hawaii. But some of us want to see something that is at once more radical and more conservative: civil union for all.
It's clearly more radical, because no nation on earth has ever abandoned civil marriage and adopted an alternative. In a debate with an advocate of same-sex marriage, my proposal of civil union for all was dismissed as being so much wishful thinking. We will always have civil marriage, I was told. Really? This same advocate cautioned against filing marriage lawsuits too soon, for fear of suits that may be unwinnable in the courts of law and public opinion. All the while, she cited Hawaii- the suit most gay legal thinkers thought was premature-as the beginning of the current push for gay marriage.
Fifteen years ago, few of us fully envisioned the possibility of gay marriage. Dismissing civil union for all out of hand similarly represents a failure of imagination on the part of leaders in the gay community and elsewhere. After all, civil marriage cannot trace its lineage to the beginnings of ancient civilization. So who's to say that a nation might not one day adopt civil union for all?
And what better nation to do this than the United States? American exceptionalism is part of our birthright. If any nation is poised to reinvent legal relationships on a large scale, it is our great and innovative land. Liberty, justice, and civil union for all.
The other complaint I hear from the champions for same-sex marriage is: We didn't get civil union by asking for civil union. I was up here in Vermont when we got civil union, and to be honest, none of us were all that happy that we didn't get marriage. But at the same time, few of us conceived anything like civil union. It's awfully hard to ask for something that does not yet exist. Who would know to ask for a Post-it Note that hadn't yet been invented? Now that we have civil union for gay couples, it's not so unimaginable to ask for civil union for all couples, is it?
And this is what makes my proposal conservative. By saying that all couples, gay and straight, get a civil union, we solve a number of issues simultaneously. Take polygamy, for example. The defenders of traditional marriage wail that polygamy is right around the corner if society allows same-sex marriage. We all know, though, that marriage has long been associated with polygamy, and granting or denying same-sex marriage won't affect that history one whit. Civil union, in contrast, has no history. So let's define it: two people who are unrelated by blood and above a certain age are eligible for governmental recognition of their relationship and the benefits and obligations that come from that recognition. Poof! No polygamy.
And talk about the separation of church and state! Has anyone you know pontificated about the sanctity of civil union, about the need to protect traditional civil union? Of course not.
The champions of same-sex marriage think they can finesse the church-state issue by talking about civil marriage and how no religious body would be forced to conduct a gay wedding. These gay leaders have no idea how integral marriage is to the theology of many religious persons in the United States and elsewhere.
Time for some self-disclosure. I was formerly the chaplain of a conservative Christian college. I know the religious right fairly well. For many Christians, it's not just the sanctity of marriage colliding with strictures against homosexuality. Marriage is a mirror that reflects the relationship that Christ has with the Church. And if this metaphorical marriage consecrates two men or two women, who gets impregnated with the Spirit of God? The religious objection is far deeper than simply maintaining the status quo. It subconsciously (and sometimes consciously) reaffirms the distinction between the sexes and the traditional subservience of one gender to the other.
Who can forget how gender-bound our understanding of marriage is? Think of the sentences that are forever wed to the wedding ceremony. "I now pronounce you man and wife" (i.e., master and property). "You may kiss the bride" (more preferential treatment for the groom). For the life of me, I do not comprehend why gay people, of all people, want to buy into this history. Call one another "husband" and "wife" if you choose, but notice how straight couples are beginning to abandon this language in favor of something more egalitarian. There are no gendered expectations in civil union; it skirts the sex-specific baggage of religious marriage. In my book, that's an improvement.
Time for some more self-disclosure. I'm black. And am I the only one to notice that black clergy stayed pretty much out of this struggle until gays won the legal right to use the M-word? In Massachusetts, the Black Ministerial Alliance did not make their voice heard until after the advisory ruling that said that civil union would not do. That was when they stood in opposition, and not a moment before. Those of us who are black and gay often feel that we have to choose which community we will call home. As the battle for the M-word escalates and as more black clergy speak out against same-sex marriage, I know of one black gay man who is feeling torn between two communities he loves and treasures.
Call me deluded, but I happen to believe that most of the black clergy who are rallying against same-sex marriage would give civil union a pass. We don't know if they would, though, because we haven't asked them. Instead, we cluck our tongues at these unsympathetic black leaders: don't they recognize prejudice when they see it? But maybe we're so blinded by our dogged pursuit of the M-word that we don't see there are other ways of securing equality for all.
So here's my pitch. Civil union won't work if it's only for gays and straights can get married. That's called segregation, and segregation is illegal in America. And I certainly am not opposed to marriage for all. I just happen to prefer civil union for all.
A straight woman asked me: what about straight people who want to say they're married? I asked her: who's stopping them? Gay couples have been using the M-word for quite some time now; we've not waited for the government to give us permission. No one is thrown in jail for saying they're married or civilly united or whatever they choose. Indeed, the champions of same-sex marriage infantilize gay couples by making us feel we are incomplete until Big Brother calls us married. Hogwash. And to those who accuse me of harboring internalized homophobia, I say: look in the mirror, sweetheart. I don't need the M-word; why do you need it?
What I do need that I don't have now are the 1,138 benefits that the federal government gives to straight married couples. (You do realize that all those fabulous couples who got married in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, don't have these benefits, don't you?) I need it to be portable, so that it is recognized from state to state. And the idea that only marriage will give us this is laughable. Besides, there's portability and there's portability. Will the married gay couple from Boston be recognized as married in Baghdad?
Last bit of self-disclosure. I am a practicing Episcopalian. And while I live in Vermont, I've followed closely the story of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of the neighboring diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson was once asked for his take on gay marriage. "If gay and lesbian people are full citizens of the country and state in which they live, they should be accorded the same rights as other couples. I don't think it matters whether you call it marriage or civil union as long as the responsibilities and the benefits are the same." Now, what would a man who had a heterosexual marriage, fathered two children, divorced, joined his life to that of another gay man well over a decade ago, conducted many, many marriages as an Episcopal priest, signed many, many marriage licenses as a deputy of the state, counseled couples prior to marriage, in marriage, and before divorce, and now oversees the Episcopal church in New Hampshire: I mean, what would he know about marriage?
All the same, Robinson may concede more than I want to concede. I would not be content with civil union for gays and civil marriage for straights. It's all one or the other for me. So like Monty Hall (remember him?), I say: Let's make a deal. Make it civil union for all, and we'll drop our insistence for marriage. And if the other side won't settle for civil union, then I guess I'll have to settle for marriage.
But I really would prefer civil union for all. After all, we gay people created it. It's a cultural makeover not even Queer Eye for the Straight Guy could engineer. It's simple and elegant at the same time. It takes religion out of the picture. It's new and improved. So let's make it ubiquitous as well.
Like that little piece of scrap paper with the weird adhesive on its edge. Who would have thought in 1980 that the Post-it Note would become so common? I didn't. And who imagines today that civil union for all could become universal? I do.
{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Why should we believe gays and lesbians like you who claim they are or will be monogamous, when you eagerly point out examples of others who claimed the same and didn’t?
NDT, you missed the point. I said that we do not want to legally impose monogamy on marriage, and would be happy to have marriage for gay persons in the exact way straight persons have marriage. What I said about Vitter and others is that I suspect that these people would want to impose monogamy for everyone else, but yet, couldn’t do it themselves. Of course, I do not know for sure that Vitter has held these views. Maybe I’m wrong, and he really believes that monogamy for marriage shouldn’t be required and/or he believes that he doesn’t have to be monogamous in his own marriage.
You or whoever (who is “we” by the way?) do not have to believe me. I really don’t care. Besides, if I’m lying, and not monogamous, at least I wouldn’t be a hypocrite for imposing monogamy on others, sleeping around just like Vitter et al, while saying that everyone else should be monogamous.
Furthermore, Pat, you have often said that encouraging monogamy would encourage long-term commitment, reduce disease, and remove social consequences — just as you claim it does for straights.
Why, then, are you so opposed to the state taking action to encourage monogamy by making it a requirement of receiving marriage benefits and protections?
First of all, I am supporting marriage equality. To do this, I want simply to eliminate the words “of the opposite sex” as opposed to otherwise changing the institute of marriage. Despite its flaws (and the current nonequality), I do believe that marriage is better now than it was. I think it’s great to see people stay together despite the fact that laws do allow people to get out if one or the other falls out of love and/or becomes toxic or whatever.
I don’t feel the need to be morally superior to straight persons or morally self-righteous to change the standard of marriage to get equality. I don’t believe any subgroup has to “prove” that there as morally good as another to get equality. And the beauty is that anyone who isn’t marriage material does not have to be forced to marry.
Also, I guess I find it distasteful for the government to go into our bedrooms and decide what kind of sex is allowed for married couples. If one (or both) of the couples cheat, I’d leave it up to them to handle it. If they want to impose a type of agreement that you propose, I would not want to prohibit them, because it’s THEIR agreement, not the government’s.
sleeping around just like Vitter et al
Looks like Eliot Spitzer has added his name to this list.
I?m a legally married gay man in Massachusetts, and because there is no federal recognition of our marriage, we will not contribute to the bankruptcy of Social Security because we will not have access to the money that we pay for legally married straight couples who tap into the Social Security Benefits of his/her spouse.
Perhaps you aren’t aware of what the Social Security spousal benefit actually is.
Even if he or she has never worked under Social Security, your spouse at full retirement age can receive a benefit equal to one-half of your full retirement amount.
Or what the rules are around spousal benefits.
If your spouse has also worked under Social Security–If your spouse is eligible for retirement benefits on his or her own record, we will always pay that amount first. But if the spouse benefit on your record is a higher amount, he or she will get a combination of benefits that equals that higher amount.
In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.
And perhaps you aren’t familiar with the arguments made during the debate on Arizona’s Proposition 107.
Consider Al Breznay and Maxine Piatt, who joined the unsuccessful lawsuit to keep this proposition off the ballot. Their argument against Proposition 107, which appears in the Secretary of State’s information pamphlet, is based on real life. A retired couple on fixed income, they live together because marriage would cost Piatt a large portion of her Social Security income.
Or, from another perspective:
But marrying would mean paying more in taxes as they both struggle to live on Social Security, he said.
So let’s see: gays and lesbians argue that they are taking a tax and Social Security hit by not getting married, yet their advertising against bans on gay marriage shows couples who don’t want to get married because it would a) raise their taxes and b) lower their Social Security benefits.
“In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.”
This directly contradicts what YOU quoted.
Even if they have their own social security benefit, if their spouse had a higher benefit, that will increase the benefit they receive.
As far as taxes and social security go, the situation is different from couple to couple. When remarriage reduces SS benefits, it’s because the previous spouse earned a BIGGER benefit than the current one. For other couples, it will be different. In fact, for couples who stay together forever – isn’t that important to you? – marriage can only increase social security benefits, not decrease them.
It’s the same with taxes – more couples benefit tax-wise from being married than suffer – 51% to 42% according to a 1996 congressional report, and that was BEFORE the cuts that did away with the marriage “penalty”.
It makes no sense to say that because some (straight and gay) couples do not wish to marry for financial reasons specific to their situation, gay couples don’t deserve equality. And it DOES make sense for those couples to argue against sweeping bans on gay marriage that have unintended consequences for straight, unmarried couples.
However you try to spin it, not being able to get married is NOT a benefit.
Even if they have their own social security benefit, if their spouse had a higher benefit, that will increase the benefit they receive.
LOL….only if you’ve somehow managed to work so little that your own benefit is less than half of your spouse’s.
Check your annual Social Security flyer next time you receive it, Karen, and see if you’re willing to take half of your partner’s, versus your own benefits.
It’s the same with taxes – more couples benefit tax-wise from being married than suffer – 51% to 42% according to a 1996 congressional report, and that was BEFORE the cuts that did away with the marriage “penalty”.
First, those cuts only affected the LOWER brackets and assisted most those with wildly-disparate incomes. Married couples, especially those with similar incomes, are still penalized.
Second, those cuts are going away, as the Democrat Party has made clear.
It makes no sense to say that because some (straight and gay) couples do not wish to marry for financial reasons specific to their situation, gay couples don’t deserve equality.
So you’re admitting that couples aren’t automatically benefitted by marriage and that, in numerous cases, marriage actually PENALIZES people.
Yes, of COURSE I’m “admitting” that couples aren’t automatically benefited by marriage, you twit. I said as much. You look stupid when you gloat about things that are obvious.
“LOL….only if you’ve somehow managed to work so little that your own benefit is less than half of your spouse’s.”
Which is entirely possible, of course. And continues – LOL! – to contradict what YOU said, which was that NO ONE could use a spousal benefit unless they hadn’t worked at all.
And regardless of that minor point, and regardless of what marriage “penalties” exist now (very little) or will be returning (unknown):
We got on this because you were pointing at the unmarried straight couple ads and saying they were a contradiction to the “it hurts it financially” arguement. They aren’t, as I’ve explained.
The few straight people – mostly retirees – who decide not to marry for *financial* reasons are perfectly right to fight the sweeping gay marriage bans which end up – unintentionally – hurting THEM, too.
The many, many gay couples who WOULD marry – and financially benefit from it – are also perfectly right to point out how not having the choice forces them into a worse financial situation.
In conclusion, you also look stupid when you point out contradictions that… aren’t.
Sorry, should read:
‘the “it hurts us financially argument”‘
not ‘the “it hurts it financially arguement”‘.
Yes, of COURSE I’m “admitting” that couples aren’t automatically benefited by marriage, you twit.
Then your argument that it being limited to straight couples hurts ALL gays carries no weight.
And continues – LOL! – to contradict what YOU said, which was that NO ONE could use a spousal benefit unless they hadn’t worked at all.
Actually, this is what I said:
In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.
Finally, gays and lesbians have already made it clear that they don’t want to live under current marriage laws because they would then have to assume responsibility for their partner’s debts, go to divorce court, and have their state benefits reduced — just like married people have had to do for years.
“Then your argument that it being limited to straight couples hurts ALL gays carries no weight.”
Not true. I never once suggested that every single gay couple would financially benefit from marriage.
Most committed couples find it in their best interest – financial AND otherwise – to be married. There are a lot more financial considerations than SS and taxes, but those are significant ones. Not having the option to be married DOES hurt all gay couples, because there was no guarantee that they’d be in that small percentage, and there’s none that they’ll stay there. When marriage is available, they can always choose not to participate, and they can change their status if need be. But if it isn’t available, the choice is made for them, in a way that USUALLY will be a financial negative. No option for all gay couples = it hurts all gay couples. Usually hurting your average gay couple = hurting all gay couples.
“This is what I said: In short, the only way in which spousal benefits would ever be meaningful to you is if one of you has not worked enough to receive your own Social Security benefit.”
… Which continues to be false. It could also meaningful to you if you worked enough to receive your own, but your spouse worked far more and earned far more, making their benefit more than twice the amount of yours.
Would you care to address the fact that your contradiction wasn’t actually a contradiction? Or would you just like to ignore it and go off on some other tangent?
By the way, your last paragraph is so stupid as to really not deserve an answer. But since you’ll probably whine that I ignored it, here:
That is not at all what that 2004 article says.
It says a few people chose to deregister for various reasons when a new law about their domestic partnership took effect.
For one thing, it’s not “gays and lesbians”, it’s a few couples.
For another thing, that law is not “current marriage law”. It lacks any of the federal benefits – and some of the state ones – of being married, and causes confusion and complications that straight married couples do not face.
In fact, most of the reasons that are given for deregistering is a direct result of unequal marriage laws for gays, or uncertainty over how certain benefits will be affected by the new law.
Like this:
“Because immigration is a federal matter, registering won’t allow foreigners to legally immigrate. To the contrary, it could be interpreted as an indication of intent to stay in the country, possibly leading to deportation.”
The others are simply reasons why some straight couples choose not to get married, too.
And one gasbag says that “for a lot of LGBT people, being independent financially is an important part of who they are”. No evidence given, and no one is actually quoted as saying that this is the reason they are deregistering.
The important part of the article is this:
“Over the summer, the secretary of state’s office mailed letters to the 28, 083 couples who have registered under the current, weaker law, warning of potentially undesired consequences of the new version and the Jan. 1 deadline for opting out.”
In other words, there ARE potentially undesired consequences under this NEW law, and in the two months after these letters went out, 313 out of 28,083 couples deregistered – only SOME of which did so for that reason.
Seriously – how stupid DO you think we are?
In fact, most of the reasons that are given for deregistering is a direct result of unequal marriage laws for gays, or uncertainty over how certain benefits will be affected by the new law.
Oh, I don’t think there’s a lot of uncertainty; they are treated just like married couples.
Which means they are responsible for their partner’s debts, they have to share property with their partner, and they can’t double-dip from welfare.
But for some reason, that’s hard for liberal gays and lesbians to stomach, even though married people have been doing it for years.
And I loved your argument here:
“Because immigration is a federal matter, registering won’t allow foreigners to legally immigrate. To the contrary, it could be interpreted as an indication of intent to stay in the country, possibly leading to deportation.”
As it was interpreted under the old law, too. That’s nothing new.
“Oh, I don’t think there’s a lot of uncertainty; they are treated just like married couples.”
Absolutely false; a bald-faced lie. Read the damn article. You’re the one who linked to it.
“But for some reason, that’s hard for liberal gays and lesbians to stomach, even though married people have been doing it for years.”
No. I don’t mean to insult the mentally handicapped, but are you retarded?
A larger number of couples deregistered than usual after letters went out about the new law. But the “rush” months, combined, still only constituted about 1% of the couples that received the letter.
Many of them (probably roughly the number that used to deregister monthly before the new law passed) JUST BROKE UP – it happens.
The people quoted in the article deregistered for various other reasons pertaining to the new law, like potential (or certain) loss of certain benefits they’ve been relying on.
And some percentage of that 1% of registered couples – BUT NOBODY QUOTED IN THE ARTICLE – might possibly have deregistered because they didn’t want the responsibilities of traditional marriage that the new law entailed.
Like I said, how stupid do you think we are?
Also, not that I haven’t already completely debunked this absurd tangent you’ve gotten on about how this article “proves” that “gays and lesbians” don’t want the responsibilities of marriage:
Even if less (possibly much less) than 1% of registered gay domestic partnerships – did deregister because they didn’t want the common property rules and such – that only means that they didn’t want that with their CURRENT partner. It’s entirely possible that, for whatever reason, they do not wish to be married (or close to married) to that person, but did wish to be domestic partners with them according to the old rules. It proves nothing about their views on marriage in general.
Since you love anecdotes:
One of my ex-girlfriends had a Louie. He was kind of like of a step-dad – he’d pretty much been her dad since age 13, but her mom never married him. I believe the issue was some debt that Louie had, that he didn’t want to become “common property”. Now, had the old-style domestic partnership been available to them in Florida, they might very well have registered. And if a law passed that created common-property rules for that relationship, they probably would have deregistered.
In no way does this anecdote prove anything but their pragmatism. They still believe in marriage – it would just be stupid for them, specifically, to get married.
And now I’ll repeat myself:
“Would you care to address the fact that your contradiction wasn’t actually a contradiction? Or would you just like to ignore it and go off on some other tangent?”
It seems, so far, that the answer is “tangent please!”
Why do so many threads on this site come down to pissing over some fictional litmus test that gays are supposed to pass in order to be seen as equal under the law?
This fixation on monogamy defies any grip on historical reality.
The notion that heterosexuals need gay folk to give them license to open their marriages or cheat on their spouses is unhinged.
There always been people who took what could be called a casual approach to marital fidelity.
The aristocratic houses of Europe have been for centuries packed to the rafters with bastard children, concubines and lovers. Husbands and wives maintained separate bedrooms. Hmmm? The clergy including more than a few popes and cardinals were among the worst offenders. When Charles kept Camilla around after marrying Di it was widely understood that he was just maintaining tradition. These tendencies didn’t stop when they crossed the Atlantic.
This country’s history? Why do almost all African Americans have some percentage of European ancestry? It sure wasn’t the embrace of monogamy on the part of slave owners. Study the history of New Orleans and learn about the Quadroon balls and the role mixed race people, especially the women, played in the society.
Study the social history of our cities. A hundred years ago most cities of any size had thriving red light districts that catered to all tastes?suppling patrons with women, girls and boys. Who do think patronized these whore houses only single men?
Jefferson?Sally Hemmings? It’s generally understood Franklin was a quite rake in his day (also spent most of his life unaffiliated with any church). Architect Frank Lloyd Wright was a satyr. Joseph Kennedy and sons? Ted Haggard? We could go on. Among the affluent, who could afford it, it was widely assumed the men would get themselves a little side action when the wife wasn’t in the mood, or pregnant or when it was that time of the month.
Why should the bar be set any higher for same-sex relationships? This is tedious.
Some people will be monogamous and others won’t be. Gay, straight whatever.
Is a history of infidelity commonly cited as reason to withhold a civil marriage license from a heterosexual couple?
It’s comes down to equality under the laws as they now exist.
If you feel that the laws pertaining to adultery and divorce need to be tightened for the betterment of society then write your state lawmakers.
It’ll be interesting to see how many take up the charge. If history is any indicator heterosexuals like to keep their options open.
Watch out, Leo. You’ll be accused of saying “Heterosexuals do it, so it’s perfectly all right if I do it!” Next thing you know, you’re the flaming, loose-moraled reason that Christianity opposes homosexuality.
Some people just don’t get it.
And you can thank ND30 and Ashpenaz for monomaniacally bring this up, each and every time marriage or morality is mentioned. And sometimes when it’s not.
Steve Swayne’s concept ending gov’t. sponsored marriage deserves support!
I’ve discovered through trial and error that serial monogamy is generally what I’m most comfortable with, but in reality my situation is far more complicated.
Marriage is the last thing I’d choose; life is complicated enough without getting tied up in a gov’t. sponsored one-size-fits-all lifestyle contract. YMMV!
BTW, for me ‘gay’ is as passe’ as marriage in the 21st Century; ‘queer’ is here!
Sorry, but this isn’t feasible.
Abolishing civil marriage and combining it with civil unions is a good long-term strategy. However, in practice, civil unions are an alternative form of ceremonial and ritual recognition that doesn’t use the M word, but is acoompanied by substantive relationship rights and recognition until we can secure same-sex marriage proper;
at which point, some might still prefer civil unions as a secular alternative to same-sex marriage.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
← Previous Comments