Here's a lesson from the Netherlands about incrementalism. Frida
Ghitis writes
in the Chicago Tribune that the Dutch first established
registered same-sex partnerships as a separate institution
conferring some spousal rights. Then, after folks became
comfortable with the concept, they took the logical step and
integrated gays into mainstream marriage. She writes:
Arriving at gay marriage required a long and arduous 16-year trek through the jungles of public opinion, parliamentary politics, the Dutch courts and, surprisingly, a reluctant gay community. "
[Activists] gradually persuaded municipalities to allow registries of committed gay couples, and enlisted the agreement of corporations, such as the Dutch airline KLM, to recognize the registries for the purpose of employee benefits. After 1998, gay couples were allowed to make their relationships official through a national system of registered partnerships that assigned rights and responsibilities almost identical to those of marriage. At last, in 2001, the law was changed so gays had identical marriage rights as straight couples.
Specifically, on April 1, 2001, Amsterdam's Mayor Job Cohen
performed
the first fully government-sanctioned same-sex marriages in the world. They were not registered partnerships, civil unions or any other political concoction cooked up to resemble a normal marriage. These marriages were 100 percent identical to the ones joining married heterosexual couples in the Netherlands.
Could it be that rather than a "separate but unequal" copout, civil unions are a smart, pragmatic step that brings us closer to where we want to be, without fostering a hugely reactionary backlash?
Biting the Hand that Feeds Them.
A group of law schools, professors and students is suing the Department of Defense over the government's requirement that law schools receiving federal funding allow military recruiters on campus, the Washington Times reports. At issue is not only opposition to the military's ban on openly gay men and women in the armed services, but, I believe, a more general left-liberal hostility toward the armed forces. I'm 100% against the gay ban, which stupidly destroys what would otherwise be many fine military careers. But trying to stop military recruitment while we're fighting a war on terror is even stupider, as is the belief that institutions are somehow entitled to federal funding and, at the same time, to discriminate against the federal government.
NGLFT-gate.
The
Washington Blade reports on NGLTF leader Matt Foreman's silence
regarding gay marriage during his speech at the 40th anniversary
civil rights rally in Washington -- and quotes IGF contributing
author Dale Carpenter and, briefly, me.
More Recent Postings