Even in the Czech Republic, gay couples who legalize their relationships under a new registered partnership law that's several steps short of full marriage equality nevertheless refer to their unions as "weddings."
This encapsulates my problem with the argument that we must settle for nothing less than full marriage equality now, court mandated as necessary. Once the hetero majority gets used to civil unions or domestic partnerships that are increasingly seen as marriages, society will more readily accept the step-up to full legal matrimony, without the reactionary backlash that could lead to passage of a federal (and certainly numerous state) constitutional amendments, stopping progress for at least several decades.
More. Washington Blade editor Chris Crain editorializes that conservatives ought to support marriage equality for gays rather than "marriage lite," because the latter is inevitably also made available to heterosexual couples as a weaker alternative to marriage, and thus does serve to weaken the institution.
It's a good point, and I've made it myself before, including here and here. Alas, opponents of marriage equality can't get past their anti-gay animus in order to see that marriage for all should be the conservative stance. That leaves us with civil unions and DPs as less than perfect stepping stones, achievable goals that often have majority support and pave the way for future advances.
9 Comments for “Members of the Wedding.”
posted by Nina Smith on
I agree with you. Let the right wingers get used to the idea of domestic partnerships before demanding the equality with marriage. Crawl, walk, and then run. It will take time and we need to be more strategic about the steps.
—————-
Queercents…
We\\’re here, we\\’re queer, and we\\’re not going shopping without coupons.
http://www.queercents.com/
posted by Greg on
Steven states “This encapsulates my problem with the argument that we must settle for nothing less than full marriage equality now, court mandated as necessary.”
While we may have to settle for less than full marriage, I don’t think we can demand less. The right wingers will pull all the stops out to prevent any legal change that indicates that gay people are actually humans. They fought civil unions where they were sought, and in their ‘marriage amendments’ they are including civil union bans as well.
In the end, they will lose. Many of them already know that and are just making as much hay as they can from the issue before their donors realize that battle has been lost and civilization has not ended as a result.
You won’t get civil unions by demanding them, you might get them by demanding marriage.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Mr. Miller, you keep making this silly point that civil unions or “almost marriages” are much more easily attainable as an “interim step.”
A quick glance at Vermont’s experience with civil unions, or New Jersey’s experience with domestic partnerships, proves this incorrect.
Not only did anti-marriage-equality morons fight the civil union/domestic partnership “not marriages” with equal gusto to their fight against civil marriage, but the implementation of the new laws ensures that progress will never happen. Now that these states have a “civil partnership” or “civil union” or “DP” law, which has no real legal significance or portability out of state (and no bearing at all on a federal level), the argument is “you’ve got more or less what you want, now shut up and go away.”
If you’re going to face the wrath of the social conservatives and spend millions of dollars and votes in political capital to get something, you should go for actual marriage equality — not something less. Otherwise, you always get something less. . . and for a much longer time than expected.
posted by Randy R. on
Have to agree. Civil unions are nice, but in no way an adequate substitute for marriage. Many people on both sides have been trying to say that civil unions are a good compromise for both sides. Except that the conservatives DON”T see it as a compromise. They see everything as a step toward marriage.
One need only look at the battles that are being fought at the local level. If an employer grants DP benefits, if a school teaches tolerance of gays, if a local municipality makes it illegal to fire a person because they are gay — all these are framed as a step towards the destruction of marriage and family. Every single step taken towards gay rights is view as an attack on marriage and family.
So, we must be clear about what we want and then go for it. We already know what their arguments are. So let’s be prepared and fight away.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Good point on the slippery-slope fallacies of the right, Randy. I’d only add that many social conservatives even claimed that the elimination of laws which ban sex between consenting adults would “lead to gay marriage.”
They think about gay marriage more often than most gay people — even married ones — do.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “… many social conservatives even claimed that the elimination of laws which ban sex between consenting adults would “lead to gay marriage.””
Elimination of sodomy laws may not “lead to gay marriage”, but Justice Scalia’s ill-tempered dissent in Lawrence was dead right about the fact that eliminating sodomy laws removed a critical prop for the argument that equal protection need not be applied to gays and lesbians in those states that retained sodomy laws at the time Lawrence was decided.
posted by Mike German on
My take on the majority opinion in Hernandez, the NY marriage case: Disappointing, but not surprising, given arguments like, “Some amici, however, suggest that the statute can be read to permit same-sex marriage, thus mooting the constitutional issues. We find this suggestion untenable. … New York’s statutory law clearly limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The more serious question is whether that limitation is consistent with the New York Constitution.” That whopper came from the amicus brief of NGLTF, unless I’m mistaken as to its source. With amici like that, who needs enemies?
The majority then return to their opening theme: “We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex. Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature.” Phrasing the issue as whether NY’s Constitution compels, not just permits, almost makes the outcome preordained.
But I continue to wonder why what follows, if granted equally to us under some name other than “marriage,” is anything less than substantively equal: “Married people receive significant tax advantages, rights in probate and intestacy proceedings, rights to support from their spouses both during the marriage and after it is dissolved, and rights to be treated as family members in obtaining insurance coverage and making health care decisions. Beyond this, they receive the symbolic benefit, or moral satisfaction, of seeing their relationships recognized by the State.” In fact, apart from the tax advantages, which too many gay “activists” have deliberately chosen NOT to pursue because they see them as some sort of “backsliding,” most of these benefits are already part of domestic partner benefits in states like CA that have them.
The majority’s analysis under traditional rational basis grounds is proper, reasoned and just – and thankfully free of the polemics found in other such decisions, the briefs leading up to them, or the petulant press releases – http://www.thetaskforce.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=961 – following them. Again, it is not what NY’s Constitution compels, but what it and its legislature allows as a result of rational debate. The same applies to its finding that the Legislature could find that heterosexual parenting is optimal, and that fostering such parenting by limiting marriage to such couples is proper. Again, the Legislature could just as well have adopted the Brandeis-brief arguments and their somewhat sparse support, but just because it chose not to – assuming they were provided with them in lieu of litigation – does not mean it acted irrationally or discriminatorily.
Disappointing as it may sound, the historical fact – marrying monks and other alleged examples notwithstanding – is that the concept of gay marriage is NOT historically rooted in our culture and traditions. There is no error in limiting the definition of the fundamental right to marry to heterosexual marriage; those are the kinds of marriages that caused the marriage right to be recognized as fundamental in the first place. Of all the various legal regimes, constitutional interpretation must be the most careful and exacting, lest it be overextended and abused; see Roe v. Wade, which despite its slim underpinnings and wide overbreadth does not undo my belief that the right to reproductive choice is a fundamental one. We see many examples of this in the law, as in the focus in qualified immunity analysis on the nature of the specific right claimed, not its generalized sense. The majority’s defining the right this way is consistent with this analysis – and does not preclude the Legislature from expanding the scope of marriage should it choose to.
Thus, the majority was correct to state that “Plaintiffs here do not, as the petitioners in Lawrence did, seek protection against State intrusion on intimate, private activity. They seek from the courts access to a State-conferred benefit that the Legislature has rationally limited to opposite-sex couples.” The distinction is a legally valid one, however distasteful it may be to even those in the legal profession. It should not be cause to leave, however; just a lesson in picking one’s battles better and deploying the forces at your command with greater skill – if not in declining assistance from unskilled irregulars as well.
posted by Anthony on
I once felt that civil unions were a viable alternative but now believe that only full-fledged marital rights will suffice. Sadly, our society is not there yet. Emphasis on yet. I suspect that in the coming years as the younger generations move into positions of power and start influencing decisions marriage for gay people will come about. Interestingly enough, my partner does not believe we should call it marriage. He thinks it infringes on the traditional setup. That’s his take. But I know if marriage were available he’d be all about tying the knot. It’s nice to think about the what-ifs but we still have to live in reality. And right now reality says it’s not going to happen.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
What “we” call it doesn’t matter. You and I and everyone else have a right to structure our intimate lives as we see fit and live them free of government “oversight” and micromanagement. The old parties don’t like this, because they both view their primary mission as setting government up as the hub through which you do absolutely everything. . . even when it comes to your intimate relationships.