In San Francisco, openly lesbian state senator Carol Migden wants to allow hetero couples to go the "marriage lite" route via domestic partnerships that offer some of the state-provided benefits of marriage with fewer of the mutual obligations. To their credit, some gay activists are politely suggesting that the aim should remain on granting gays full marriage equality, rather than watering down marriage for everyone.
Meanwhile, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force has put out an election analysis ballywhooing that in November "LGB [lesbian, gay, bisexual] voters overwhelmingly identified as Democrats (52 percent) and as liberals (43 percent)." Well, I guess if you define 43 percent (or even 52 percent) as "overwhelming."
13 Comments for “Eyes on the Prize?”
posted by Casey on
Y’know, when I’ve seen undergraduate papers which scored no higher than a B which were better written than the Task Force’s crap, it’s time for them to give it up. Damn near nothing they put out is at all useful from a policy perspective, since even an intelligent, sympathetic undergrad will tear it to shreds for lousy logic and piss-poor use of statistics and evidence.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks Carol Midgen! Now the homophobes can credit you for trying to destroy traditional marriage by helping heteros avoid it.
Hetero couples can already go “marriage lite” by not getting married.
posted by Craig2 on
Actually, hets can have civil unions down here. Some of them choose to go that route, rather than the religious rigamorale attached to that M word.
Craig2
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by Ray Eckhart on
“Thanks Carol Midgen! ”
Maybe the homophobes should credit, and thanks be given to, John O’Sullivan and National Review, for suggesting this “simple legislative reform” over three years ago:
http://www.nationalreview.com/jos/jos071003.asp
“Where would this leave the current half-way house to gay marriage ? namely, civil partnerships? It would no longer be needed to mollify gays. But it might nonetheless be expanded into a very useful social institution by one simple legislative reform: Remove all reference to sex from civil partnerships and allow any household, however constituted, to establish a civil partnership that would allow its members to share pension rights, inherit tenancies, enjoy certain tax benefits, and so on.
… People thinking of living together would then have three choices: civil marriage, religious marriage, and household partnerships. In effect there would be a competition between these three institutions for their custom. ”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The result, of course, would be the extinction of government-licensed “marriage” altogether — which is not a bad thing.
posted by raj on
According to the Canadian media following the Ontario court’s “marriage equality” decision in July 2002 (or was it 2003?), Canada introduced “marriage lite” to provide substantially equal rights for same-sex couples in response to court decisions in the early 1990s. For equality purposes, Canada also allowed opposite-sex couples access to “marriage lite,” and more than a few of them took advantage of that instead of “marriage regular.” France has experienced the same thing since they instituted “marriage lite” for same-sex couples, that is also available to opposite-sex couples.
The reason that the Canadian government had instituted “marriage lite” was that they believed that that would allow them to avoid providing “marriage regular” to same-sex couples. The irony is that the July 2002 Ontario court decision, and subsequent court decisions in other provinces–at least Quebec and British Columbia–held that that wasn’t enough. The government was required to allow for “marriage regular” to same-sex couples. The conservative Harper government hoped to raise the issue again, but the recent vote in parliament has nixed that idea. So now, Canada still apparently has both “marriage regular” and “marriage lite,” the latter that that was instituted in a rear-guard action to try to avoid allowing same-sex couples access to “marriage regular.”
posted by BarryB on
When it comes to the leading gay organiations, lack of professional rigor is the order of the day. One reason: political correctness and a fixation on “process” have been and remain paramount. Demonstrating ideologically correct bona fides within the movement trumps effecting change (and despite the NGLTF’s use of “creating change” as a mantra, they’re all about impressing one another).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m no fan of civil unions — “separate but equal” is just another way of saying “unequal” in my view — and I think that “marriage lite” (a marriage-like form of domestic partnership or civil union that offers lesser responsibilities and/or benefits than marriage) it a terrible idea.
But it seems to me that every citizen should be treated equally under the law, and if “marriage lite” is available to some citizens, then it should be available to all citizens, as much as I don’t like the idea of “marriage lite”.
That’s true, of course, with marriage. I can’t fathom why any gay or lesbian in California would push for anything other than full marriage equality at this point — the state was one Governator’s veto away from narriage equality last year, and I don’t think that has changed.
But Carol Midgen is not advocating backing off from full marriage equality, as I understand it. All she is doing is advocating extension of California’s existing domestic partnerships to straight folks on an equal footing with gays and lesbians.
Look, gang, equal means equal. It works both ways, like it or not.
posted by Alex on
52 percent as “overwhelming.”
Well, in ’04 Mr. Bush claimed his 51% (?) was “a mandate” so I guess it could be “overwhelming…”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
All she is doing is advocating extension of California’s existing domestic partnerships to straight folks on an equal footing with gays and lesbians.
Peter Tatchell makes a similar point in the UK about that country’s (same-sex only) civil partnerships. It’s a valid point — but not one that gets traction amongst the political elite of the moment who insist that while all are equal, some deserve “more equality.”
posted by Mark on
Civil partnerships are de facto marriages in California, although heterosexual partners, like gay ones, would not be treated as married under Federal law.
Exactly why would heterosexuals choose civil partnership over marriage? There seems to be no real demand for changing the law. Heterosexuals are free to get married right now.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Mark: “Exactly why would heterosexuals choose civil partnership over marriage?
Older straight couples often do not marry because they would lose social security benefits by marrying. Domestic partnerships at a state level would provide a level of protection — hospital, medical and so on — without affecting social security benefits.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And there, Tom, we see why gay leftists lack any credibility when it comes to marriage; they insist that gays need marriage to access Social Security benefits, but then argue that domestic partnerships are needed for people who CAN marry because getting married screws you over in terms of Social Security.
Furthermore, what makes the duplicity of sexual-orientation-obsessed dimbulbs like Migden obvious is that, despite having domestic partnerships that are virtually identical to marriage available for years already, the response from gays in California has been more than a bit underwhelming.
Why? Because, under California law, that “virtually identical” part also includes that a DP has to be dissolved in the same way as a marriage — which means California’s divorce laws apply. In short, what you get is a union that saves you a pittance in state taxes and makes things like health care proxies somewhat simpler than having to create them separately, but exposes you to having to split everything you both owned or purchased 50/50 in the event of a breakup — or having to create a prenuptial agreement to protect your asset portion that basically requires you to jump through as many hoops as creating individual portions of it, like health-care proxies, does.
The reason Migden is sponsoring this is simple; if it passes, she and her fellow pinhead leftists are going to try to argue that it’s “unequal” for straights to have both options, but gays to have only one, but if Schwarzenegger vetoes it (as he should), she can try to paint him as being “oppressive”.
She could really help matters by putting through bills to simplify things like health-care proxies, or provide reciprocal benefits agreements that are much less binding and operate outside the marriage law tangle. But her concern is not with making “more choices” available; it’s about political gamesmanship and pandering.