It is admirable that Gov. Spitzer has once again declared his support for gay marriage, stating in a legislative memo released last week that legalizing gay unions would "only strengthen New York's families."
He's right on the merits. But here's how much political capital Spitzer should spend fighting for same-sex marriage: Zero.
I say this not as a disinterested observer, but as a gay man who would like to get married someday.
The governor has plenty of other vital issues on his plate - from cleaning up Albany to reviving the upstate economy. And even if he didn't, going to the barricades for gay marriage will probably hurt, not help, gay couples in the long run.
Sometimes politics gets in the way of idealism. And no matter how just the cause, all the facts in this case are arrayed against those who claim that now is the right time to ram a gay-marriage bill through the state Legislature.
First, there is just no way a gay marriage bill would pass. Not only do a substantial number of Assembly Democrats oppose the idea, but a series of statewide polls have found that a majority of New Yorkers do as well, with opposition in some Assembly districts running as high as 90 percent. Opposition increases in the Republican-controlled state Senate, which has already made clear its intention to kill any such bill.
Contrary to gay activists' suggestions, bigotry isn't what motivates all gay marriage opponents. Many are simply decent people who are just a little uneasy about redefining a central social institution. I think they're wrong - but we cannot win the argument by strong-arming them.
Just look at what happened in Massachusetts. In 2004, full same-sex marriage rights became legal in the Commonwealth via judicial fiat. That resulted in a huge national backlash. In the ensuing three years, most states have passed constitutional amendments banning not only gay marriage but in some instances other legal arrangements protecting gay couples. In this sense, gays in these more conservative states are paying the price for the full marriage rights that gays in Massachusetts now enjoy.
If Spitzer and his allies in the Assembly push forward with a gay marriage bill, will New York see a campaign for a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage? Most gays might scoff at the notion of such an amendment ever passing in this supposedly liberal bastion - but with polls indicating that a majority of New Yorkers oppose gay marriage, why take the risk when the chances of winning are zip and the chances of losing, and losing hard, are better than negligible?
For now, Spitzer's time and energy would be far better spent fighting a battle that can be won: getting meaningful civil unions for New York's gay couples. This would extend all the same critical rights to gays without risking the potential damage of an overreaching marriage bill. Let us not allow the perfect union to be the enemy of a good match.
That the governor has been so consistent and outspoken in his support for gay marriage is no small thing. In so doing, he is starting to make it politically acceptable for mainstream Democrats with national political aspirations to voice their support for marriage equality.
He is ahead of his time. But that's exactly the point.
23 Comments for “Civil Unions, Not Marriage, for New York”
posted by KipEsquire on
New York has no ballot initiative process for amending the state constitution; proposed amendments must originate in the legislature. A little research goes a long way.
Beyond that, what you “too much too soon” apologists apparently still refuse to accept is that the “backlash” that you lament would have happened regardless of the timing. “He is ahead of his time” is a facially absurd proposition. Ten years earlier, ten years later, no difference.
Moreover, gay marriage was not available in a single “backlash state” and would not have been available soon anyway. So how, exactly, is anyone “paying the price for the full marriage rights that gays in Massachusetts now enjoy”?
The protection of rights is the purview of the courts. Gay marriage will come, as it should, by judicial fiat, not by sitting around waiting naively for “hearts and minds to change.”
posted by KipEsquire on
Incidentally: “New York Daily News, June [?] 13, 2007”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
KipEsquire wrote: “Ten years earlier, ten years later, no difference.”
Nonsense. We do not live in a static society. Yes, of course, there will always be anti-gay forces, which should not be blamed on gay rights advocates. But the pro-gay poll numbers are gradually moving our way. The choice is not between fighting for our rights and not fighting. It is a choice among different strategies, some of which are smarter than others.
“Moreover, gay marriage was not available in a single ‘backlash state’ and would not have been available soon anyway.” Fair point, but the problem is that anti-SSM voters are often provoked into voting emotionally and irrationally.
“Gay marriage will come, as it should, by judicial fiat, not by sitting around waiting naively for ‘hearts and minds to change.'”
This is a false dichotomy. Like it or not, legislative and litigative strategies are both going on, and both can be done well or poorly. Ill-chosen or ill-timed litigation can end up doing more harm than good. It did in Arizona, for one.
I too am irritated by those on our side who talk as if going to court for our rights is illegitimate. But I am equally irritated by those who treat this marathon we are in for marriage equality as if they can take a taxi to the finish line and declare victory without bothering to run the race. We have much work to do, and it is going to take many years before the ground is well and properly laid for the gay version of Loving v. Virginia. To mock the crucial retail work of changing hearts and minds is insane. Any individual is of course free to focus on whichever strategy seems most useful, or is best suited to his or her talents. But for our community as a whole, it is crucial that we pursue all available avenues. Courts exist for a reason, and so do legislatures. We are diverse, and there is no reason why all of us should be expected to work on the same thing.
If Jamie’s point is that couples in Massachusetts were wrong to push for SSM when they did, then I don’t agree. The pushing is necessary and is unavoidable in any case. But if his point is that we should proceed strategically and recognize that this is a long-term struggle and that incrementalism works, then he is spot-on.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
What you “all or nothing” advocates fail to realize is that change rarely occurs overnight. You seem to fail to remember (or even realize?) that we are fighting against hundreds of years of intolerance.
Even after slavery was abolished, the Jim Crow laws were enacted in the 1860s. The last of them were eradicated in the 1960s. As long as you insist on your “all or nothing” mentality, you’re going to end up with the latter far more often than the former.
Additionally, marriage is fundamentally a religious institution. Therefore, as long as my partner and I have the same legal rights via civil unions, we can get married in any church that will do it. Kirchick is right. We have bigger fish to fry, anyway (such as ENDA).
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Last writes: “Additionally, marriage is fundamentally a religious institution.”
This is simply not true, and does not become true just because it is endlessly repeated. Yes, a great many people do think this way. But the entire legal fight is over CIVIL marriage, and we should stress that constantly and not play into the confusion sown by our opponents.
“Therefore, as long as my partner and I have the same legal rights via civil unions….”
But you don’t. Separate is inherently unequal. Even if the rights of civil unions are equal to those of marriage in a particular state, the federal DOMA law of 1996 bars us from 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities of marriage. One of them is immigration equality for same-sex spouses, which is particularly important to me since I have a foreign lover. If you don’t care about that, then that’s what you should say — not that civil unions are equal, which is simply factually untrue.
To be sure, SSM at the state level is also unequal as long as it is barred at the federal level. Which means that same-sex couples are not equal, even in Massachusetts — because Massachusetts is part of the United States, which discriminates against us at the federal level.
“We have bigger fish to fry, anyway (such as ENDA).”
You are perfectly free to make that decision for yourself, but you cannot impose that view on others. Some people will continue to treat civil marriage equality as their top goal. We’d better hope that there is room for multiple goals and efforts, because it should be plain by now that we are not all going to agree on what to pursue or how to pursue it.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Richard, I think you’re getting lost in the minutia and not seeing the bigger picture of what I’m saying. My point is that many activists insist on “marriage and nothing else.” If we are accorded the same rights (at ALL levels of government)via civil union, then my partner & I can get married in any church that will perform the ceremony. I know that we have a way to go before this parity is achieved, but, as you said yourself, “We have much work to do, and it is going to take many years before the ground is well and properly laid for the gay version of Loving v. Virginia.”
But, what do you think is going to come first or is more practical at this point in time? Gay marriage or civil unions? If we’re smart, we’ll go for the latter now and work toward the eventual goal of the former.
“You are perfectly free to make that decision for yourself, but you cannot impose that view on others. ”
Umm, sorry, but I don’t see how I’m “imposing” my view on anyone. This is — solely — a forum to express differing viewpoints. I understand your passion concerning this (and, BTW, best of luck to you in trying to bring your partner here), but I think we are all products of our own experiences. I have had friends who have been fired because of being gay, and, as I’ve said elsewhere, for me, I NEED a job; I don’t NEED to be married. As you point out, I agree that there is room for efforts on multiple fronts, and believe me, if I could “impose my views on others,” your partner would be getting his green card, along with all of the other marriage benefits now.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Last, I recognize that you are just expressing your opinion, but my point is that it is fruitless to argue in effect that everyone should adopt approach X, because it is quite clear that everyone isn’t going to do so.
As to civil unions coming first, they already have come first in several states. But there isn’t going to be a single solution that works at the same time in every state. In states where marriage equality is within reach, I think it is entirely legitimate for people in those states to push for it. In such cases, it is harmful for people in other states to sue to force their states to recognize SSMs from elsewhere, because that fans the flames of the proposed federal constitutional amendment. But I cannot stop people from pressing ill-advised court cases.
Can you specify who exactly insists on “marriage and nothing else”? I don’t recall seeing that view expressed.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
” . . . my point is that it is fruitless to argue in effect that everyone should adopt approach X, because it is quite clear that everyone isn’t going to do so.”
I think you could say that about almost anything, including marriage.
“In states where marriage equality is within reach, I think it is entirely legitimate for people in those states to push for it.”
I totally agree.
“Can you specify who exactly insists on “marriage and nothing else?”
Just do even a cursory Google search:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-briefs15.1may15,1,7026411.story?coll=la-news-a_section
There are plenty of activists out there (the “all or nothing crowd” I referred to) who think that civil unions are totally unacceptable and a “sellout.”
posted by Amicus on
But the entire legal fight is over CIVIL marriage, and we should stress that constantly and not play into the confusion sown by our opponents.
————
It’s true that marriage is a legal civil contract, available to some, that serves a variety of private purposes.
I don’t think it plays into confusion to actually be able to discuss the so-called ‘religious aspects’ of marriage, insofar as they relate to the case for ‘blessing’ same-sex unions. In fact, if one hasn’t grappled with the ethical dimensions of marriage, then there is a case to be made that you are the one ‘confused’. To be able (or willing) to do so is also part of just listening back, IF you believe that there are, as James says, “decent people” who are “just a little concerned” (a little? try ‘vitriolicly concerned’, maybe?)
Sure, “stressing” civil aspects of marriage are fine, but it also runs the risk that one starts to think of marriage just in those terms and in terms of what you can get ‘done’ in any particular court. Given the number of amendments – amendments – that have passed, I would think that view, at least for the time being, has been or ought to have been laid to rest.
posted by Timothy on
I do not disagree with the notion that Civil Unions can be an acceptable temporary solution when marriage cannot be achieved. But that was not the point of this essay. What is being discussed is what can be achieved in the State of New York.
I am a Californian and do not pretend to be an expert on NY politics. But I do know a few things:
1. Unlike many states, the New York populace supports gay marriage. Unlike the claims in this piece, polls actually show that there is a majority support for opening up the institution.
When presented with multiple options (marriage, civil unions, neither) then marriage receives less than 50%. However when asked for a yes or no then New Yorkers say “yes”. Take, for example, the Global Strategy Poll in 2006 that found that 53% favor gay marriage while only 38% oppose the idea. The more recent Crain’s poll, while not particularly representative, found overwhelming support.
It simply isn’t true to claim “a majority of New Yorkers oppose gay marriage”. Oppose? Really? 38%?
2. The state does not appear to have a large number of “no marriage but civil unions OK” legislators. Those who oppose marriage also seem to oppose civil unions.
Therefore, it seems to me that the battle for marriage would not be significantly more difficult than the battle for civil unions. New York appears to me to be an ideal state in which to hold to the goal and not seek some compromise that is both unneccesary and pointless.
As for the great “backlash”: Yes a backlash occurred. But it is not particularly honest to claim that “most states have passed constitutional amendments”. Yes, I suppose 26 states (one more than half) qualifies as “most”, but it’s hardly the impression given by the article.
The truth is that many of the states that have passed such amendments were those most likely to do so. And with the last election came the first state to say “NO!”. The wave has passed and while there may still be more states to pass such an amendment, it becomes increasingly unlikely.
It is foolish to suggest that marriage in New York would result in some equally devastating result. Yeah it works as a scare tactic, but not as an argument.
Perhaps there are compelling arguments as to why New Yorkers should pursue civil unions rather than marriage. But if so they are not articulated in this article.
posted by Brian Miller on
Gay people arguing for “civil unions over marriage” to avoid a “backlash” are identical to blacks who argued for “segregation over integration” in order to avoid a “backlash.”
Neither position gets one very far.
posted by Brian Miller on
KipEsquire wrote: “Ten years earlier, ten years later, no difference.”
Nonsense. We do not live in a static society.
Kip’s argument isn’t against the dynamism of society, it’s over the proven fact that bigots don’t care whether it’s “domestic partnerships,” or “civil unions” or “gay marriage” being argued.
Vermont’s civil unions were opposed just as nastily as Massachusetts’ gay marriages. Wisconsin’s anti-gay bill was used to attack mere health-care benefits with the same zeal that anti-gay forces have assailed California’s comprehensive “domestic partnership” law.
Bigots are bigots. They and their supporters aren’t going to accept “sorta equal” over “completely equal.” They will fight tooth and nail, with everything they have, to oppose anything greater than “dead or in prison.”
The underlying point in Kip’s thesis, which I agree with, is “why allow our agenda to be set by fear over the response of the late Jerry Falwell’s followers?” I agree with him.
Gay Pride in the 21st century should be, if anything, pride in oneself and his fellow man to demand equality under the law. If there’s no demand for that real proposition, then there’s no “pride” to be found.
posted by Amicus on
Neither position gets one very far.
Here is a perspective: suppose your goal is to end tangible discrimination. Then, given a choice between marriage, civil union, and nothing (or worse), better to have something than nothing.
why allow our agenda to be set by fear over the response
Because it’s being realistic, pragmatic, practical. If your fate as a minority is in the hands of a majority, and they come along offering something that they don’t have to, then you take it and live for another day. If you follow an all-or-nothing strategy you can end up in the proverbial Bastille (i.e. behind the hurdle of a constitutional amendment, possibly).
Bigots are bigots.
At some level, yes, but politically organized ‘bigots’ are worse. “Gay Marriage” is a clear rally-point for those politically opposed. “Civil Union” nor “domestic partner” is not nearly emotive.
posted by Amicus on
btw, I’ll add this for debate/comment: What do you think of those who are *forcing* this into an either/or issue? Put another way, are you behind this effort in CT, or do you not find it timely at all?
posted by Brian Miller on
Here is a perspective: suppose your goal is to end tangible discrimination. Then, given a choice between marriage, civil union, and nothing (or worse), better to have something than nothing.
But that’s a hypothetical and not reality. The reality is that people who oppose marriage equality also oppose “civil unions.” So why voluntarily self-segregate?
If your fate as a minority is in the hands of a majority, and they come along offering something that they don’t have to, then you take it and live for another day.
That’s assuming that the “majority” is “offering” anything at all — they usually aren’t.
The real challenge for the minority is to challenge the majority on their so-called beliefs. Many conservatives and liberals will lecture us constantly on “freedom” and “tolerance.” Well, boys and girls, prove that you believe in those two concepts — or if you aren’t willing to do that, please shut up and drop the saccharine pretensions! 😉
are you behind this effort in CT, or do you not find it timely at all
I completely agree with their approach, and if civil unions are positioned in this way, I’ve got less of a problem with them. However, I think you’ll find that those of a mind about taking civil unions typically bristle at people pursuing their constitutional rights in court (some rot about “activist judges enforcing the Constitution over the will of the majority.”)
posted by B. Allen on
Excellent article. Civil Unios, with identical rights to marriage would be the way to go – – first. Then after a decade or two, push for marriage. I think that position is the far more practical, realistic and less divisive method.
posted by Amicus on
The reality is that people who oppose marriage equality also oppose “civil unions.”
I don’t think that is completely true. For instance, civil unions came into existence in CT without court mandate. Also, opposition to civil union came largely after marriage rights were pressed (that’s a fine point, but probably true, even though we don’t know what would have happened if the first court cases were for civil union, not marriage contract).
What’s more, ‘civil union’ doesn’t run up against the Religious Right pushback in the sense that the saws about marriage (‘sacred institution’, ‘one-man and one-woman’) don’t apply. Their arguments, by necessity, become more obtuse.
Now, I personally am not particularly behind ‘civil union’, but that does seem to be what is intuitive for many (more than ‘gay marriage’). If that’s what’s achievable in any given set of State circumstances, then I’d take it from a majority, while I wait for them to realize they ought to have done better.
There are advantages to being patient enough to go through the legislature, if it can be done.
So why voluntarily self-segregate?
Because it is smart. It’s going to be a magilla to get all the constitutional amendments undone (some of which are even ‘super-Doma’). Perhaps even harder (most costly) than the sodomy laws – what do you think?
Opponents of SSM will largely welcome a verdict for the plaintiffs in CT, right? This is all they need to go to their “base” and tell them – with proof positive – that there is no ‘middle ground’. This may sharpen their firing line in a way that is unfavorable. Setting the bar at marriage-or-bust could add years on to the search to end even simple discrimination in those states who might otherwise go ahead with DP or something else.
If you read some of the stories behind the cases in CT, it’s easy to say, o.k., yeah, these couples, some of them, really ought to have justice now. On the other hand, I worry (could be unfounded, of course) that some folks advising them might be trying to make legal history, rather than consider the timeliness of thier moves, even if they are not wrong, per se.
posted by Amicus on
btw, this is on the topic of marriage, but not on civil union. Does anyone know how GLAAD is organized on the marriage issues?
I mention it because Maggie Gallagher just posted yesterday a series of youTubes on her blog, shutting off comments as she does when using her megaphone-to-the-faithful while calling it a ?debate?, that if it had been done by a mainstream media group might have made it onto GLAAD’s radar screen for lack of inclusive and fair ‘reporting’. (I have no idea how many people read her blog, so it may be not even worth mentioning, except that she appears to be a visible and public figure on the issue of SSM in the ‘popular debate’).
I don’t even know how GLAAD is organized on the issue of the internet (see how far behind I am?). By way of comparison, I know the Jewish Anti-Defamation League has been on top of the spread of internet bias and antisemitism for a while.
Blankenhorn did a Q&A in the NY Post this week. Perhaps it works to ignore his odd thesis. Nevertheless, some things in it are not fair or accurate, and having a handy list of them might prove useful, one day. He continues to suggest that children of gay couples are by definition without a mother or a father, but we know that it not true, that a number of couples have involved donor fathers in their children’s lives (cf. the discussion on the PA triple-parenting case). He also is highly suggestive that there is a boom or pending boom in surrogacy. I don’t have the figures, but the price tag on surrogacy, which I think can run from $75-$150K, depending on factors, probably caps that. Guesstimates of total number of surrogate births in the USA are of order of 1,500. Last, surrogacy and parenting are happening with or without marriage, so describing parenting as a ‘main goal’ of “the proponents of gay marriage” seems a little off.
All’s to say is that there may be ways to do ‘media watch’ on some of the marriage issues, without getting dogmatic about it (which might scuttle the effort), just being factual.
posted by Drew on
James Kirchick is simply wrong. The political process is THE best place to push for gay rights, even when the timing may seem poor. Here is why. By pushing the issue, everyone has to put their cards on the table where they are subject to the scrutiny of others. This forwards the discussion of gay rights where too often the discussion is completely absent in other arenas, like the family dinner table.
Kirchick mentions the judicial decision in Massachusetts but that is comparing apples to oranges. With judicial decision, there is no discussion among the masses until AFTER a judicial decision is made. With the legislative route, everyone has to pay attention, state their thoughts, AND THAN REVISE, as the process does not stop.
posted by Jordan on
KipEsquire, you say “Moreover, gay marriage was not available in a single “backlash state” and would not have been available soon anyway. So how, exactly, is anyone “paying the price for the full marriage rights that gays in Massachusetts now enjoy”?”
I’m a partner of a grad student of the University of Michigan. I would have had health care for the next five years but for the passage of prop 2 in Michigan, which not only banned marriage but any “similar union for any purpose”. So you’re the one who might want to do a little research. I am paying a very high price indeed.
posted by Craig2 on
We’ve had civil unions down here for the last couple of years- and there’s no sign of any sentiment for their repeal. Moreover, when the Christian Right tried to mount a rearguard
same-sex marriage ban bill, it was decisively defeated.
So yeah, same-sex marriage should be a long-term goal. In the meantime, civil unions enable
lesbian and gay couples to enjoy
all the rights and obligations
attached to married couples.
Here’s a tip- use the term rights
and responsibilities repeatedly
when discussing this, emphasising
that we are responsible citizens.
Craig2
Wellington
New Zealand
posted by Jorge on
I live in New York, and I generally think this article paints an accurate picture, but there is just one thing that I fail to see the point of. If now is not the right time to push for civil marriage, and pushing for it in politics will lead to harm, then just how are we supposed to get to the point where it’s actually a good idea to fight for marriage?
I think if anyone can do more good than harm in pushing for civil marriage, it’s Governor Spitzer, but only if he’s high-profile in his support. Spitzer’s a Democrat, of course, but it’d be really good for credibility if not everyone willing to shed their blood over this could be dismissed as a lefty radical or someone with an axe to grind.
posted by toujoursdan on
But Civil Unions, which were supposed to be equal to marriage, but not marriage, aren’t working very well, at least in NJ. And many gays seem to be waiting for the real thing.
365gay.com: NJ Companies Continue To Thumb Noses At Civil Unions