The Rev. Joseph Lowery, 87, a veteran of many civil rights battles, weighs in on same-sex marriage, civil unions, and Rick Warren. The Washington Post reports:
Lowery, who supports civil unions, has already spoken out about Obama's controversial selection of the Rev. Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, which has been protested by gay rights groups because of disparaging comments Warren has made about gays and his support of the California proposition to ban same-sex marriage.
"I understand the protesters and I disagree vehemently with some of the nasty things Brother Warren said about gay people. I support civil rights for all citizens. I don't think you can fragment civil rights," Lowery says. "I have also said to gay groups, 'If y'all can stop talking about marriage and start talking about civil unions it would change things.' The concept of marriage is so embedded in my soul as being between a man and a woman."
In Britain, where gays have "civil partnerships" with all the rights of marriage, the issue seems to be resolved as far as most are concerned. Singer Elton John has said that LGBT activists working for marriage rather than civil partnerships are making a critical mistake:
"If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off. "You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Could it be that glomming on to the "separate but equal is not equal" meme was never going to be an effective strategy, especially when pursued through the courts rather than state legislatures?
More. George Will weighs in on the current super judicial strategy in California, and the possibility of a super backlash.
Furthermore. Was Chicago's Windy City Times sitting on its archival record of Obama's 1996 expression of "unequivocal support" for gay marriage, in response to the paper's questionnaire? If this had been allowed to come out during the campaign, Obama might have been seen as a Romneyesque flip-flopper, which may be why this record has only now been discovered.
16 Comments for “The “M” Word”
posted by TS on
Name doesn’t matter.
The equality of legal rights does. We aren’t even close to having that, much less the name. Why do both sides link them so strongly?
posted by Richard Parker on
Elton John has it right on the dot, I think. I don’t know why so many gays and lesbians in the U.S. think that they just want a “marriage” and don’t fully account for all the connotations that come with such a designation.
At times, the national debate seems to be similar to a group of college girls who run to the university administration and complain that the boys have something called a “fraternity,” and it never dawns on them to just make their own group (a sorority).
The fact of the matter, for me, is that the concept of “marriage” has so many historical, cultural meanings that it would seem like one would jump at the opportunity to have something completely new and different. We are a new people, and we ought to have new names. To me, that’s real liberation.
posted by Jim on
I don’t care what it’s called. I just want the exact same rights that straight couples have. I do understand that many [erroneously?] consider “marriage” to be a religious, not a civil, term. I want all of the same legal benefits that any straight couple has, whatever you call that. And that’s all.
Whatever this is eventually named, I do think it should be called the same thing for everybody — then if a couple wanna go get “married” in a church, cool. But that should have nothing to do with the legal covenant that grants certain rights and responsibilities to all couples, straight or gay.
As I understand it, in England the civil partnerships have all of the same rights as any straight couple. The way this has been presented in the U.S., it sounds more like we might be drinking from the “colored” water fountain, in that a “civil union” does not offer us all of the same rights that a married couple has. As long as it’s equal, call it whatever you like.
posted by Rob on
What utter bullshit. Civil unions are a cop out and a litigation nightmare. In the UK Civil partnerships, aren’t legally equal to marriage since it’s illegal for the same-sex couple to sign the documents within religious premises. Also even the terminology doesn’t have the same weight of recognition among society. Civil unions would be only acceptable if the state gets out of the marriage business and only register civil unions for heterosexual couples.
posted by Richard Parker on
That’s my exact point, Rob. At some point, “marriage” becomes less about having a unique relationship and more about having “the same weight of recognition among society.” Somewhere along the line, most gays and lesbians got the mistaken notion that marriage was the magical key to social acceptance. But do you really think a certificate from a priest will stop all the parents in the neighborhood from telling their kids not to visit the heathen couple next door for Halloween candy? I’m not saying civil unions will. I’m just saying that one should stop and ask what a marriage is really asking for, and if marriage is actually the ultimate compromise and cop out.
posted by BobN on
Elton John’s civil union is not recognized by the governments of Spain and Canada. So much for “separate but equal”.
There is no legal status equivalent to marriage.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t think Obama’s stance on gay marriage was as relevant a news story for most of the campaign as it was now.
I’ve seen enough (like the posts above) to have a good sense that, over time, it will be proven that civil unions will not be the same as marriage when they are first passed. But I cannot say that if the gay community goes 100% for civil unions that in the end they still won’t be. More time is needed is nail the case.
I have never understood people who say that they are denied the right to marriage just because the government says they can’t get married. Rob says in the UK it’s illegal for gays to sign a civil union document on church premises. So friggin what? Then file a lawsuit or demand the law be re-written so they can!
posted by Fred on
With regard to the situation in the UK. First Rob is absolutely correct Civil Partnerships are not equal to marriage, for a variety of reasons, including that the Civil Partnership ceremony must be be in no way religious (the happy couple are then free to go and get a separate religious blessing if they want). They are also a number of other, fairly minor, differences, for example, it is possible to be convicted of conspiring to commit a crime with your Civil Partner but not your spouse. Jorge, filing a lawsuit to change the law may get you somewhere in the US, but not in the UK. In reply to RobN, I believe that you are slightly out of date, Spain has agreed that UK Civil Partners can be recognised as married for the purposes of Spanish Law.
The point being is that by accepting something less than equality Gays and Lesbians in the UK have achieved far more recognition for their relationships then have there counterparts in most of the US. Equality is all well and good (and should obviously be an eventual aim) but people are dying every day without inheritance rights, falling sick without hospital visitation rights, etc. A bit of compromise may do you a lot of good.
Fred, UK
posted by Carl on
Sorry, but I don’t believe focusing on civil unions would have made a difference. This is one of the biggest problems with strategy on gay rights. The #1 issue always seems to be, “What did we do wrong? If we were just nicer/less demanding/more supportive, things would be better.” There’s no real reason to believe this. Those on the frontlines opposing gay marriage also oppose civil unions. How many times did you hear social conservatives say civil unions are “marriage by another name”? How many states have banned BOTH marriage and civil unions?
If we move down the line, all it means is the terrain continues to shift against those who want us to have no benefits. They will say civil unions are too much. We will say what about domestic partnerships? They will say domestic partnerships are too much. We will say, please please, what about wills and power of attorney?
As for George Will, he’s just repeating what has already been said a million times over. If gays to go courts, then there will be some backlash. He never really talks about the alternative. My guess is if people out a repeal on the ballot, he would just say that gays are going against the will of the voters, and this will lead to backlash.
“The breadth and depth of California’s toleration regarding sexual lifestyles refute the worry that gays are a vulnerable minority menaced by majoritarian tyranny.”
For me this says it all about George Will’s viewpoint. It’s not about “sexual lifestyles”. People can have a “sexual lifestyle” with or without these laws. These laws are about trying to protect rights and responsibilities for spouses and their children.
posted by Jorge on
I’ll admit to not knowing at all about the basis of basic civil rights or constitutional law in any other country except the US, but it seems to me that if there’s a minor provision about a law that’s just plain egregious, then it should be fairly easy to remedy it without overthrowing the entire system.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Sorry, but I don’t believe focusing on civil unions would have made a difference.
Sure it would have. From Will’s article:
“California advocates of erasing the right to same-sex domestic partnerships could not even get sufficient signatures to put their measure on the November ballot.”
The problem is that gay and lesbian liberals are fighting a proxy war against religion and using marriage as an excuse for it. Gay and lesbian liberals have no use for marriage, as is made clear in the Beyond Marriage statement; their chief ally in these marriage fights is the ACLU, which is using the “gay marriage” argument as part of their strategy to get bans on plural marriage repealed.
How many of the leftist gays here who support marriage have wills and powers of attorney? For some reason, the leftist gays who whine the most about not having marriage are always the ones who have excuses for why they haven’t done the most basic and intelligent legal protections, which even married couples are encouraged to have.
posted by Pat on
Forgot to close up some italics. Let me try again.
“California advocates of erasing the right to same-sex domestic partnerships could not even get sufficient signatures to put their measure on the November ballot.”
That good news, NDT.
The problem is that gay and lesbian liberals are fighting a proxy war against religion and using marriage as an excuse for it.
Some are, but most aren’t. I can’t imagine even the most leftist gay persons wanting to force other people to marry someone of the same sex, when those persons believe that marrying someone of the same sex is wrong.
On the other hand, same sex marriage opponents are using religion as an excuse to force their views on others, and prevent others from marrying their same sex partner.
Gay and lesbian liberals have no use for marriage, as is made clear in the Beyond Marriage statement; their chief ally in these marriage fights is the ACLU, which is using the “gay marriage” argument as part of their strategy to get bans on plural marriage repealed.
Sorry, but it is not “clear” at all. Just like if I provided several links of a religious person killing someone, it wouldn’t be “clear” that all religious persons are murderers.
I personally don’t support plural marriage. And I can’t imagine that all the liberal gay persons you know support plural marriage, right?
How many of the leftist gays here who support marriage have wills and powers of attorney? For some reason, the leftist gays who whine the most about not having marriage are always the ones who have excuses for why they haven’t done the most basic and intelligent legal protections, which even married couples are encouraged to have.
Probably as much, or more so, than married couples. My partner and I have jumped through some of the hoops that married couples don’t have to, to have some of these basic legal protections.
posted by Fred on
In reply to Carl. The impression I get (from the other side of the Atlantic) is that in the US there are a large number of moderately religious people who regard marriage as being a core and inseparable part of their Church. They therefore regard gay marriage as an attack on their beliefs and their church, and so are very easily become active campaigners (persuading work colleagues, delivering leaflets, etc.) for ‘traditional marriage’ (as they see it). The impression I further get is that this body of people does not have the same reaction to civil institutions that are clearly different to marriage. They don’t approve of them but they don’t regard them as an attack on their church and therefore do not become active campaigners against them in similar numbers. I.e. the use of the word and institution of marriage immediately earns you a lot of active enemies.
In reply to Jorge. The remedy for an egregious law in the UK is for Parliament to change it, nor for the courts to suspend it.
posted by Carl on
“Sure it would have. From Will’s article:”
I thought we were talking about the nationwide strategy in terms of marriage rights. In California, Will may have been right. I’m not entirely sure. I think one of the reasons the domestic partnership ban didn’t go through was because, besides lack of signatures, was it would have been too much at one time to put on the ballot, along with the marriage ban.
In Colorado a few years ago, gay activists tried a much more low-key strategy of not going to courts, putting a gay marriage ban on the ballot and also putting a domestic partnership bill on the ballot. Voters proceeded to ban gay marriage and chose not to pass domestic partnerships.
posted by BobN on
Thanks for the update on UK/Spain. Hadn’t heard about that.
posted by Susievin9 on
am interested in anything about LGBT. Actually, we need to know more about LGBT at BiMingle com to create our own world and it can help us have a good and healthy life. Hopefully, more can be shared