Civil unions and their place

by: Adam Bink

Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 17:00


As you may have seen via Freedom to Marry's coverage here at OpenLeft (you can see their posts so far here and here), National Organization for Marriage is taking their "Summer for Homophobia Marriage" tour nationwide. Today, they were in New Jersey, and as part of their response, Garden State Equality put together this video demonstrating how civil unions haven't worked in New Jersey:

One person commented to me that if civil unions aren't working, then why is the LGBT community supporting them (and for my part, why am I doing things like blogging on the Hawaii civil unions law that Gov. Lingle just vetoed, or asking folks to help approve Referendum 71 in Washington State last fall, which would protect the state's same-sex domestic partnership law?)? In other words, why work for "half-measures"?

The answer is two-fold. First, what happens in New Jersey is not the same as what happens in Washington State, or what may happen in Hawaii. In fact, what doesn't work in one part of New Jersey may not even be the same as what works in another part, e.g. a hospital administrator accepting civil union papers in one county while an employer rejects them in another. That's not to say what Garden State Equality is saying- that civil unions aren't working for New Jersey couples and families- isn't true. It is, and I said that when I was blogging about the marriage equality legislation moving through the New Jersey legislature last winter. We still need marriage equality to protect all couples, so couples in allcounties are equally protected. The point here is that civil unions aren't working for New Jersey right now.

The second issue is that if you ask couples in Hawaii if they'd rather have civil unions and the rights that come with them tomorrow or marriage equality in a few years, many would take civil unions, even with its problems. When I think about whether or not to engage in these kinds of campaigns, for me in the end, it all comes down to what would be best for those who are most affected by a law. Give-and-take over whether to reject civil unions and hold out for marriage are always important, but at the end of the day, we're still talking about people's medical rights, health insurance, burial rights, and more. If that's what's best for same-sex couples in Hawaii and it's the best move to make strategically, then half-measure or not, that's what works for me.

Adam Bink :: Civil unions and their place

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

One more reason (4.00 / 2)
Civil unions also create a good legal foothold.  There are multiple reasons (legally defended, anyway) why gay marriage might not be allowed, but once civil union are allowed you've eliminated all but one.  The remaining reason is biased discrimination, easily overturned in the courts.

I believe that the day will come (4.00 / 1)
when the courts will outlaw marriage discrimination. It may take a long time or it could happen in a few years. That will be the only that couples in real redneck states will ever get anything. It will be all or nothing. In the mean time people living in places with partial possibilities have to get the best deal they can cut. Until we have real marriage equality it is important to keep reminding people that anything is a temporary compromise, not a solution.


To use a hated sports metaphor, it's about moving the ball down the field. (4.00 / 2)
Civil unions are frequently a route to moving the ball down the field.  They provide some relief to some people now, they get people comfortable with the idea of legal recognition for gay relationships, and they create the real-world proof that less than full equality is just not good enough.  A few years of civil unions, and a few horror stories of their failures, can help prepare people for and convince people of the need for full marriage equality.  

Plus they tend to wedge apart our opponents' coalition and consolidate our own.  There is a significant demographic of moderate Republicans who do not like hearing conservative Republicans offer arguments against civil unions.  (Just as there are some socially conservative Democrats who don't like hearing liberal Democrats argue for full marriage equality.)  Given that I don't really believe there has ever been a case where civil unions acted to delay the achievement of full marriage equality, I don't see the downside.

Fighting to achieve second class status is a teeny bit humiliating, but whatever.  Politics is work, not therapy.


really good post (0.00 / 0)
Also, in addition to context, practicality, and choice, there is also, from a different vantage point, the idea that civil unions are far less laden with the ideological, cultural, and theological baggage of marriage and the straight-centric, sexist background to that institution.  Homophobic opponents of gay/lesbian marriage in fact have it backwards - allowing same sex couples to marry would go much further in preserving the institution of marriage than allowing us the freedom in the lgbt community to continue to innovate outside some of the really problematic boundaries posed by 'marriage.'

i personally would prefer to have the state provide the capacity for individuals to enter into genuinely consensual contracts (regardless of the nature of their relationship, whether romantic or not, whether different sex or same sex, etc.) and let people decide what those contracts mean to them.  It's the least they could do.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox