Many same-sex marriage activists cannot distinguish between a goal and a strategy. Their goal is one, unified category of marital rights for both heterosexuals and same-sex couples. However, many falsely believe that the only strategy for attaining equality is for same-sex couples to immediately have access to marriage. Unfortunately, demanding immediate relief has failed, 33 election losses and no wins. The few states, along with the City of Washington, DC, which allow same-sex marriages only do so because in those jurisdictions it is extremely difficult to put an issue on the ballot to overturn a legislative or judicial decision. Same-sex marriage victories in those jurisdictions do not present a broader winning strategy.
Clearly, in states where same-sex marriage must face the voters a different strategy must be developed in order to succeed. Attaining comprehensive domestic partnerships first, which has rarely failed and just won state-wide in Washington state, is the logical strategy to adopt. Unfortunately, many activists refuse to even consider this option because they do not understand the difference between a goal and a strategy. These activists falsely believe that comprehensive domestic partnerships is the end game rather than just a step on the road to the end. These activist rail against this strategy with a very effective slogan, "Separate cannot be equal." There are two ways to try to stop this inappropriate rant. One is to try to make these activist understand the difference between a goal and a strategy. The second is to educate people as to why the reference to the 1896 US Supreme Court decision declaring that "separate but equal" services for African-Americans is an inappropriate reference. Here is an attempt at the latter.
Analogy to Brown v. Board of Education (1954, US Supreme Court) is a common error which ignores the historical facts. “Separate but equal” was invented by white supremacists in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, US Supreme Court) to oppress African-Americans. The term, "separate but equal," was always a lie. The racist who promoted it never really wanted African Americans treated equally. Everyone, with a wink and nod, knew that. But its opposite, that "separate can never be equal," is also a lie. If that were true then men and women would share the same public toilets and affirmative action would not exist. Domestic partnerships were invented by Tom Brougham, a gay man, in 1981 and advanced by the lesbian/gay community to obtain the benefits of marriage when most lesbians and gay men viewed marriage as a discredited patriarchal institution. Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any legal inequalities with marriage. This painstaking legislative word-smithing gives lie to the notion that separate cannot be equal.
All civil rights struggles have had a series of steps and compromises along the way. The LGBT struggle for equal marital rights is no different. But, what if same-sex marriage is another situation where, indeed, separate is not equal? What if comprehensive domestic partnerships are only "almost" equal? At this point in time, most LGBT folk, particularly in states with no protections what-so-ever, would love to be "almost" equal because, as of today, same-sex couples are nowhere near equal! The LGBT community must get to equality (or almost equality) first. Once the community has achieved that, the community can start to worry about possible inequalities. Indeed, there may not be any to be found. Until then, it is just academic ruminations. (Commissions in New Jersey and Vermont "proving" that civil unions were not equal to marriage were cleverly stacked with marriage-only advocates whose conclusions had been decided upon before each commission met.)
Anecdotal reports of inappropriate or anomalous implementation of New Jersey's civil unions or California’s domestic partnership laws would not be solved by changing the titles to marriage. Lesbians and gay men in Massachusetts have reported problems with their state’s implementation of same-sex marriage. Like California and New Jersey, Massachusetts's legislature has had to plug holes because these policies are new. Any new and comprehensive policy, no matter how well written, will have bumps along the road to implementation. This was documented by Dale Mitchell, Cofounder of the LGBT Aging Project in Boston, in his letter to the Gay & Lesbian Review in May of 2007. And, of course, there will always be inequalities, regardless of title, until the federal government grants federal marital rights to same-sex couples.
And, by the way, federal marital rights could be granted to any legally-recognized unions be they marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
There is, of course, another reason why it is unwise for the LGBT community to brandish the term "separate can never be equal" in the fight for marriage equality. The African-American community rightly feels that they have a special connection to the phrase "separate can never be equal." Of course, Brown v Board of Education was a victory for all Americans. But it must be recognized that it was the African-American community which brought us this victory at one of highest prices a community can pay. Sadly, it is with the African-American community that the LGBT community, particularly on the issue of marriage, is having the most difficulty. The LGBT community needs to be particularly sensitive to other minority communities just as it would like others to be sensitive about their "sacred cows." Additionally, the political leadership of the African-American community has been extremely supportive of LGBT causes despite the lack of support from its rank and file. The African-American community is, of course, the primary base of support for those African-American elected officials. It is, therefore, unwise to antagonize the African-American community by using a phrase which they, rightly or wrongly, believe has been inappropriately expropriated. Doing so undermines the African-American leaders who have stepped forward to support LGBT rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular.
Comments
The author has a poor understanding of how insidious "separate but equal" is if his argument in favor of it involves bathrooms. Men and women has separate restroom facilities as a nod to privacy, not status. The men's room is not considered the "better" place to pee. The whole point of rejecting "separate but equal" is that separate rarely IS equal, hence the need for the separation.
Wow what a badly thought out article. Considering the many, many hundreds of years and countries that gays have been discriminated against, it is appalling that blacks would even consider their minor plight in the US to be equal. Gays have been hated, fired and even murdered in many countries since the time of the Bible. How can anyone compare that with the little inconvenience of what blacks went through. How many black people have been disowned by their families for being black? Give me a break there is no comparison.
Leland, you make a good point. It always seemed strange to me that the LGBT activists never considered a series of tactical maneuvers, such as working for legal partnerships that have all of the same State and Federal rights of marriage, but not the name. From a cultural position, these could still be called marriages to the participants. Then, go for the name legally once it has made it into the culture.
IMHO the LGBT activists are getting impatient and greedy. This is always a recipe for disaster...
MHCNY, you are absolutely right about there being no comparison. No one ever accused a black of choosing his skin color even though he knew he was born this way. No one ever said it was a sin to be black. There is no comparison.
Separate but equal in this case is really just saying, "You can have similar rights, as long as we can still have the law suggest that our relationships are more legitimate than yours." If marriage and civil unions are truly separate but equal, then I'm sure straight couples will have no problem taking the title "civil unions" and leave "marriage" to gay couples. After all, they're equal, right? If one's preferable, how can they be equal?
After reading this article, I mostly feel sorry that this seemingly intelligent man uses his aptitude for the forces of oppression and bigotry instead of liberty and justice.
I guess God really DOES make mistakes after all, Leland Traiman.
Leland,
Thanks for another insightful and correct analysis. Just today we hear of Mexico City counsel members who, after a period of time with civil unions, have just voted for a rewording of the marriage statute such that any two adults can form a legal union. Change is incremental and getting there is, as you say, strategic. Also thanks for the analysis of the offense our community repeatedly and insensitively commits by associating our battle with the "separate but equal" ordeal that our African American brothers and sisters lived and fought through.
Can we pull our heads out of our asses? Yes we can!!
I am in favor of full equality AND I think that the notion of marriage "legitimizing" relationships is one that needs to be tossed for both straight and gay marriages. Why ground a civil rights struggle in the very part of marriage that IS an "outmoded patriarchal" dimension?
I live in Germany, a country which legalized "partnerships" years ago. These relationships are decidedly unequal yet present the population with the feel-good illusion that the question has been addressed and dealt with. Currently, there is little public debate on the issue as most of Germany is convinced that "marriage" has already been legalized. Despite all this, my German partner and I experience discrimination on a daily basis. There is a reason why conservatives are often willing to accept partnerships rather than marriage.
Your separate but equal comparison in relation to men and women have no validity due to one reason. It is not against the law for a woman to go into a man's bathroom and vice-versa, hence its still equal. It is against the law for gay people to get married in many states. Also, as for your reference towards "33 states voting gay marriage down", it was not too long ago majority of Americans were also against interracial marriage. A simple history lesson shows that the majority argument is simply laughable.
Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual.
(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. "Nurture" may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.
I don't have to think about this and all of the "issues" that Americans will have to deal with in having chimps direct the ship and sheep fill the deck. I'm moving to Canada where the people are less crazy and don't obsess over stupid issues like gays getting married, people owning guns for hunting, or smoking marijuana.
The author is tap dancing around the obvious: it is not illegal to be gay, therefore there is no legally justifiable reason to deny gay couples (and their families) that which is granted to straight couples with payment of a $55 fee: a legal marriage license. Period. End of stupid argument.
"One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect."
--California Supreme Court
"Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples."
--California Supreme Court
A right to privacy protects adults from prosecution for engaging in sexual practices in private that others may believe is immoral or otherwise disapprove of. Legalizing marriage represents public approval of homosexuality, and that homosexual sex is not immoral. Many people believe in a right to privacy, but disagree on morality. I don't care one way or the other.
I congratulate you on your delightful exercise in revisionist history. Go back to your facts, not your view based on current events.
Your all-but-outright stated premise is that gay people have been all about nothing but marriage from the beginning, and could have made great progress if we had just asked for equal rights under whatever name they came with.
But look back at the Vermont and Hawaii court decisions that kicked all this off - besides a few places with very limited benefits, that's where it started, and in both cases, it was based entirely on the rights - the court decision was exactly what you are saying we SHOULD have asked for - that the state had to provide some mechanism for equal rights.
So, all the straight people embraced it with joy, right? Nope, Hawaii passed the first state DOMA, and Vermont invented Civil Unions.
(cont'd)
This set off the whole string of state DOMA laws and amendments - and if you look at them, the vast majority include language clearly stating that marriage or anything by any name that gives substantially (not even identically) the same benefits is banned as well.
It is transparently obvious that the "we're only protecting marriage itself" line is a flat out lie, because otherwise, they wouldn't have banned civil unions right along with marriage. And every state with civil unions has had attempts made (some successful, even it temporarily) to roll them back or eliminate them.
And where civil unions are proposed, or attempts to just define marriage without banning civil unions are made, the single most common charge is that it is a "slippery slope" to marriage.
So the obvious strategy is not to ask for civil unions, but to demand equal rights. Until there is Federal recognition of civil unions, marriage is the only way to achieve that. (Along with a repeal of DOMA!)
One day we will achieve marriage equality. Then, my friend, you will be eating your words about how we should have gone the strategy of civil unions. It is only after equal rights are granted, that the prejudice finally see just how prejudice they are.
You get what you ask for. And this heterosexual is asking for marriage equality, NOT separate but equal (and btw - the black community does not have a copyright on that phrase. if some of them don't like it being used to accurately describe a similar situation, then this is the perfect opportunity to make them think about how they treat other minorities).
For reads on this topic and more, check out:
byrdsview.blogspot.com/
@ the author: Have you ever seen the line at a women’s bathroom at a concert or the theatre? Talk about separate but UN-equal! Women have to wait twice as long as men. Your analogy is worthless.
I have a legal same-sex marriage from California, seems our strategy is working just fine.
If all you fight for is second class status, then that's all you will get.
"Comprehensive domestic partnerships and civil unions are now specifically designed to avoid any legal inequalities with marriage."
False. Let's look at California, I'll provide three of dozens of examples that you don't know what you're talking about.
Let's say that me and my partner want a legally recognized relationship, but because of work can't share the same residence. In California, if we're of the opposite sex, we can get married, but if we're of the same-sex, we can't get a domestic partnership.
Let's say that me and my partner want CalPERS long-term health care insurance through the state pension fund. If we're of the opposite sex and married, we can get it, if we're of the same-sex and DP'd, we can't.
Let's say that me and my partner want one of California's "confidential marriage" arrangements--if we're of the same-sex, it's a no go.
Knowingly or unknowingly, you are contributing with this very article with a "wink and a nod" to the lie of "equal DPs."
Dear Joe,
2 of your examples are incorrect,the 3rd is moot.
1.Domestic partners who intend to return home to live together maintain their domestic partnership.
2.CalPERS does not recognize ANY same-sex relationships because they are tied into the federal government.Same-sex married couples cannot access CalPERS either.Only changing federal law would change that & federal law could include marriage and/or DP.
3.Yes,you cannot have a confidential DP,as yet.But having a “confidential marriage” is a rare and minor benefit of marriage.This is moot.
CA law says any law,regulation or court decision which applies to spouses in a marriage equally applies to registered DP. (Unless it conflicts with federal law & that is also true for SSM in CA.)
Also,you overlook the fact that SSM LOST 33 times.I suggest a strategy to help us win. The marriage-only strategy you support is significantly postponing marriage equality.DP is the strategy to get to the goal of marriage equality the quickest.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!