The line often used these days by wary politicians is "I don't support gay marriage, but I do support their right to have civil unions". I suppose, that by itself, demonstrates progress. As recently as eight or ten years ago, one wouldn't have heard even this level of concession. But the statement, in and of itself, is an admission there are differences between marriages and civil unions.
This came from the Boston Globe the other day:
Once again the unnecessary furor over gay marriage has been reopened by President-elect Obama's pick of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation. Once again we hear the old mantra that gay marriage is "an attack on the sacred institution of marriage" So once again I have to ask, if marriage is a "sacred," that is, religious institution, why in the name of the Constitution is the government in the marriage business at all? Why can't the government, state or federal, simply legalize civil unions for all people, gay or straight, and let those who want "holy matrimony" attached to their union go to the church of their choice and have it done? There are enough liberal churches around to accommodate all. Then churches would keep their freedom from government intervention and we would all be equal in the eyes of the state. Why has this idea not been seriously considered?
Certainly sounds reasonable, though I suppose it doesn't really address the concerns of religious conservatives who argue allowing same sex couples marriage rights, even if removed from state sanction, somehow dilutes what they consider the historical "purity" of marriage. It's true that lots of folks are married without any religious sanction of their union - a visit to a country clerk or justice of the peace is as good in the states eyes as a big fancy wedding in a church. But the idea of allowing civil marriages for same sex couples, as opposed to a religious marriage, is not what's being proposed by those wary politicians.
So, what's the difference between a marriage and a civil union?
First, civil unions only exist in a handful of states, unlike marriages which obviously exist in all fifty. A marriage conducted in one state is recognized by all of the other forty nine. Civil unions are recognized only in the state that allowed it.
According to a 1997 Government Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it 1,049 protections and responsibilities unavailable to civil unions. These include the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor benefits, Couples having a civil union, because they are unrecognized by the federal government, are unable to file joint tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks provided to married couples. They often lack the option of receiving discounts on insurance rates and, in some cases, haven't the option to visit their spouse in a hospital or make emergency medical decisions if their partner is unable.
There are probably some same sex couples who would love to have a religious marriage. (It sure doesn't make a lot of sense that a government that claims it's separate from religion would be so invested in this whole argument, and it sure doesn't say much about a religion that would deliberately exclude a bunch of folks who enthusiastically want to participate in its rituals). But for many gay couples, I would reckon giving civil unions the same rights and privledges as civil marriages would be considered a great step forward.
But until that happens, civil unions are just another form of discrimination.
Comments
Some LGBT activists in Britain are giddy with the fact that their civil partnerships give them all of the rights of marriage with out the historical burden of marriage itself. k.d.lang said to London's Daily Mail, "I'm for civil partnership; I'm not for gay marriage. A friend of mine called that 'aping the monkey.'" California Supreme Court Justice Carol A. Corrigan, in her dissenting opinion, where she explains why she opposed striking down the ban on same-sex marriage and supported the separate but equal category of domestic partnerships wrote: “While their unions (California lesbians & gay men in domestic partnerships) are of equal legal dignity, they are different because they join with partners of the same gender. Plaintiffs (those seeking same-sex marriage) are in the process of founding a new tradition, unfettered by the boundaries of the old one.” Your opinion, that "civil unions are just another form of discrimination" is just that, an opinion. Clearly, it is very far away from a statement of "fact" you falsely present.
Mr. Traiman,
Perhaps in Britain civil partnerships do, indeed, offer all the rights of marriage. But, as I wrote in the post, that's not the case in the U.S.
And if one's going in position is that same sex couples should be satisfied with an arrangement that provides over a thousand fewer protections and benefits than does traditional marriage - yeah, I believe that's discriminatory.
When people are not treated equally, it is discriminatory.
California "marriage" does not give us any more rights than domestic partnership because the federal government has not granted us marital rights to any same-sex couple regardless of title. That is discrimination, but not because of the title.
Barack Obama’s official Presidential Transition web site proclaims he “believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions.”
This means that anyone in the eleven states & Washington D.C. that have same-sex marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership could have full federal marital rights. If Congress words the legislation correctly, this may also mean that if you live in one of the other 39 states you could travel to Massachusetts and get married or to Vermont to get a civil union or to California, Washington or Oregon and sign up as registered domestic partners and have all the federal marital rights even if your home state does not grant you state marital rights.
To achieve true marriage equality, regardless of title, we must focus on passing Obama's LGBT federal agenda. Focusing on the individual states can not accomplish this.
Clearly, focusing on a legal category called "marriage" does not get us all of the rights of marriage. Even if it did, with 31 electoral defeats in 32 elections and 45 of 50 states banning same-sex marriage, that strategy has failed. President Obama is offering us one that may work.
Our new president is offering us a lifeline in our hour of need. I only hope our community is smart enough to grab for it and lobby Congress to pass his LGBT agenda.
PS
Jay,
Your statement, "A marriage conducted in one state is recognized by all of the other forty nine," is absolutely false. Because of DOMA same-sex marriages are currently recognized in only 3 states. At present it is questionable if domestic partnership are recognized in other states (DOMA does not apply) but if it does that number would currently be 8 states plus another possible 2 states with civil unions. While we exchange opinions we should at least have our facts correct.
you're right - I was imprecise. I should have written that opposite sex marriages are recognized in all states, regardless of origin. Thanks for the clarification.
Jay,
Supporting President Obama's national plan for marital rights will give us all the rights of marriage even if it is not called "marriage." (Of course, we have to lobby Congress to achieve this.) I noticed you have not responded to this fact nor that your support for a legal category called "marriage" will not, necessarily, get us all the legal rights of marriage. Is this because you are pondering these facts? Will this move you to action so that you will support and participate in lobbying Congress to pass Obama's proposal for giving marital rights to all "legally-recognized unions?"
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!