From an article on The Advocate.com written by teenage contributor Tully Satre.
We are advocating for the wrong thing. We should be establishing the fundamental principles for same-sex couples that come in marriage contracts, not getting wrapped up in the word marriage itself. According to nationwide polls, American voters support granting marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. In Virginia, the majority of voters say they would support legislation that allows for these benefits for same-sex couples, as has been made apparent in this year’s general assembly session in Richmond. The issue of marriage is still a sensitive subject for our country. Are same-sex couples deserving of the rights and benefits granted to heterosexual couples in marriage? Yes. Are American voters supportive of same-sex marriage? No. Are American voters supportive of key benefits of marriage for same-sex couples? Yes. Yet, where do our priorities lie in the gay rights movement?
Well readers, what do you think about this? Should GLBT activists take a more pragmatic view like the one suggested in this piece or hold out for full equality in marriage including the word itself. There are a lot of folks in New Jersey who have these legal rights yet still feel cheated of full recognition for their unions. How much of the struggle for marriage equality is an emotional issue, and is there anything wrong with that?
From where I sit as a straight man, I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Look back to the question of religious freedom. My church says it's ok to get married. Look back to the question of liberty and justice for all. Look back to the pursuit of happiness. Look back to separate water fountains and a back seat on the bus. We either believe in the constitution and the bill of rights or we do not. It's called civil marriage. A third grade civics class is about all it takes to figure this out.
ReplyDeleteHow about we ditch the whole effort and get a second class tax rate?
Unfortunately, I think that civil unions are the path to marriage. I say unfortunate because it means that we have to be patient and wait. Although, demanding marriage now, I think, will have the same effect. The next generation doesn’t have a problem with gay marriage, so I say:
ReplyDelete• Let’s get the rights we can now and help those who desperately need them and
• In 10 to twenty years, people will look around and say.. why are things different for gays, they should have marriage .. This is silly.
I don't know why straights get so antsy about "gay marriage". If their premise is that marriage for heterosexuals has and always will be for the procreation and stability of the family and society, then what about heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children, or who can't. Are there marriages then to be declared second class because they don't produce offspring. The rapture right's insistence that marriage is solely between a man and a woman doesn't hold water any more. Marriage is also a civil right, not a religious right. If we truly believe we are a democracy with liberty and justice for all, then we need to take a closer look. Last time I checked, gay taxpayers have never been equal before the law. Civil Unions are not equality, but second class unions. Even today in Massachusetts, legally married gay couples can't file a joint tax return and Civil Unions don't allow for that either at the federal level, among many other rights and privileges denied us outside of hetero marriage. Its absurd to think we call ourselves a democracy, we're not. The only ones that can claim that are Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada and S. Africa. To a lesser extent so is the UK. Their Civil Partnerships bestow ALL the rights and privileges of marriage including tax benefits as well as adoption and all of these nations permit gays to serve openly in the military and elsewhere. We just don't get it over here.
ReplyDeleteRobert, NYC.
I agree with anonymous #1. It's clear that many conservative and religious folks are really attached to the word "marriage." I think most of us in the gay world aren't very attached to the word, just the rights and benefits that marriage brings. So I think something like nationally-recognized civil unions would be a good stepping stone, if you will.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is true that this is essentially a "separate but equal" ideology. I think in time, legislative maneuvers could issue rights to "marriages" and not "civil unions." So hopefully in the future the issue gay marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships could have its own Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS.
I think that our nation, as a whole, isn't ready for same-sex marriage. It wasn't ready for inter-racial marriage even 30 years ago!! However, in time, inter-racial marriage has become pretty normal. I think the same will happen with us.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't care what you call it. I want to be able to have my partner on my health insurance. I want to be able to have tax benefits afforded married couples. I want to be able to have my partner visit me in the hospital should I take ill. I want all the benefits of marriage, no matter what they call my relationship. I've been with Erica for 13 years now. I think we deserve it.
Frankly, I don't mind not being called married for now if I can have the same right and responsibilities now. When I'm dead and gone, it won't matter if I was called a married person or a domestic partner. It will matter if my partner can collect S. S. benefits if I pass away before her.
My problem isn't so much with "civil unions" vs "marriage". People are very willing so say that they would be for "civil unions" and "equality" for gay couples.
ReplyDeleteTHE PROBLEM IS... the Federal Government has not once said that it is interested in recognizing "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" for gay couples. And folks, the really big ticket items (Soc. Sec. Survivor benefits, 401K rollover, ect.) all exist at the Federal level AND that is what makes a "marriage" portable from state to state.
Without that, a civil union is only as good a the state that grants it. Who the hell needs that?
To me, Jim, it is very simple: equal means equal, no more, no less.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason why GLBT citizens should be treated differently under the law than any other citizen, and I certainly see no reason why GLBT citizens should cooperate with "separate but equal".
I'll grant you that "marriage" is a word that evokes strong emotions, and that our path to legal protection would be a lot smoother if we pushed for legal equivalency under the law -- civil unions -- rather than equality under the law -- marriage.
But what would we gain by doing so? Inequality. We've already got that ...
Perhaps the underlying purpose of the civil union is being misconstrued. While I acknowledge that it seems to adopt a “separate but equal” dourine, the concept was not developed by conservative lawmakers to quiet their homosexual constituency. Rather, the civil union is a carefully crafted piece of political maneuvering.
ReplyDeleteSeveral states have adopted amendments to their state constitutions defining marriage as between one man and one woman. This makes clear just how much of an uphill battle we have to fight to obtain full equality for homosexuals and just how many people are still not comfortable with gay marriage. The civil union is a means of circumventing, not only the law, but the public’s opinion. Just as the Bush administration was able to circumvent rules and international law regarding POWs by calling prisoners taken in Afghanistan “enemy combatants,” we are trying to provide the benefits that should not wait, while realizing that public acceptance of gay marriage is a long way off.
It must be understood that both the law and the American public are fickle. Simply by changing what word we use to refer to something we can drastically change the social and political response. If we do not allow ourselves to get hung up on the words we use to refer to something, we possess a political advantage. This tactic has been used over and over with great success by conservatives, and it is time we employ it.
I should emphasize, the purpose of civil unions is to grant the benefits that must be given to homosexual partners as soon as possible. It is a means to an end for supplying the inalienable rights that homosexuals deserve. The underlying issue with what we call the union of homosexual couples centers on a societal problem in this country that will likely take more time to fix. It is because we live in a democracy (contrary to what Robert in NYC says above) which is not fully tolerant of gays, that we cannot simply have the government mandate recognition of gay marriages. Through checks and balances, landmark court cases ruled by “liberal judges legislating from the bench” have been effectively ruled moot. Now we have a maneuver that can achieve part of the goal in the short-term, while we undertake the longer process of hammering away at the overall public’s prejudice. Gay marriage and civil unions are not mutually exclusive. Gay marriage must be accepted eventually, but that path will not allow you to jointly file your tax return with your partner in the next 5 years.
-Matt
wow, thanks everyone for your comments. I volunteer with Equality Florida and I am always looking for feedback. i think the solution is to move forward on many fronts; local,state,national and not aim for second best. if we aim too low, we may miss the target altogether.
ReplyDeleteConsidering all the wackos out there who are advocating traditional-only marriage and bashing gays, they cannot hold out for full equality. I think being pragmatic about it and going for one victory at a time is the way to go.
ReplyDelete