Gay Rights Supporters: Accept "civil union" or hold out for "marriage"?

Great Debates
1

This is triggered by the other current gay rights thread (started by Leaper) and hearing a democratic party candidate for president (perhaps Dick Gephart) saying on NPR that he would support civil unions for homosexuals, but not marriage. What the actual legal distinction between the two terms is escapes me, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that a “civil union” would impart all of the same legal benefits as marriage.

Would it be in the best interests of the gay rights movement to accept “civil unions”, and encourage such hypothetical legislation to go forward? Or should it lobby against it and only support something that would let gay marriage fall under the normal “marriage” legal blanket?

Let’s try to keep the discussion to the strategy aspects of the gay rights movement, and not debate the correctness of legalizing gay marriage itself, since that has been done quite a bit here and will undoubtedly overshadow the topic if allowed to start…

2

My ideal world:

“Marriage” will possess no legal status; it will be a matter for Churches and individuals to come up with a name to describe their unions. Call it “marriage” or call it “Shirley”–I don’t care.

“Civil unions” will be open to both hetero- and homosexual couples, imparting the same legal benefits. The law will make no reference to the gender of each participant in a union. The law will not employ the term “marriage”.

On accepting gay civil unions while maintaining a distinction from traditional heterosexual marriage:

Yes, it is the best interests of the gay rights movement to accept this step. One, it’s a pragmatic move recognising that the wider population is not ready for gays and lesbians to be allowed “marriage”, because it’s a word which in many minds invokes God and the Church; two, it’s a baby step–actually, it’s a huge step–that will blur the lines between the legal status of hetero- and homosexual couples. With time, this line may be removed, but until then civil unions are desirable. Get ordinary people used to the idea of gay men and women forming legally recognised partnerships, without scaring them off with the term “marriage”.

… and as the great Laetitia Casta said, it won’t happen overnight–but it will happen.

3

I pop into the thread, read the original post, get all interested, start sharpening my fingers… and then notice that Jervoise already managed to post everything I was going to. So this is just a me-too.

Me-too!

4

I’m not gay, so take that FWIW. I have two sisters who are gay, one of whom has been with the same partner for more than 20 years. Their primary complaint with not being allowed to marry is that married couples have perks (insurance, etc) that gays can’t have, no matter how long they’ve been together. If they’re looking to have these benefits, then, IMO, anything that would get them those benefits, including “Civil Union” would suffice. If I were gay, I think I’d be concerned with the pragmatics of the situation first, in which case, Civil Union would do. I can always haggle semantics later.

5

Isn’t that already the case? I mean, I know that the word “marriage” occurs in the law, but effectively it is a completely secular transaction, as it ought to be insofar as the law is concerned.

I can get married in a Catholic Church, a Synagogue, a Mosque, a whatever, or I can be an avowed atheist who gets married in a civil union. Whatever. As far as the law is concerned, there is no religion that has the right recipe of “spirituality,” or a particular ritual that makes one marriage different in any respect from another. None of it is relevant. One is simply “joined” in a manner that implies certain legal rights and duties.

Let gays avail themselves of the same secular opportunity. Those who are of a religious bent who think that this is an unholy union can cluck their tongues and refuse to participate, just as they can refuse to recognize the “spiritual” nature of marriages in other religions, just as there were those who once thought marriage between the races was an abomination.

You have the right to practice your religion and hold whatever opinion you like as to which unions God is smiling upon. I am Catholic and believe that God prefers us to honor him on Sunday. I don’t think that we should legally require everyone to attend mass.

No one should be able to force you to marry a homosexual. I mean, sheesh, what exactly is the objection?

So, as a supporter of gay rights, my opinion is that the extreme religious right can have the definition of “marriage” as their very own. Let them hold it close and say only certain people can join the club, a club that says that only certain unions have a spiritual aspect to it that God approves of and that imparts the holy name “marriage” to them.

So long as gays can have the same secular opportunity to make a legal union that gives them the same rights and duties as heterosexuals. Beyond that, who cares? Really? Gays who can have “civil unions” will still find churches to marry them and communities that recognize the aspects of their union that transcend what the law is concerned with. Then, a hundred years from now, it will be only the fringe lunatics who still believe the law (as opposed to religion) has the right to proscribe a choice like this.

6

Allow the civil union, because that’s much more palatable to those opposed to the “corruption” or “defiling” of the word marriage. Then, a year or two after civil unions have been legal, the general public will be calling it marriage because that’s functionally what it is.

Plant a civil union seed now, and watch a marriage tree grow.

7

Basically I agree with what’s been said here. Gays–not that they are different from any other group trying to get its way–will use any rhetorical trick to increase their power/rights/perqs.

So for now, maybe they’ll get civil unions, which are good enough at least where they are enacted. They’ll go for marriage later, however, because “marriage” is not an empty word, if you look at the big picture:

My wife is Japanese, and we just got her “green card.” I can’t emphasize enough what a huge fucking pain this was. Now, we had to be “married” in order for her to get this. A “civil union” in Vermont would not have cut it.

I assume that if gay marriage were legalized in the US, that would allow gays to bring foreign “spouses” back home, which they can’t really do now. This will create a really big, frickin’ mess. It will essentially allow any US citizen who is unmarried to bring any foreigner into the US–then get divorced.

Of course, doing so is illegal, and the INS puts you threw the ringer and whatnot (interviews, etc.) to try to make sure that people are really getting married (we didn’t have to do much of this as we had been married for two years in Japan, and apparently they rather much trust US-Japanese marriages for whatever reason; but we had to do all the forms, medical examination, police certificate, etc. etc. The US is not a kind country when it comes to immigration!)

So, when the INS does these interviews and whatnot, they ask things if you’re really having sex, do you have kids, etc. etc. It apparently gets really down, dirty, and personal. But straight sexuality is totally different from gay sexuality which is much different from lesbian sexuality. I mean, it can range from old lesbians who kiss each other on the lips before bed to gays who do the bathhouse thing. How is the INS going to distinguish between one type and other.

I can only imagine that the result will be chaos.

So, the reasons why “marriage” matters are:

  1. Full recognition throughout the US, not just a part.

  2. Immigration.

8

First, I have a quite happy marriage, but am strongly in favor of the legalization of gay marriage. So AFAIK, as a matter of strategy, I’ll support whatever folks like Gobear, Esprix, Otto, Mr Visible, andygirl, Priam, Una Persson, Fierra and the like, whose lives are directly affected by the decision, come to a consensus is the proper step to take.

That said, some wild and woolly canards to deal with:

  1. Even with a majority favoring gay marriage, there will be a group whose religious beliefs are such that they hold that God ordained marriages between one man and one woman (despite Scripture to the contrary, on a part of that definition). One needs to recognize that fact, and recognize that a national consensus is not possible. An ideal law would offer some sort of sop to their firmly held beliefs, while legalizing marriage between any consenting adults who choose to enter into it.

  2. The “get the state out of the marriage business” crowd have their head firmly up their … well, have not thought it through. It is the business of the state to assure that persons unable to support themselves, such as children under 16 and parents responsible for their care, do not end up without visible means of support. As a practical matter, it is wise to ensure that this means is not by a distribution of tax dollars whenever possible. And it is further important to recognize that human emotion plays a part in financial decisions – that a man generally wishes that his property go to his wife and/or children on his death, that they be duly provided for, etc. He trusts her above all others to make life-and-death decisions for him if he is incapable of doing so. The institution of marriage is a standard by which these and other legal questions are easily resolved.

  3. As I’ve pointed out before, there is a distinction between marriage as a legally recognized civil relationship and marriage as something ordained by God, a religious ceremony carrying a particular weight (varying with the belief system). Emphasis that a civil marriage does not equate to mandating that your church believe that it’s identical to a sacramental marriage needs to be a part of the eventual structure.

  4. I see no hassles from a legal standpoint with the idea that a civil marriage or civil union may be established – and dissolved – by a contract between any two persons who so choose, provided that such contract meets certain state specifications as regards provision for dependants of the marriage, etc.

  5. It should be noted that several churches are prepared to place their imprimatur on gay marriages/civil unions, and to permit vows to that effect to be undertaken in church. I for one would be as opposed to a “civil union” law that failed to give recognition to this as one that required that all marriages be conducted in the Catholic Church. Because a majority of churches oppose gay marriage does not mean they have a right to veto the minority who approve.

All that said, I personally believe that there is no sound reason tenable in our legal system why two people of whatever sex may not commit themselves in marriage, with the usual subordinate clauses (“presently unmarried, consenting adults,” etc.).

9

Bullshit. Uninformed, unsupported, ignorant bullshit.

I cannot believe you’re this ignorant. Do you really not know that there are elderly straight couples who kiss each other on the lips before bed and other couples who are swingers? What does how you have sex have to do with anything?

Why would they need to? It’s totally irrelevant. Not that any “types” exist anywhere outside your head.

10

Aeschines, you’ll please note that you’re not debating the same thing as anyone else. The OP clearly stated that ‘civil union’, in the context of this thread, was to be assumed to carry the same rights as ‘marriage’. This includes immigration. And it was also requested that this not turn into a discussion of the correctness of gay marriage.

For me, I’m firmly in the ‘call it Shirley, but get it legal’ camp. It’s a matter that affects my boyfriend and I every single day, and is having a very negative impact.

If we could get married, we would be in the process of buying the house we live in. Since we can’t file jointly, though, we lose half the tax benefit from the interest deductible, so it’s not affordable. We’ll continue to rent, even though we love this house.

I’d also be insured. The small start-up I work for can’t afford to help its employees with that, and my boyfriend’s work can. But his insurance doesn’t cover domestic partners, so tough luck.

I really don’t care what you call it. If we can have the same rights as any straight married couple, it will have a positive impact immediately.

11

First off, people, I ain’t anti-gay.

Priceguy,

Maybe you missed the real point. I may be ignorant about various types of sexuality, but so is the INS. They try to distinguish between “real” marriages in which couples have sex and “fraudulent” marriages in which they don’t. So it’s a question of how they’re going to deal with various types of sexuality–straight and gay and whatever.

MrVisible,

I responded to the OP and added in my own perspective on immigration, which I have never heard anyone talk about before.

12

It’s just that I hate to see this thread get hijacked. The immigration issue is worthwhile, certainly, to the point of being worthy of its own thread. But in this thread, it’s taking the discussion out of the realm which the OP clearly defined, which is the strategic value of accepting ‘civil unions’ with the same rights as heterosexual marriages.

Surely you can see how that qualifies as a hijack?

13

OK, I’m sorry.

14

Aeschines may have a point, illustrated by Mr Visible’s problems with excluding mortgage interest.

Defining who may marry, and by extension who may enter into a civil union, is the province of the states in our Federal system. And AFAIK the Federal government recognizes as valid any marriage recognized by the state of residence. But the clear implication of the Vermont civil union law is that it is not equal to marriage in the eyes of the Federal government. Two persons united in a Vermont civil union, or a Canadian or other foreign marriage for that matter, are not considered as “married” in the eyes of the U.S. government.

Unless the “civil union” option of the OP is one binding on the Federal government, i.e., with a law passed by Congress defining that any civil union in accordance with a state law is equivalent to marriage, then this becomes a point in favor of insisting on marriage.

We had a case quite recently in which our own Thylacine was forced by circumstance to give up the hope of making a home with her partner due to diversity of citizenship. If Aeschines and Mrs. Aeschines had established a relationship legally recognized by Japan but not identical to American marriage, would she have been admitted as his spouse? Probably not.

15

Poly, if ‘civil unions’ are just state’s rights, and receive no federal recognition, then I’m totally unwilling to accept that compromise. As you’ve noted, it would be farcical to consider my union to have legal equity with a heterosexual one until it receives all of the federal, state, and local benefits that heterosexual marriage does.

But still, call it anything you like.

16

This hearkens back to the old “seperate, but equal” argument, in my opinion. If it must be “seperate” can it truly be “equal?”

17

Quite frankly, I do not care if it is called turnips with applesauce. I care about what rights it affords. If those rights are determined by the name it is given, then I’d prefer something like marriage, which has the legal rights I’d hope those Polycarp listed will be able to secure for themselves and their SOs. “Holy matrimony” is what, IIRC, the Catholic Church calls it. Why not just keep the religious word for it to the religious and keep the secular word for the secular?

Or we could just call all secular unions that confer the benefits now granted to heterosexual legal unions by some name that identifies them as such, and let individual non-secular groups establish their own names if they wish, or keep whatever old ones they used, or whatever. No skin off my back; I’m not trying to tell them what to do as they aren’t trying to tell me what to do (and if you do, and if you dooooo[/Good Morning, Vietnam]).

And finally, I will note for Aeschines’ personal enlightenment that straight people are as sexually diverse as gay people (obviously, excepting that whole “what gender you want to spend your life with” thing, and I hope I won’t have to explain that one;)) are as sexually diverse as bisexual people etc. I’m sure if you opened a “describe your sex life” thread in IMHO you’d get quite a few different responses (and I’m sure the mods there would just loooooove having to wade through the inevitable bevy of “How YOU doin’?” that would result).

So anyway. Don’t much care what it’s called, do very much care what it means legally.

18

As a gay man, It is not a good feeling to be told you can never marry. I say civil unions are not sufficient, I want marriage. Civil union has the ‘seperate but equal’ ring to it. It sounds too legal. It’s not very romantic to pop the question as 'Will you Civil Unionize with me?

19

Brandus, if a civil union is identical to marriage in terms of the legal rights and duties it imposes, do you still care? I mean, you understand that there are those in this country who will NEVER consider homosexual marriage a real marriage regardless of what rights the law confers. Do you care, so long as the law effectively (if not semantically) draws no meaningful distinction between heterosexual and homosexual unions?

Maybe I’m missing the point. The law does not make something sacramental, or spiritual, or anything along those lines. You can already “marry” in that sense, the law simply does not recognize it. If the law recognized your union, one that you considered marriage, do you care what the law calls the union? If so, why? Thanks.

20

Absolutely I care. If the law sees marriage and civil unions as equal, why would we call them different things? It can only mean “this is the marriage for straight people”… and “this is the marriage for gay people”. So, even if they may be legally equal, but calls them different things, then it still means legislators are not turning a blind eye to sexual orientation, which I think they should be doing. That is why I and many others would not be satiated with a civil union. Hope I answered your question…

I hope that marriage becomes defined as between two people, not specifically a man and a woman. Unfortunately there is to much opposition to this that many gays resign themselves to not seeking marriage. It somehow violates the sanctity of marriage (even thought Ms. Spears can get a drive-through wedding in Vegas for $50, and have it annulled 12 hours later, how pious is that?)