Accepting The "Civil Union" Compromise...

[arwalden]

... is it a risk, or is it a benefit? If we accept the compromise of civil unions as some sort of "equivalent" consolation prize do we risk NEVER achieving the goal of total equality?

Will we become complacent since something is better than nothing? Will our arguments become weaker since some (not all) of our major concerns can be addressed with civil unions? Will the sense of urgency diminish?

Or is the "separate but equal" compromise a necessary stepping-stone? Are baby-steps and a gradual progression of parity needed so that can those in power can see that that gay unions will not destroy the fabric of America?

Is half a loaf now... better than NO loaf in my lifetime? I have mixed feelings on the subject. How do you feel?

-- Allen

[GodlessBiker]

1. It's not even half a loaf. Not even a slice. It's the crust of one slice

I do not have mixed feelings on the subject. We should fight for the whole loaf.

[terrya]

9. Exactly right.

Civil unions are "separate but equal"...and thus, we'll forever be relegated to second class citizenship. We should fight for the whole loaf...because we deserve it. Simple as that.

[swimmernsecretsea]

25. I agree. It's stupid to accept a Civil Union...

...when we want, and can have, a marriage that is certainly within our rights. That would be tacitly accepting that we are not worthy of the full rights accorded the people of the United States.

Our right to be able to marry will only be in jeopardy when enough LGBT people think they should relent and accept a "compromise." There isn't any need for a compromise, and to do so inhibits our strength.

[Skittles]

2. personally I can't understand why ANYONE wants to be married

that being said, it would appear to me you'll always be second-class citizens unless you keep up the fight.

[blm]

3. Barney Frank is on the side for civil unions.

I think it totally takes the wind out of the rightwing demagoguery.

Frank knows they blew up the whole marriage thing for political calculation.

Once the country accepts this as a matter of fairness, it will be just a matter of time till the marriage step.

[TaleWgnDg]

14. Are you saying that Rep Barney Frank agrees with "civil unions"

over same-sex marriage? Or what are you saying? Whatever it is that you are saying, in all fairness please give us an url of such Barney Frank quote Thanks.

[blm]

23. He said last year that he didn't think gay marriage should be

made an issue for gays at that time.

I'll try to find the exact quote, but it may take some time as I'm bizzier than a hive of bees right now.

;)

[Zenlitened]

4. I've come to feel that it's a necessary stepping-stone, unfortunately.

It's galling -- a shameful indictment of how far this country has to go in fulfulling its ideals.

But the climate today is so frightening, with the religious crazies in control, that it just feels like grabbing half a loaf now is the wisest thing to do. Because they're doing their damnest to take even that much away.

:(

[Behind the Aegis]

5. It is such a toss up.

The whole thing comes down to that stupid word, "marriage." Their is so much baggage tied to it. The ONLY way we should accept civil unions is if ALL states have to recognize them. We can squabble over more rights later, as long as few of the good ones are there. But, civil unions do us no good if you don't live in the "right" state, or you move and then all of the sudden your partnership is dissolved based on the state you move to. Not all gays can up and move to Mass or VT or where ever the next civil union appears, nor should we have to.

I feel the real issue is getting Democrats to stop buying the shit that the right-wing is peddling. We should not "sit down and shut-up" until we have an EQUAL recognition of our relationships. I don't care what they call them, as long as I have the same rights!

[Nimrod]

6. Just my personal view

I see marriage as a church-based concept, designed to give dominance over women, and endorsed by the state as the ultimate proof that separation of church and state do not exist. I think it's a bullshit concept that people put WAY too much value on.

So for me - me personally - if a civil union would give me and my partner the same basic legal rights as others get from their God-weddings, I would be perfectly fine with that.

Now, on a totally non-biased basis: The separate but equal compromise may be our best shot. We went from slavery, to segregation, to voting power, to full legal rights and it's STILL progressing. We can't really expect to get everything at once.

[jonolover]

10. I concur.

In some ways, civil-unions might desensitize people to same-sex unions, with all the same rights as marriage (incl. child adoption). Once they realize that hell does not break loose, it would be fairly easy, at that point in time, to wipe out any distinction between homo- and hetero-sexual unions, whatever they will be called then.
That is what the 99% rationalist in me says, the 1% is torn between marriage or no unions of any kind. Who said this was going to be straightforward!
Thanks.

[Rowdyboy]

11. I agree with your post entirely

My disdain for the concept of marriage is enormous. I want the legal rights, I don't give a damn if you call it marriage, civil unions or whatever.

Five years ago, the concept of civil unions wasn't even being seriously discussed in most of America. It was only 18 months ago that the Supreme Court ruled that we could legally even SLEEP together. Yet many people here seem to think that marriage is an attainable right. I, respectfully, and sadly, disagree. Enormous social change usually takes decades, and is gradual. Only in a revolutionary atmosphere would such rapid social change be possible and America is definitely not in a revolutionary atmosphere. Actually, IMHO, we're in a very counter-revolutionary period. I hope we can maintain the very modest gains we've made so far....

"Gay marriage" has become the "Bloody Shirt" of the 21st century, a way to stigmatize your opposition as unacceptable to the average unconcerned citizen. To quote Mark twain, "The very ink with which history is written is merely fluid prejudice".

[Technowitch]

7. Not unless it is 100% legally equivalent to civil marriage

I don't give a rat's ass what they call it. What I and my wife want are ALL of the local, state, and federal right, responsibilities, and privileges that any adult male and female can, on a drunken whim, get from an Elvis impersonator at a Drive-Thru Chapel in Las Vegas at 4am.

Otherwise, no, it's not good enough.

You think interracial couple would've been happy hearing, "We'll let you have some legal paperwork that is totally invalid once you cross the border. Oh, and you still have to file your taxes separately. And there's no tax-free inheritance for a surviving spouse, nor can you inherit a pension. And you can be compelled to testify against your "partner" in court."

No. It wasn't good enough for them, and it's not good enough for us.

[tsuki]

8. The civil union is what you want. It is equal protection under the law.

I had a friend that was married without a license by one of those mail order religions. In her non-divorce, she was screwed. She did not even have common law on her side because Florida does not recognize common law. She was able to get child support. Period.

I know a couple that is married. They went to Hawaii, and have a framed marriage certificate. You can get married. You don't have to have a license. But the state will not recognize it. They only recognize the contract of a civil license because they can make laws governing a civil license, but not a religious ceremony.

[dsc]

12. I don't think the compromise will work

If I honestly thought at truely equal or close to equal version of civil unions could be obtained then I would be OK with it. But if the amendments in those 11 states say anything they say that the people aren't that discerning on this issue. The ones which forbade civil unions passed with margins equal to those which didn't. Thus the muddled middle don't actually pay attention to the issue enough to be bothered with any difference.

[MuseRider]

13. Thanks for this thread.

We are getting ready in my state to vote on this in a month. I have agreed to be a part of the fight but have been so totally immersed in the local Phelps fight that I have not even begun. I would be very interested to hear everyones thoughts on this. IMO this amendment will pass here but the fight is worth it if it gets people to thinking logically and fairly. From that point we can move on and grow. Education was the key to beating Phelps and I believe that it will be the key to eventually winning you all the rights you deserve...EQUAL rights. I will be interested to hear what you all say and try to apply it to our efforts.

[Lexingtonian]

15. a situational matter

My conclusion is to minimize the amount of compromise. In the most liberal/Democratic states, e.g. New York, it would be wrong to not ask for marriage and wrong to settle for civil unions. In the slightly liberal/Democratic leaning states, e.g. Oregon, it would be reasonable to settle for civil unions with the proviso that it would not be the last word on the matter, though activists would give the matter a few years of rest. There would be an appropriate, consensus, standard/goal (marriage, cu's, dp's, adoption rights, sincere antimarriage or anti-cu declarations/'justifications' by the different branches of state government) assigned to each state that activists should strive to meet or exceed.

That would be a way of getting around the separate-but-equal quandries: to simply assume that individual states are incompetent to deliver better than the assessed standard at present, but that assessed standard they certainly can. And that's what these state legislatures and courts and electorates should be told- that they are competent and reasonable enough folk to meet a standard X, that it's more than they want to give but less than what their peers in more progressed states are being asked for.

I think you're being a little pessimistic, Allen. Civil unions will seem quite enough and a relief at first, just from exhaustion and the profound change involved. But after a few years the activists in the them will feel recuperated and assimilated, then get annoyed enough at the undue second class status aspects to get back to work and demand the upgrade(s). It will take time for gay couples to get that far in large enough numbers, of course, but the amount of emotional baggage shed and clarity to their argument gained makes up for some of the delay.

And there is a study out there by some academic people- sorry, I lost the link and other identifying info, but it was posted here on DU- of the marriage/civil union banning crowd's literature and arguments. Their conclusion: it's all projection of the anger at and problems causing the current 'family values' breakdown in the Bible Belt among straight people onto gay people. It's utterly simply scapegoating- though, in a sense gay rights is a messenger and message of the Modern Age as a whole, which is actually what these twits mean to fight but are too small and weak to.

[tjwmason]

21. Exactly

Britain now has civil unions (called Civil Partnerships) which are pretty much the same as marriage. The legislation went through without much trouble and actually received the vote of the leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons (as you may have guessed most British conservative are very different from their American counterparts). I predict that once this system settles down for a few years, then marriage will follow. But had gay-marriage been proposed now, all hell would have broken loose, the moderates would have scattered.

This is very much the British way, taking several baby steps rather than large leaps. It's working here, but I doubt it would work everywhere. Each battles needs a new strategy.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

16. CT wouldn't have even DISCUSSED CU's were it not for the push for marriage

that's one reason why I believe only pushing for everything is the way to go.

IN pushing for full marriage rights, public opinion may not do a 180 overnight, but it will, eventually, shift in the direction of gays and lesbians. MA already HAS gay marriage, CA is almost there with CU's - which, IMO, is just a short step away from gay marriage, New York is not far behind - the Court of Appeals may very well rule it's constitutional. The DOMA hasn't been challenged, but it will be eventually, and will be struck down. EVeryone knows that. That's why Xtian fundies are pushing for an amendment to the US Constitution - that's their nuclear option, but it will never pass.

So while I applaud CT for helping to codify gay relationships, I do not think gays and lesbians should settle.

Not to get off-topic, but I also think it's interesting to note that in the recent capital punishment decision, due respect was given to international opinion and law. Well, look at spain, Brazil, Canada, the UK, etc. ALL are moving in the same direction - towards gay marriage. If the Supreme Court wants to move in the direction of international law, it will be extremely difficult for them to makes homophobic decisions from this point foward and not look like irrational reactionaries.

[Rockholm]

17. I am pleasantly amazed on a few fronts.

First, that heavily Catholic Spain and Brazil are moving forward with equal marriage. How awesome is that!

Second, that the UK and Canada are as forward thinking as they are. Canada is quickly becoming what America used to be.

Third, let Massachusetts be our guide. Same sex marriages sit in the Boston Globe on Sunday right next to the hetero marriages. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. We in Massachusetts know this. This is why Gov. Romney continues to mock Massachusetts.

[freestyle]

18. Separate is inherently unequal, and should not be a goal

Although the waters are very muddied, we can't forget that this is about government recognition of a contract between two citizens. In the government context, we need to work for equality before the law. What causes tremendous problems is that states have allowed the combination of the governmental and religious ceremonies. The state should never vest power in a clergy person to do anything. This commingling leads to a popular misconception that equality in civil marriage threatens churches. This is not true at all, and a related goal to marriage equality is making a hard separation between the civil and religious aspects of marriage.

[davidinalameda]

19. If civil unions grant all the same rights as heterosexual marriage

that would be great

but if I was in a civil union in California, my rights under California state law aren't recognized in states without any sort of civil union law or all my rights under California law might not be recognized in states with different versions of civil unions--civil unions are only good within state borders unlike marriage which is good in all 50 states and the District of Columbia

I've never heard of any state not recognizing a marriage from another state, even if that marriage would never have been legal in the second state to begin with.

and as long as there are over a 1000 federal benefits that straight people who have known each other for five minutes can get after getting married by Elvis in Las Vegas, then it goes well beyond anything the states can or will do

the state of California can't order the feds to give me Social Security survior benefits

we're not getting even a half of loaf right now--we're getting maybe one or two slices

[Misunderestimator]

20. A compromise like that, which is a HUGE one would be a detriment...

to our EVER reaching equality.

[justin899]

22. Civil Unions Will Be The Death Nail To Full Marriage Equality

Vermont has had Civil Unions for what? Going on 6 years now.

Heterosexual Vermonters aren't pushing to change the law now that they are used to gay civil unions and are more comfortable with them. Yet I keep seeing this specious argument (on this and other progressive boards--particularly from straight people) that minority rights are supposed to be contigent on majority opinion and you have to get the majority to agree with granting you rights they take for granted.

The fact is the only thing Civil Unions laws do is allow heterosexists of both parties pretend like they've done something good when in reality they only make you a permanent second-class citizen while forcing you to continue to pay first class taxes at the federal level.

And we need to stop using "separate but equal" language since Civil Unions aren't equal to marriage and never will be. It's not like riding in the back of the federal rights and taxation bus...it's more like not being allowed on the damn bus, either in the back or the front.

[One_Life_To_Give]

24. Accepting CU now might delay Marriage another

30 years. But if we hacve to wait 10 yrs or more for Marriage without CU. For some it might be worth it?

[Dark]

26. Yes, it's a stepping stone. n/t