Why the Domestic Partnership route will never work

[dsc]

Much has been made of two states results where measures banning marriage passed and domestic partnerships were either simultaniously or subsequently ratified by the same electorates (Arizona and Washington State). But this ignores one basic reason for these results. Domestic Partnerships are open to heterosexuals as well as gays and are popular among old people (who just happen to vote in droves). The reason old people prefer domestic partnerships over marriage is precisely because they are unequal at the federal level. Because domestic partnerships are not recognized at the federal level old people don't have to give up their former spouses pensions when they enter into them. This is a huge advantage for the elderly who get the rights they need from marriage (health care decision making, health insurance, etc) without getting the one they can't afford to have (losing the pension). The second domestic partnerships are recognized by the federal government, the same old people who voted to save them will drop us like a hot potato. Gay folks can't get real marriage rights using a vehicle that is only popular precisely because it doesn't offer real marriage rights.

[SPedigrees]

1. State marriage equality laws do not grant any greater legal rights

to gays than civil unions. Neither is recognized at the federal level.

The domestic partnership route has definitely worked here in Vermont, which is why I advocate it. It is very popular and a source of significant revenue for the marriage industry which is a powerful lobby. Whatever becomes of gay marriage (and I see no sign that it is endangered in my state) our civil union law will remain intact. CUs became an established institution during the first 10 yrs.

[Warpy]

2. Separate but equal is always unequal

and what should be stressed is civil marriage equality, the word "civil" being used to ally the fears of prissy religious people who are terrified their holy churches will be taken over by drag weddings making a mockery out of their drunken and unfaithful marriages.

If that sounds a little bitter, it is.

I honestly don't give a shit what they call civil marriage. It should just happen when both parties show up at the county clerk's office and get the marriage license. The religious meringue can come later, or not. The contract should be valid when the license is signed in front of the clerk.

Domestic partnerships will get you insurance benefits. They won't get you into an ICU to visit a dying partner, and that's what this is all about, the human rights that come with promoting the love of your life to a first degree relative.

[SPedigrees]

3. They will get you into an ICU to visit a dying partner in my state.

I am vehemently FOR marriage equality, on the federal level as well as state. All I'm saying is the quickest way to achieve this is via the civil union route, esp since this route ensures that no one will be denied the same rights as married partners, at least within the state (which is all that a state recognized gay marriage will provide at this time) while waiting to enact marriage equality.

I'm hetero, but our marriage (long ago) was a civil ceremony in a JP's office. Personally I could care less if the state wants to call this a civil partnership or a marriage. We're atheists and religion played/plays no role in our partnership.

[KharmaTrain]

4. Better No Loaf That Half Of One?

Just a question. I'm fully supportive of Gay Marriage but see the losses on these initiatives as one of a media/culture problem. While our society is moving toward looking beyond one's sexual orientation, just as we did over the color of one's skin in the matter of marriage, the electorate in many states just aren't ready to go that step. Is it a PR problem? Or is there still too much latent homophobia in the country to push voters to accept full and equal rights for all? Thus while a Domestic partnership or civil union law is not the full package, it does offer some if not all of the important elements that would allow gay couples to get the insurance and other benefits that they're being wrongfully denied. Yes, is the word "gay" still a stickler for some. Many in my generation who were able to overcome a lot of the racial prejudices of our parents in our lifetime still don't view GLBT people in a similar light.

Again...a honest question as to how to achieve full and civil rights to everyone...no matter age, sexual orientation or any other social stimga? Do you keep fighting for GMA and get pummeled by money-heavy right wing groups or is there a better path that opens up doors and mind? Thus, if a bill to approve civil unions or domestic partnership can pass but a GMA can't, is that so bad...for now? No, this isn't the ultimate solution, but can it be a step in the right direction?

[SPedigrees]

7. You said it much better than I.

The degree of homophobia is vast, even in a liberal state like mine. We all had to endure about 5 yrs of hateful bumperstrips and yard signs carrying the message "Take Vermont Back" until the lowest common denominator finally got it into their heads that life hadn't changed for them with the adoption of a civil union law in their state.

It was easy to get gay marriage enacted here about 10 years after the enactment of CU law once the phobia died out, and given the current influence of the growing marriage industry (bed & breakfasts etc) I'd be extremely surprised if this law is ever seriously threatened here. This is because our governor, Howard Dean, correctly judged that our state wasn't yet ready to accept gay marriage, and chose instead to rectify marriage inequality via a methodical sequence. Thanks to the first step in this process, Vermonters of both sexual persuasions (or whatever the PC term is for that) have more closely approached equal right status than anywhere else in the country while waiting to embark on step 2, aka gay marriage.

Skipping step 1, as many other states have chosen to do, has too often resulted in the whole thing falling apart, even in a liberal state like Maine.

[LiberalFighter]

5. If marriage is such a sacred ceremony then why..

are marriages allowed to be performed by those that are not ministers?

At one time common law marriages were legal.

[SPedigrees]

6. They still are in many states. nt

[LiberalFighter]

9. There you go. And quite a few in the Bible Belt area.

Doesn't say much for their impact on marriage requirement.

[Malikshah]

8. Bingo-- and to those who think perfect is getting in the way of good

Your acceptance is neither requested nor desired but would be welcome.