How To Win The Gay Marriage Fight

[Roosesvelte]

First, I'll start out by saying this is not my idea. It is one that makes sense to me, and is rarely discussed as an option. I think it is the best option and likely to be more successful than many previous attempts. In a nutshell, it is Civil Unions for everyone.

Effectively, it takes government out of the marriage business altogether. All the government does, is recognize a civil union, regardless of gender. Any "marriage ceremony," could still be administered by the church or non-religious institution or person of choice. Why would this likely gain the support of a majority of voters when other ballot initiatives have failed?

Simply because, a significant portion of those who vote NO feel that the very definition of "marriage" has religious or gender connotations. Enough of those would vote YES to an initiative that replaced "marriage" with "civil union." To many, that sounds improbable. However, there is evidence that there truly is a hangup on that particular word being used. Replace the word, and in certain states the outcome would be different.

I do not believe for a moment this would work in all 50 states, but in states where there is generally acceptance of the concept of civil unions, it would. I propose the next time we fight for marriage rights, we change tactics. Some would argue that we'll win eventually, I do agree history will be on our side. I would rather bring things around sooner, rather than later. Winning the battle of history is of small consolation to those who do not get to see it.

The hardest part those on our side see with this, is often a belief that the stated reason of "definition of marriage" is a mask for intolerance toward the gay community. I am not suggesting this is never true. I am convinced, that this is not true across the board. The stated objection for some is the same as their real objection. It is why the other side has framed the debate in precisely those terms. In close states, this would carry the tide.

I invite anyone passionate on this issue to do their own research and polling. If you haven't done so already, I think it may be an eye-opener.

[RKP5637]

1. This approach has always made sense to me. It breaks down the barrier defense

of "NO" to marriage. It is the most logical approach I've seen discussed.

[QC]

2. You're not the first person to bring this up.

In fact, it gets posted every week or two and has for years.

The main problem is that it's not just "the word" that is the issue--in many places, like Michigan and Florida, the wingnuts have banned not just marriage but anything that might convey the benefits of marriage, no matter what you call it.

It's not our desire to marry that offends them--it's our very existence. The mere fact that we breathe is too much for some people. They despise us.

I really do appreciate the conversation starter here, and I am happy to welcome you to DU, but if you encounter impatient responses to this proposal tonight, please keep in mind that everyone has seen quite a few times.

[Roosesvelte]

3. Thanks For The Welcome

I realize this has been discussed other places before, but wasn't aware it was a weekly occurrence on DU. It does beg the question though, why hasn't this been tried? I would never suggest it would work immediately in all 50 states, but I think California is a lock with this approach, and I would suspect Maine would have been as well. Certainly the advertising campaign in California would have had to be different to be effective.

I would advocate using this approach in states where it would make a difference. Over time, all states would eventually side with history, albeit some might hold out a good while. As someone who has been here a while, is there any reason the current approach has not been jettisoned in favor of one that has a chance to succeed? What has that discussion been like?

[Ms. Toad]

15. Search for any of my posts on the matter.

Essentially, marriage is a locally created status, that entitles those who enter that status to rights within their political subdivision and outside the political subdivision that created it - providing as the receiving entity (other states, the federal government, and other countries) has the same status.

There is no universal not-quite-marriage status other than marriage, so there is no reciprocal not-quite-married status in the receiving states - meaning that the rights are inherently inferior because there no rights I am entitled to once I cross the border into another state, and the rights also do not extend up to the federal government.

Marriage, however, is universal. If I am married, there is a reciprocal status everywhere - and if I am married I am entitled to those rights not only in my own political subdivision but elsewhere as well. The various marriage discrimination statutes and amendments make enforcing those right a bit harder - but it will be the exact same fight to extend recognition after establishing something-not-quite-marriage in EACH of the 50 states and other countries.

I have no objection to trying to gain some rights in this matter, but it is laughable to think they could ever be equivalent.

[PHIMG]

4. Who's going to work on that issue?

I think working to ban divorce makes more sense to me. You want traditional marriage huh? Ok... there. No divorce.

[stopbush]

5. I say give more rights and more tax breaks to civil unions than to marriage.

Then will see just how many religionists who aver that marriage is a holy sacrament initiated by god and only between a man and a woman rush to the court house to have their marriages annulled, and who enter into a civil union to get the extra tax breaks and rights that are denied married couples.

I doubt there'd be a married couple left in America.

[bermudat]

6. Heard Ian McKellan suggest the same thing.

Let the state authorize Civil Unions. If the couple can find a church

to marry them, so be it. Out of the government's hands. The word

'marriage' is tripping everyone up, causing consternation among

some straights.

[Roosesvelte]

8. I Hadn't Heard That

Gandalf supporting this would play well.

[laconicsax]

7. It's a lousy idea, here's why.

Civil rights should never be subject to the whims of the majority.

Imagine, if you will, public building offering access to a wide assortment of governmental services and agencies. Religious people demanded that the building include a chaplain's office. Not seeing any reason why a chaplain couldn't lease a small office in the building, the public building converted a large utility closet to an office which an inter-faith religious group leased. After a while, religious groups started insisting that the public building was actually a religious building because of the chaplain's office and started making a big fuss when people they didn't like went into the building. As things escalated, more fundamentalist groups started barricading outside the building and only allowing certain people access.

A heated debate broke out with most people recognizing that something needed to be done. Those who did split into three main groups. One group suggesting that a new, smaller building be opened to provide some of the more popular services to those denied entrance.
Another suggested that the religious groups be given ownership of the building and an identical building be opened across the street.
The third group recognized that the religious groups had no valid claim and suggested that a statute guaranteeing equal access to the building.

You're proposing the second option. It kowtows to religious groups and gives them something to which they have no valid claim. Despite what religious folks say, marriage is a civil institution.

There's a line in the Constitution, Article IV, Section I, that clearly states that if one state recognizes a marriage, all states must recognize that marriage. DOMA brazenly violates that.

[Roosesvelte]

9. I Agree Civil Rights Shouldn't Be Subject To The Will Of THe Majority

However we do need a majority in order to secure these rights. I am advocating that we take the path of least resistance, so we secure equal rights for all.

[laconicsax]

11. What you advocate is untenable and the wrong decision.

Sure you could win more votes at a state level, but you would also need legislation at the federal level that recognizes these civil unions.

A religious group is barricading the entrance to a government building and only letting certain people in. The solution is to prevent the religionistas from barricading the entrance, not to build an entirely new building across the street and hope that the people barricading the old building don't set up shop in front of the new one.

In states with civil union/domestic partnership laws, the homophobes still actively campaign to overturn the civil union/domestic partnership laws. Oregon passed a voter initiative creating a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The state legislature then passed a domestic partnership law and immediately, bigots started trying to get that law taken off the books before it could even take effect.

The issue for people opposed (and I mean opposed, not just vaguely uncomfortable) to same-sex marriage is that LGBT citizens have any rights at all.

[Roosesvelte]

16. I Don't Disagree That Some Will Always Be Bigoted

But the majority are not. Or at least not on this issue as long as the word "marriage" is taken out. It is why the opposition has framed the ballot initiatives using their wording. Change the battle lines to favor us, and it passes.

[laconicsax]

21. The same vehement opposition exists when the word is changed.

The 'everything-but-marriage' referendum in Washington is a great example. Bigots went on the record saying that if they lost the vote, they'd try again. The referendum, in case you missed it, passed by a margin of only 4%. This was in Washington--a reliably blue state.

You still haven't addressed the issues of adopting a Federal standard for Civil Unions, grandfathering in existing marriages, or the simple fact that separate-but-equal is inherently unequal.

To ensure marriage equality, DOMA simply needs to be taken out to pasture. This can happen legislatively or judicially. If President 'fierce advocate' pushed the matter, it would get done.

To establish your separate-but-equal mess, the current unreliable state-by-state electoral process would need to be followed and legislation would need to pass at the federal level. Both stages are opportunities for failure and for rights to be stripped away. I don't know if you're unable to recognize this or just unwilling. You acknowledged yourself that civil rights should never be voted on by the majority, but that's exactly what your plan requires.

[Roosesvelte]

26. Grandfathering In Existing Marriage I Assumed Was A Given

"You acknowledged yourself that civil rights should never be voted on by the majority, but that's exactly what your plan requires."

So does any other plan. Since a majority vote is going to be required i order to get anything done, why not try a plan that is likely to get that majority?

[laconicsax]

27. You have no guarantee that you would get a majority with this plan!

If legislation designed to grant same-sex couples civil-unions with identical rights as marriage passes by a margin of only 4% in a reliably blue state, then what do you think it'll be in a red state?

Automatically grandfathering in existing marriages is going to generate plenty of opposition as well. You'll start seeing opposition on the grounds of "You mean to tell me that I won't be married anymore?" and "this initiative will end marriage in the state" and it'll be accurate to an extent.

What makes you think that the people who only oppose same-sex marriage because of the word "marriage" will support a voter initiative that takes the word away from their union? How do you propose to sell that one--telling people that they're still married, but its just called something different now so that same-sex couples can participate.

The problem is, and has been, that while the government is in the marriage business and the religious groups aren't, the religious groups are adamant that they are in the marriage business and the government is not. If you can't see how you're proposal to 'solves' this problem by giving the religious opposition groups exactly what they want while making no progress towards marriage equality, then I pity you.

[Roosesvelte]

28. There Is No Guarantee You Get A Majority With Any Plan

If the old plan isn't working, it's time to reconsider the approach. As to giving religious groups what they want, why not on this issue? It's the same as them saying who is saved or what sex means or any of that. If you don't subscribe to that point of view, let them have their meetings and wear odd hats. The point is, it won't affect the civil rights of people.

[laconicsax]

29. Why not give them what they want? Because they aren't entitled to it at all!

You say the old plan isn't working, so we should replace it with a new plan that isn't any more likely to work and makes concessions. Can you not see the idiocy and insult in that?!? Did you study at the Neville Chamberlain School of Negotiation? The whole point of negotiation is to give something away in exchange for something else.

Giving the religious groups opposed to same-sex marriage what they want allows them to own the issue. The word "marriage" is not the issue--it's whether LGBTQers are human beings with equal civil rights. Once the bigots have their "precious word," they go after same-sex partnerships in general. There are 18 states whose constitutions explicitly ban any same-sex union.

The 'everything but marriage' referendum in Washington passed by only 4%. When the Oregon legislature tried to pass civil-union legislation, the bigots prevented it from even coming to a vote. After the Democrats took over the legislature, they passed a domestic partnership law and the bigots immediately began legal challenges. This is in two blue states.

[Roosesvelte]

35. Where I Disagree Is That I Think A New Plan Would Work

We already know the old plan isn't working, this new approach hasn't been tried. If we win in enough blue states, the reds will eventually follow suit. The flip side is, if we can't win in the blue states, the reds are hopeless. Let's win on friendly ground first.

And no one gains the word "marriage" as their own if the government is out of it. Let the crazies define that however they want, we can define it how we want. They do that with sex, family, who is saved, etc. already anyway. We concede nothing, except the battle to make certain people change their mind. Some people never will. Let's work on reasonable people first.

[laconicsax]

36. You have absolutely nothing to base that on.

It's like talking to a brick wall, I'm done here.

[Roosesvelte]

37. I Appreciate Your Input

However, this has been an evolving position. You'll find I'm not a brick wall, I hope I'm still young enough to embrace a new idea every now and then. This has been one for me, whether it appears that way or not. My conviction comes from informal research and polling and the feeling that this approach will work, after heartbreaking disappointments with others.

[theHandpuppet]

10. Like we haven't heard this for about the 1,000th time this year

If I didn't know better, I'd say there's a concerted effort to persuade folks to give up the fight for equality. And please don't engage me in a discussion because I won't oblige.

[laconicsax]

12. Who's to say you're wrong?

I can't say that the separate-but-equalists aren't organized in some way.

[Pithlet]

30. I don't know if they're organized. But I've come to suspect that people who cling to this argument

really just want marriage to be "wholesome". They may not even be consciously aware of it. But after having argued till I'm blue in the face with everyone who supports the separate but equal civil unions for all proposal, I do wonder. It's maddening.

[Roosesvelte]

31. Many Of Those Would Be Happy With Equality

I'm glad you've had contact with them. It can be disconcerting how strongly they cling to their definition of the word, but there is no doubt they do. However a number of them support the idea of civil unions for everyone. There really is a strong attachment by some to the word "marriage."

[JNelson6563]

13. Wouldn't bother me a bit

to have a "civil union" instead of a "marriage". As long as it's equal rights for all I don't care what it's called.

Julie

[Roosesvelte]

14. And People On The Other Side Feel The Same

I think in some states we win at the next opportunity with this approach.

[FreeState]

22. It wont

if a state converts all marriages to civil unions each and every person will have to pay taxes a single person. The federal government does not recognize Civil Unions. With that they lose 1,100+ federal rights too.

How do you know what the people on the other side feel? There is not a single study that shows support of getting rid of marriage all together and replacing it with Civil Unions.

[Roosesvelte]

24. I'd Like To See Polling Data Myself

My feeling on this comes from conversations either online or face to face. A significant number of people I discuss this that are opposed to gay marriage, are fine with civil unions for all and think it's a great idea. Some go even further in embracing it, because they consider marriage to be of religious significance, and are uncomfortable with the government involved in religion in any way, shape or form.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

17. Delete.

[elehhhhna]

18. yep. if it's just a trick of the language, why not? the result is still bueno.

[noamnety]

19. Why this is destructive.

"Effectively, it takes government out of the marriage business altogether. "

This line of thought is something that we all know is not going to happen, and nobody reasonably believes a majority of voters is going to vote to do away with government marriage licenses, and create a whole new government set of laws (in order to save us from the gays getting access to the existing ones).

Crap like this is a distraction from any real activism.

You would do well to read the smackdown deadparrot received, in one of my all time favorite DU responses:

"How about this compromise, folks?" arguments are always inherently reactionary in practical political effect, for reasons I will go into and which are not specific to this issue. I think it is important to ask ourselves - especially as straights - why we feel so compelled to come up with these arguments. I ask this as a person who was doing that before the Warren controversy. I know that I wanted to skip over that question, and was resistant to considering it. "Question MY motives will you? Why, I am 'good' on this issue - really I am - and how dare you say otherwise?"

First, these arguments are based on some sort of "king for a day" assumption, as thought the challenge was to come up with the perfect theoretical solution as though any one of us had the power to decree something into law. That sabotages political activism. The debate here is about what we should be advocating, not what we would enact into law. People with academic backgrounds are especially susceptible to thinking this way, and approach it as though it were an amusing exercise in exploring hypothetical and theoretical "solutions." In politics in the real world, there are no grades or degrees awarded for coming up with the perfect academic solution. That is a place to hide. We place reality over there, in a neat little box, we think, by merely saying "here is my position on the issue, now let's look for a solution" as though we were neutral observers rather than participants in the political struggle.

This discussion is about what we should be advocating, not what we should be coming up with as a clever, impersonal, detached, lifeless academic "solution." ...

please read the rest of that response:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x110423#110599

[Starry Messenger]

23. ^^^

Damn, I miss Two Americas. He nailed it there.

[Roosesvelte]

25. I Hadn't Seen This Thread

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I do disagree with the rebuttal, I found Dead Parrot's post instructive.

[theHandpuppet]

34. Excellent post

Thanks for sharing that.

[anonymous171]

40. Damn. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

20. Or outlaw all civil marriages,. making union of same or opposite genders exactly the same that way

[PVnRT]

32. Do this, and the opponents will still find some other "term" for gay marriage

They'll call it "domestic partnerships" and it will be yet another case of separate but equal.

The people pushing the line of thought in the OP may have noble intentions, but they give too much credit to the opposition. It's not that they oppose gay marriage as "marriage" - they oppose gays having the same rights that they do.

[Roosesvelte]

33. Some Do, No Doubt

But they frame the argument the way they do to win at the polls. We can pull those who are not against rights, bight have a sentimental connection to the word "marriage." Enough in some states, to win a few of these, and eventually win them all.

[WhollyHeretic]

38. People bring this idea up here all the time and it is still a horrible idea

You give ammunition to the other side by doing this. They will be screaming "see they are trying to destroy marriage". People will not go for it and tentative allies will jump ship. The uproar over trying to do this will be much stronger than just trying to institute marriage equality.

Religions do not own the word marriage anyway. It is a civil institution in this country.

[Roosesvelte]

39. What Allies Would Jump Ship?

Most people in the middle who waver on this that I've spoken to, prefer this approach.

[AlienGirl]

41. Although I believe this is the correct and proper thing to do, it will not be possible

Unfortunately, it would take so much re-writing of existing law that references "marriage", and people have so got it in their heads that with regard to the law "marriage" is something other than a subset of incorporation, that it's not really possible to apply the rational approach in this one.

Tucker

[Roosesvelte]

44. Why Do You Feel Rewriting Existing Law Would Be Difficult?

Couldn't a simple line in new legislation just refer to previously defined marriages and grnadfather them in as included in the new format?

[Bonn1997]

42. Interesting post. (And welcome to DU)

I actually hadn't heard this idea before.
Don't worry about some of the harsh comments or the negative rec total. If you're gonna make it here, you'll have to have thick skin. Most Democrats are just slightly less intolerant than most Republicans.

[Roosesvelte]

43. I Appreciate The Welcome, And Thanks

I hadn't heard the idea either, like I said it wasn't mine. But it seemed to actually accomplish two things I like, getting the government out of marriage altogether as well as providing equality. I wasn't sure how well this would be received by those who normally vote NO, and I was pleasantly surprised at how much favorable consideration is given to this approach. I appreciate the support, I've already gotten my share of abuse, but less so than I get if I disagree with a movie review on AICN. Thanks!