May 11, 2005

The Marriage Wars, Part 1: Marriage vs. Civil Unions
by Jeff Langstraat

Oy, the paper grading will have to wait a little while. This was spurred by a lot of conversation over at dailyKos, with several diaries over the weekend, and again Monday with Kos’s main page post. The flame wars have been surrounding my Junior Senator’s opposition to the Bay State Democratic Party endorsing existing state law. The usual approaches and arguments were rehashed. Nothing seems to get people’s blood boiling like the politics of queers getting’ hitched.

Well, I’m gonna add to it. Some of it will be a rehashing of things. We need to rehash things from time to time. Hopefully, I’ll also take a few new twists along the way.

The choice debate often centers on the question of whether to offer Civil Unions or full marriage equality. I’d guess there are four primary positions on this question (with, of course, variations within each):
***Full marriage equality is the only acceptable position.
***Full marriage equality is the end-goal, but because of the political climate Civil Unions are an acceptable compromise position for the time being.
***Marriage is between a man and a woman; Civil Unions as far as we should go (what I call the “homosexuals shouldn’t be that equal” position)
***Nothing for the homos.
(A fifth, change everything to Civil Unions and give marriage to the religions, is also discussed below.)

My guess is that most people reading this site (like those at dKos) would fall into the first two categories, but that there’s a sizeable contingent supporting the third, with a small but vocal minority in the last camp. I, fairly obviously, fall into the first camp, with shades of the second as part of my strategic approach.

None of us in the first camp seriously believe that full marriage equality will be realized in the short-term. That doesn’t mean we’re going to stop pushing for it. The reason we have any anti-discrimination protection is because we pushed. The reason we have hate crimes protection is because we pushed. The reason we have marriage equality in Massachusetts, Civil Unions in Vermont and Connecticut, Domestic Partnership in California, New Jersey and Maine, and Reciprocal Beneficiaries in Hawaii (did that expire? Can’t remember.) is because we pushed. As any minority political group knows, you don’t gain equality by nicely asking and waiting; you push.

You push for the most you can get. We have won much less than we have attempted to win. We can still be fired for being gay in 35 states. We only have state-level protection of any kind for our families in 7 states. If we had asked for less, we would have less. Believe me, Connecticut would not have created Civil Unions had there not been a case challenging their gender-exclusive marriage laws. By trying to obtain the larger goal, smaller goals are made available. Part of this is also what we social movement folks call the “radical flank effect”; we radical whackos on the fringe give you nice mainstream folks cover: “See, we’re not as crazy as they are.”

That first camp blends over into the second on that point of a “baby step” approach to gaining marriage equality. It’s not one that I’m opposed to overall, but I’m not going to stop agitating for full marriage equality. Indeed, I’d prefer a system of marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership and maybe a few other standardized legal relationship forms…creating a menu of options for families would be preferable to a one-size-fits-all solution, provided each of those forms is equally available to everyone. Our opponents are right; even in states with Civil Unions we will continue to push for full marriage equality. It may not be immediately, but it will happen.

We equality proponents recognize that much of the country doesn’t want gay folks to marry each other. We took part in the same election and saw our fellow citizens fuck us over in 13 states last year…this year hasn’t gotten off to a very good start either. We’re aware of the political climate.

We’re also aware that the backlash will continue no matter what we do. That’s what people seem unable to see. Our opponents don’t need us, they’ve created us as an issue. If we were to stop agitating for marriage, to withdraw every lawsuit and piece of legislation, we’d still face these attacks. There is an entire industry built up with the purpose of turning back the clock on gay rights. The Bush administration is doing their bidding. They’re not just opposed to same-sex marriage, they’re opposed to us living lives out of the closet. Some of them are opposed to us living. Our communities are under attack, politically and physically. Anti-gay crime was up last year…it’s pretty predictable that when gay people are the center of controversy, gay people will also see increased violence directed at them. We’re not whining! We really are under attack!

That’s part of what so many of us queer folks are reacting to. We know that we’re facing an onslaught. We also know that it is coming no matter what we do. That’s why it’s so goddamned frustrating to hear well-meaning people say that continued work for marriage equality will lead to a backlash and will hurt gay rights. That’s why it’s so goddamned frustrating to hear “supporters” cede ground to our opponents. The backlash is coming no matter what! That genie is out of the bottle. The anti-gay industry has rubbed the bottle and set that little fucker free. They have more than three wishes.

The opposition to marriage equality is only part of that industry’s agenda. They’ll keep pushing the marriage bans no matter what we do. They’ll keep pushing adoption and foster-parent bans no matter what we do. They’ll keep fighting to keep queer images out of the media no matter what we do. They’ll keep fighting disease prevention measures geared toward our communities no matter what we do. They’ll keep fighting for anti-gay discrimination to be legal no matter what we do. They’ll keep fighting to overturn Lawrence and make us criminal again no matter what we do. They’ll keep fighting to have us declared mentally ill again no matter what we do.

For us, the marriage battle is part of a larger battle against the right. We can’t afford to back off. That would be ceding territory to the Right. They’re coming no matter what we do…we might as well put them on the defensive from time to time and take whatever opportunities come our way. If we don’t, those opportunities may disappear, particularly with the lukewarm support for gay issues within much of the Democratic Party.

So, that’s part of my response to the second group. We can’t afford to step back, because we’ll be ceding ground to a movement dedicated to destroying our communities. We’re trying to make progress toward full equality for our families in the face of that opposition. We realize that Civil Unions are a step, but they’re a step we haven’t been able to make unless we’ve asked for more. An example of this is Connecticut, where the marriage equality groups initially opposed Civil Unions but ended up backing them. Part of this is about a symbolic willingness to “compromise.” Remember that asking for more than you can get bit? It appears to be a compromise when you come aboard later on, accepting less than what you wanted. In some ways, it is…an unhappy compromise, but a compromise nonetheless. We will live with them, as a step along the way…

The reason it’s a compromise is that it isn’t fully equal. That’s why “centrists” support it. Sure, it may come with equal legal benefits and obligations, but it’s something else. It’s palatable because it’s not “really” marriage, because it isn’t equal. Sure, it’s a symbolic thing. So, what?

I’m going to quote a little bit of Brown v. Board of Education here (Brown I). The court ruled that segregation was based in upholding white supremacy, even if schools were to receive the same levels of benefits:

I emphasized that particular text because it is relevant to the discussion. Segregation, regardless of the resource distribution to the segregated groups, is inherently unequal. Civil Unions are an act of segregation intended to uphold heterosexual supremacy. People will reject this characterization because of the association with Jim Crow, but Civil Unions are the act of separating one social group (heterosexuals) from another (queers) and providing them differential access to specific social resources, in this case marriage. That’s entirely its reason for being.

Many people on this site have advocated getting the state out of the marriage business altogether and giving everyone civil unions. I submit that this would be a more difficult proposition than gaining marriage equality for queers. I don’t even think it would be desirable. I’ll ask this in a poll question below, but how many people would be willing to have their marriage demoted to a civil union? I asked this in a class last year, and the two married people each had a different response: “sure” and “not on your life!” I’m guessing the general public’s opposition to getting rid of marriage would be far more severe than its reaction to queers getting’ hitched. That’s because they’d see it as a demotion. It is an unequal “thing,” and that’s why it has more support.

That’s one of the reasons many of us queers react so strongly to the “oh, why can’t you just be happy with Civil Unions?” Because we know, just like you do, that it’s not the same thing. We know, just like you do, that it’s just that much less special and significant than marriage. That’s why it’s insulting. You’re telling us we should be equal, but not really equal.

To the fourth group, I simply say this: Fuck you, we’re not going away. You’re not going to drive us back into the closet. And we will eventually have protection for our families. History ain’t gonna be kind to you guys.

There are a couple of other points I want to add:

First, the refusal of the state to recognize same-sex marriages performed by certain churches is not religious discrimination. The state does not recognize any religious marriages. The reason clergy perform civil marriages is because the state allows them to. The reason you have your civil license signed at your religious wedding is that the ceremony is actually combining two separate procedures: a religious wedding and a civil ceremony (that’s where the whole “power vested in me” comes from). The state is not recognizing a religious marriage, a religious marriage is occurring simultaneously with a civil one. That’s the real Church-state issue here, not one of religious discrimination. Sorry, but I just don’t think that argument carries any water.

Second, the relationship between religion and marriage, particularly historically, is a complex one. Here in Massachusetts, marriage has been a civil concern since the Puritans landed here; they having copied it from Holland. For large chunks of its dominance of the European continent, the Catholic Church cared little about the issue of marriage. Marriage and the family as we understand them are relatively new in human history. Perhaps the only constant in that history has been change.

Finally, I haven’t discussed the issue’s role in Democratic politics. (Damn, I hate it that our lives are a political issue.) That’s for tomorrow.

Posted by in Sexual Politics
Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (3) | Technorati Cosmos

Trackbacks

Trackback for this post:
http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2943

The following blogs make reference to this post :

» You Got A Few Minutes? from Mizzkyttie's Mind
If you've got a few minutes, head on over to Culturekitchen and read [More...]

Found inMay 11, 2005 08:15 PM

» Liveblogging PDF 2005 from Personal Democracy Forum

I'm going to maintain a running list of people blogging PDF here in this blog entry. By the way, if you're blogging PDF and can tag your entries (or photos), "PDF2005" is the recommended tag:

[More...]

Found inMay 17, 2005 11:50 AM

» Gay marriage or civil unions? from Hillary Now
Though it started its recent fame as a way for Republicans to reel in stupid homophobes, gay marriage is now in the spotlight, and it's time to think about it. I say let the homophobes have their Christian notion of marriage (who cares what their... [More...]

Found inMay 17, 2005 11:59 AM

Say it loud, say it proud!