Wayne Besen - Author, Activist, Columnist, Public Speaker

Thursday, March 30, 2006

by Chris Lamparello

Polls show that a majority of the country now supports "civil union" legislation for gays and lesbians, and a lot of gay people think that's a good thing. But is it? Personally, I consider the "civil union" option to be an offensive one. In fact, I'd rather someone be totally against any legal recognition for gay relationships than be for civil unions.

Civil unions exist for only one reason, and that's to maintain the social stigma that exists against gay people. They're an attempt to satisfy our constitutional principles of equality while enabling certain people to continue to feel superior to us as a group. In other words, they are a monument to continued prejudice.

There are really two main goals in the struggle for gay equality. First, that the laws to treat us the same as our heterosexual friends and family members. The second will be a bit tougher to achieve, however, and that's the battle against prejudice and ignorance. A person's inner beliefs don't change just because the laws do.

Marginalizing us used to be a lot easier. People took it for granted that the laws would apply differently to us. Before gay folks were unknown to the vast majority of Americans, it was easy to believe that the military would fall apart if we were allowed in, or that children would grow up gay if we were permitted to be their school teachers. Those ideas have since become antiquated and embarrassing, and millions of Americans have abandoned them.

There is no longer any seemingly rational justification for laws that treat us differently, so those who want us to remain societal outcasts often invoke civil unions as a way to continue that marginalization while satisfying the legal demands of equality. When all is said and done, however, civil unions are plainly unacceptable because the only reason they exist is to preserve anti-gay prejudice, and that is not something any of us should ever support.

5 Comments:

Although I totally agree that civil unions are untenable because they continue the myth that straight is better than gay, realistically they also reduce the stigma of being gay because they provide specific recognition of our lives and relationships, which is unknown now. I also completely agree with the anti-gay hate movement that claims civil unions will lead to true gay marriage, which I of course think is a good thing. Look at England, which just instituted a "civil union" law that provides EXACTLY the same rights as het marriage - immediately the press and much of society was referring to gay "weddings" and "marriages." The alleged difference between the two legalities was ignored almost from the beginning.

Now, these domestic partner laws, or Colorados proposed recognition of any two people living together, are ridiculous, because they do not provide the same rights and responsibilities.

I also think it is high time that pro-equality activists start demanding anti-gay marriage politicians prove their own marriages are real. After all, the federal government, and most states, have laws that marriage is only between "one man and one woman." That means that any intersexed people (and estimates are that there are 100,000 - 250,000 intersexed in this country)are ineligible for marriage to anyone in this country. Yet, because many people cannot tell who is intersexed, we know that at least some are considered legally married.

Therefore, let's start demanding that Brownback or DeLay or Frist or even King George II prove they and their spouses are genetically male and female - and release those genetic tests publicly. If they refuse, we should refuse to consider them married.

After all, it is kind of nice to refer to Laura Bush as the "mudering concubine" (for those who don't know, Laura "accidently" killed her high school boyfriend).
posted by Anonymous, at 3/30/2006 8:12 AM

I am also opposed to the civil union "compromise" in the context of achieving gay equality. If civil union leglislation also applied to heterosexuals, I would support it. In other words, leave "tradtional marriage" to the churches and civil unions to secular government. At this point in time however, I think marriage equality for all is the only solution to this because I don't think there is a hope in hell of having civil union leglislation extended to heterosexuals because the whole point of it is to keep gay people marginalized and somehow inferior to heterosexuals and to "shut us up."
posted by Anonymous, at 3/30/2006 9:23 AM

To cpt_doom:

The Civil Partnership laws in England are by far the most far reaching in the absence of full marriage recognition. The new laws bestow ALL of the rights and privileges of hetero marriage including adoption. There are rumblings that this law will eventually be merged into the marriage act. One of the judges on the Supreme Court of the England has already recommended that marriage be opened to same-sex couples now that the partnership laws have been enacted.

You're absolutely right, the British media and now many politicians often refer to these partnerships as "marriages" which by default they really are.

Lets face it, we're not going to get full marriage rights in the U.S. for many years to come. The republicans don't want it, neither do the democrats. Even in Massachusetts, married same-sex couples do not have all of the rights of hetero marriage either, they can't file joint federal tax returns and their marriages are not recognized elsewhere in the country. They are languishing in marital limbo and confined to their own state with no portability. What kind of a life is that for a married couple?

At least Civil Unions would give us more rights and better than nothing right now. The struggle for eqaulity for African Americans didn't happen over night, it took decades and even now it hasn't elimimated racism or discrimination. There is still much more work to do.

Robert, NYC.
posted by Anonymous, at 3/30/2006 1:38 PM

"The Civil Partnership laws in England are by far the most far reaching in the absence of full marriage recognition. The new laws bestow ALL of the rights and privileges of hetero marriage including adoption. There are rumblings that this law will eventually be merged into the marriage act. One of the judges on the Supreme Court of the England has already recommended that marriage be opened to same-sex couples now that the partnership laws have been enacted."

This is incorrect. Unless the law has changed and I don't know, a gay couple cannot cite adultery as a grounds for divorce in England. Basically, if your partner cheats on you, you have no right to leave him. To me that's very wrong.

Does the British government think that because gay men are more promiscuous they won't mind being cheated on?
posted by Anonymous, at 3/30/2006 3:23 PM

If they can gurantee me ALL the same rights as heteros, then I don't care what they call it.

It just seems the word "marriage" is what the hang up is. So call it a Civil Union, and come to think of it, maybe those are the words that should be changed on the document at the Court House for EVERYONE to apply for and get rid of the "word" marriage!
posted by Anonymous, at 4/02/2006 4:33 PM