With the recent threat(s) over Kerry and his statements on Same-Sex Marriage, I have a question for the community.
Are Civil Unions really analagous to Jim Crow?
Poll and a few thoughts below the jump.
First a few things:
- I'm not a fan of Kerry. His recent statements brought this topic out, but this isn't about him.
- I take it for granted that every Progressive/Liberal and/or Democrat wants loving and committed life partners to have the same legal rights (tax, medical, estate, adoption, etc) regardles of the hetero or homosexuality of their relationship.
- Clearly this is a contentous issue, but I think if people can discuss it rationally we can improve our skillz and chances. Don't give someone a rating of 1 because you disagree with them, try replying instead. You might learn (or teach) something.
My Opinion
I'm surprised by the vociferous reaction many have to the idea of Civil Unions. To me, it seems like if a state is able to pass a law that grants the same rights as marriage under the rubric of "Civil Unions," then what you've got is two words for the same thing, not two things you use the same word for, which is the essence of separate but equal.
I understand the danger that at some future date these two things could come to mean different things, which would mean inequality, but if they're originally instantiated as equal legal classifications, it seems unlikely to me that as the electoral makeup of the US continues to evolve that this would change. In any event, it seems to me that Civil Unions would represent progress, progress which could be defended.
Some Observations
It seems that many proponents of same-sex couple's rights draw a lot of inspiration from the civil rights movement, and with good reason. However, I think that extending from inspiration to strategic roadmap may be ill-advised.
I think the comparison of Civil Unions to Jim Crow is... overblown. The situations simply are not analagous. I don't mean to minimize the inquality that does exist, but it seems borderline hysterical to compare the two as an apples to apples situation.
Also, the strategy of working through the Courts was effective in the 50s, 60s and 70s because of the nature of the federal judiciary and supreme court. Today's SCOTUS doesn't look very much like the Warren court, and while I'm no legal scholar, the Federal bench is full of Nixon, Regan and Bush-appointed judges who I don't see as being likely to extend the constitution to render a decision one way or another on marriage.
Finally, the strategy to grant equal rights to loving partners has to deal with DOMA, a law that exempts any state from having to recognize a marriage made in another. It doesn't seem likely (to me) that the SCOTUS is going to declare this unconstitutional; it seems more likely that this is going to have to be overturned though a political campaign that can influence the composition and attitudes of Congress.
It also seems that by taking the contept of "marriage" head on, we're attempting to force a victory in the moral sphere. I think we're in the moral right, but I also recognize the subjective of morality. By taking the moral track and focusing on marriage, we're in a sense attempting to make other Americans sanction (rather than simply tolerate) the reality same-sex relationships. Again, I think this is eventually where we'll get as a society, but butting heads on the issue might not be the wisest way to go forward.
Given all this, it seems to me that the concept of "Civil Unions" offers significant advantages from a political perspective, even though there are certain legal drawbacks.
A Proposition
I'd be curious what people think not of a campaign to get "Civil Unions for the gays," but rather to clarify and reframe the State's relationship to the rights of partners. "Civil Unions for all," in other words. All partnerships (hetero or homo) are given one status in the eyes of the law, a status witout any mystical connotations, and the concept of "marriage" is left in the domain of churches, mosques, synogogues and other communities of spirit.
It seems with such a campaign there might be a chance to peel off some critical percentage of secular Republicans who are increasingly nervous about the hardcore fundamentalists ("get the Federal government out of the marriage business") while at the same time consolidating the Democratic base and creating a new consensus on the issue of partners rights.
Feel free to weigh in and/or correct my thinking.