I don’t often make diaries out of op-eds, but when I read this, I couldn’t pass it up. It’s an important piece. And it’s even more important considering the civil unions “compromise” set to be voted on soon in Rhode Island and the increasing chatter about the potentiality of a similar “compromise” in New York.
It can be said that civil unions had their day. Back in 2000, when the first civil unions bill was passed in Vermont, civil unions were an important stepping stone. The pragmatist in me would even argue that civil unions still have their place today in certain states, until we get a Supreme Court ruling on our side clearing the way for across-the-board marriage equality.
But there’s something absurd and cruel about civil unions being proposed as an acceptable compromise in states like Rhode Island, where there is a clear plurality in favor of marriage, or in New York, where a rock-solid majority of 58% support marriage equality. And while we’re not seeing a Rhode Island-esque civil unions proposal yet in New York, statements like this (from State Senator Mark Grisanti, who was thought to be one of the "movable" Republicans) certainly make it easier for such an argument to advance.
If it were to come up to a vote today, I would vote ‘no’ because of the term ‘marriage’ being in there. Other groups had said to me that, you know, we don’t really care about the term ‘marriage’ as long as we have the 1,324 rights that we’re not allowed to have for married couples, and I agree that they should have those rights.
Ted Olson (who needs no introduction) and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have something to say about this faulty “full civil unions” argument – in advance.
Proponents of same-sex marriage are only a few weeks into a new effort to pass a marriage equality bill in New York State by the end of this year's legislative session, and already there are opposing voices offering civil unions as a potential "compromise." As lawyers from both sides of the aisle who have been entrusted with pursuing the law on behalf of the public, we can agree that this is simply not an acceptable legal alternative.
A civil union reflects a second-class status that fails to protect committed same-sex couples who choose to be married. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue; this is a matter of protecting the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under law for all Americans.
They go on to detail just some of the 1,300 rights and responsibilities associated with a marriage license in the state of New York. Many of which would not come with a civil union.
Some are fundamental, others mundane - but all serve to underscore how deeply interwoven New York's marriage laws are and how extraordinarily they reach into the lives of countless people.
Unlike the universally accepted concept of marriage, employers, businesses and individuals simply do not know how to treat civil unions. Several states have experimented with these so-called compromise solutions and have already reached the conclusion that they just don't work.
Indeed, as Olson and Schneiderman point out, New Jersey’s civil unions bill did not do anything for gay and lesbian couples who were denied partner benefits by their employers because they were not really “married.” Nor did civil unions help gays and lesbians gain access to their hospitalized partners, since they were considered “single.”
But then Olson and Schneiderman touched on something else – something that is so important yet seemingly not emphasized enough.
All of these legal uncertainties led the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission to ultimately declare civil unions a failure, finding that the separate categorization "invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children."
[…]
A civil union is not a marriage, nor is it an adequate substitute for one. To suggest otherwise is a cruel fiction. Even if all of the inherent confusion and complexities could be resolved and civil unions could somehow provide couples with the same rights and responsibilities of a true marriage, the separation of the two institutions creates a badge of inferiority that forever stigmatizes the relationships of committed same-sex couples as different, separate, unequal and less worthy.
Despite what Mark Grisanti, “moderate” Republicans, many Democrats, and even President Obama may suggest, rights and benefits aren’t everything. Civil unions don’t even offer all of those rights and benefits – the “full civil union” is a theoretical construction that seems unlikely at best. But even if we did find the mythical “full civil union,” and even if “civil-unioned” gays and lesbians were equal in rights to married couples, the compromise is still unacceptable. The unseen effect of civil unions is that stigmatization Olson and Schneiderman talk about. That feeling of “otherness,” of less worth, of less dignity. This is the most basic difference between a marriage and a civil union.
As Olson and Schneiderman point out:
In these two states [Rhode Island and New York], there is no selling point for “civil unions.” A compromise requires that both sides gain, and same-sex couples have nothing to gain from anything less than the marriages they can already have recognized. The only purpose civil unions would serve would be to designate same-sex couples as “less than” and undeserving of full marriage equality. For New York and Rhode Island, civil unions would be “separate and unequal.”
Not to mention, civil unions proposals have done nothing to quiet the vitriol and hate coming from the anti-gay right wing. As Rhode Island moves forward with a civil unions “compromise” bill, NOM and the Catholic Church are still foaming at the mouth.
I don’t know if we’re going to see a proposal like this in New York. But I don’t think this assault on the “civil unions” argument by Olson and Schneiderman is at all premature. As Illinois, Delaware, and Rhode Island move toward civil unions, the temptation might be there to abandon the marriage equality bill, as Governor Cuomo doesn’t want a vote to take place unless the votes are there in the Senate.
But we can’t let New York be a repeat of Rhode Island. This bill needs a vote. Civil unions are not an acceptable compromise. They’re not right for New York. Legislators like Grisanti will support marriage if they truly support extending gays and lesbians the rights and benefits associated with marriage. If not, we'll know where they stand. But they shouldn't be able to hide behind civil unions.