The problems with the Civil Unions are easier theory

[dsc]

Lately we have repeatedly heard that civil unions would be easy to pass and we should just do that. Well, not exactly.

First, there is pretty much no evidence that civil unions are less antagonistic to the dihard marriage opponents and no evidence that the mushy middle actually votes these supposed convictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States_by_state

The above is a link to the wiki page about various marriage regulations.



Now, here is the problem. It is quite hard to make the case that voters are differentiating between banning marriage and banning civil unions. The red states banned both while the orange ones banned only marriage. Does anyone seriously believe that Tennessee and Alabama are more positively disposed toward gays than Michigan and Wisconsin? Yet Michigan and Wisconsin both banned civil unions while Alabama and Tennessee didn't. So clearly it didn't make much difference in the several dozen states which voted for bans.

Secondly, the states that have civil unions, in all but one case, are the states where gay marriage cases have gone to the Supreme Court and been won by us. Only New Hampshire voluntarily gave us full civil unions (green states).

Thirdly, there aren't many states left to try this with. If you take out all the states in red, and the states that already have civil unions we are left with a handful of states that we could see victories in for civil unions. Realisticly it would be Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. All of those have banned marriage by statute but did nothing else.

Finally, it isn't just a word, nor is there evidence that marriage will follow civil unions any time soon. I know of no legislative movement in Vermont or New Hampshire to change from civil unions to full marriage. CT just was forced to by the courts and NJ has made some movement toward doing so but may well have to be forced by the courts (who forced them to do civil unions in the first place). The simple fact is, even in highly blue states, gay couples have had great difficulty getting companies to treat their civil unions like marriages for the purposes of benefits. Imagine what it would be like in less blue locales.

So why do civil unions poll better? Likely because people don't want to appear hateful and because most civil union polls have taken place in states where the option was marriage or civil unions not civil unions or nothing.

For all of those reasons, the civil unions only strategy is a dead end that at best will lead to no progress at all, at worst, lead to us losing marriage rights where we already have them.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Provocative post (in a good way) Thanks!

[sandnsea]

2. Oregon banned both and guess what

We titled it domestic partnership and passed it with numerous additional protections, with barely a whimper.

Certainly there are states where neither would pass. The point is Progress Not Perfection. If you can make progress anywhere, you should.

I don't think anybody here is saying to stop fighting for marriage equality.

Many of us ARE saying to get what you can, where you can, so that equality at least is marching forward.

[dsc]

3. Not according to Wiki

the page I linked showed they banned only marriage which is what I remembered having happened.

[sandnsea]

5. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Oregon

[dsc]

8. I am not disputing that they passed the benefits

but they didn't ban civil unions. Apparently they chose the route of making gay relationships about the same as any two random people, a devolopment I find a bit insulting honestly. No ceremony and no romantic relationship needed. It should also be noted that the opponents did try to remove even this via referendum and only got stopped by signature requirements.

[sandnsea]

10. Because it was interpreted

that gay marriage and civil unions were both banned. That's why they went the route they did, to avoid legal battles brought by our beloved Karen Minnis. I live here, but you just keep arguing the point any way you can, like I know you will.

I have an MLK and Inauguration planning meeting I need to go to so I won't be responding to your posts.

[dsc]

15. that certainly isn't what your link said

in fact, it implied the exact opposite. They had tried to get civil unions apparently but were blocked legislatively. The change in party power was what let it pass. I followed Oregon very closely when they passed their amendment because it was our only real shot of not having one pass.

[Creideiki]

20. You're reminding me of a Jimmy Buffet song

Can't quite recall the name of it right now. Something about circumstances of birth.

[AntiFascist]

4. I wish that the Defenders Of Obama who spout off on civil unions...

would educate themselves more on these issues. It is entirely impractical to ever expect the general populace to eradicate heterosexual civil marriage entirely in favor of civil unions, for one thing. This will NEVER happen and it is entirely stupid to expect the GLBT community to accept that this may happen one day, as was proposed in one particular thread.

Civil unions may be a good compromise temporarilly in states that have no hope of passing marriage equality on their own at the present time. They would not be a good thing in states which already are in reach of marriage equality and which have decided not to go down the civil union path.

[sandnsea]

6. Get what you can, where you can

We're saying the exact same thing.

[AntiFascist]

7. Fine, just don't try to talk some of us out of real marriage....

I'm starting to see this argument work its subtle way into the Obama defense dialog.

[sandnsea]

9. Who did?

Just because "some of you" interpret advocacy of civil unions, it does not mean anybody is opposed to equal marriage - where it is feasible to get it. If you could get civil unions, job protection, hate crimes, etc., in California in a month - and then keep fighting for marriage - why in the world would you not do that?

[AntiFascist]

12. Case in point, right there in your post...

civil unions will NOT happen in California in a month or ever, this is a bit of disinformation that needs to be cleared from the system. In California we have registered domestic partnerships, which is simply a contract you can get over the internet. It is not equivalent to marriage and it likely never will be, unless some sort of Federal Law includes it under the moniker of "civil union".

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. what i see from most people advocating civil unions

is work to get that implemented since a lot more people are open to that idea while still working on getting getting same-sex marriage passed

Civil unions is a good stepping stone and that worked here in Norway(on the 1st of January this year Norway became the sixth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage. Something i am rather happy and proud about)

[AntiFascist]

14. The United States is not the same as Norway...

here the marriage license is issued by the state, and it is up to the state to determine who exactly can get married based on age, whether same sex is allowed, etc. In California, for example, it is not part of our plan to ever implement civil unions, primarilly because the state Supreme Court finds them unconstitutional, using the argument that separate but equal is not acceptable.

[Solon]

13. Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships have always been, ultimately, a dead end...

Some say they are stepping stones, but I frankly don't see it, as been demonstrated in both Massachusetts and California, the Supreme Courts of those states ultimately were the ones who were the deciders, so to speak. In California, unfortunately, Prop. 8 passed, but let's hope its validity is overturned by that same Supreme Court. I think, ultimately, that litigation, not legislation, will lead the fight for civil rights in this area.

I'm not saying that those who live in states that have civil unions/domestic partnership shouldn't get them, they should, to provide what little benefits and rights are available, but they aren't stepping stones to equality, they are a poor substitute, at best, we need to keep that in mind.

[tabbycat31]

17. in NJ they're seen as inadequate

and it's been recommended that NJ join MA and CT as states legalizing gay marriage. I emailed my state senator and representative, and I get a letter from my senator (GOP) thanking me for agreeing with him about marriage (he follows party lines). I laughed my ass off at the letter, and posted a rant about it here. I plan on bringing the letter to all the innaguration parties I'm attending with local Democrats so I can mobilize the base to get him out of office.

[Blarch]

16. I disagree.

[Rockholm]

32. Of course you do.

[struggle4progress]

18. California seems to be a poster child for the theory "voters may tolerate civil unions but not

full marriage rights"

The map tells me this struggle must be conducted differently in 50 different jurisdictions: there is no one magic bullet that will work in Florida, North Carolina, and Maryland, for example

How, for example, do you imagine that the red states in your map will become purple? A number of the red states became red in recent years: local politicians will take note of that fact and assume it relevant to re-election prospects. You may want to head to Federal court. But given the number of rightwing judges at the Federal level, this is unlikely to succeed soon in Federal court, and only an idiot heads to court knowing his/her loss is likely to establish an unwanted precedent. Even if the Federal courts contained a number of sympathetic judges, reds would be unlikely to become purple by litigation unless they were red islands floating in a purple sea. And the problem of getting a serious hearing in Federal court in the first place may be nontrivial: one needs a clear issue-at-law: if state law flatly says No dice! without obvious conflict with Federal law, what reason is there to expect judges to intervene? In fact, the only obvious strategy in the red states is to pick carefully away at the state constitutional restrictions by producing statutes that confer one right after another, until the issue inevitably heads to state court: if one or more statutes is then struck down, as conflicting with the state constitution, one needs some grounds to try to drag the case to the Federal level. Such grounds will be unavailable, unless one has carefully prepared a Federal statutory basis, and the case may be more likely to succeed if the Federal court sees in the region a number of states with more progressive laws

In the yellow and orange states, one should press directly for civil unions that look suspiciously like marriage. The orange state statutes should differ from full marriage in minor ways to avoid be overturned in court. The yellow state statutes should closely resemble full marriage, since a legislature may quietly and implicitly overturn prior statutes by passing new ones, simply by incorporating boilerplate language that "existing statutes are repealed to the extent to which they are inconsistent." Politically, however, it may be expedient to piecemeal such changes over several legislative sessions or in several unrelated pieces of legislation having distinct objectives. Thus, the orange and yellow gradually states become purple; similarly, one wants to turn the purple states green

Frankly, I don't see any other strategy that has a chance of success. Won't the opponents of civil unions will be working to turn the orange and yellow states red?

[AntiFascist]

19. I disagree with your characterization of California...

California should be the poster child for an enlightened government which is way ahead of its population. The arguments made by the Supreme Court in the California Marriage Ruling are precedent-setting, and in no way endorse civil unions over marriage, in fact civil unions are ruled out. Prop 8 only passed due to some quick thinking and hard work on behalf of the Yes on 8 people and a little push from the President-Elect. There's no reason the majority of the populace will continue to support the redefinition of marriage, particularly when they are educated on all of the underlying issues, and continue to witness the response by the GLBTIQ community.

[struggle4progress]

21. Politically, the state has always been a mixed bag: it has often been a beacon, but it has

a full measure of wackos and idiots as well. While I find much to like about California, history provides little evidence that the state is a "poster child for an enlightened government." I am happy to applaud the California high court's ruling on gay marriage. But anyone who has ever lived there, as I have, knows that California also has plenty of rightwingers, and that there is no cause for unbridled optimism

I hope that you are correct in your assessment that Prop 8 passed only because rightwingers out-organized progressives. However, the fact that the rightwing was able to do so means (at minimum) that there is a politically significant rightwing in the state and that progressives are woefully under-organized there. The true test of your optimistic thesis should be: can progressives successfully repeal Prop 8 in 2010?

And if tis thy view that Obama somehow bears any responsibility for Prop 8, then must I certainly regard thee as daft

[AntiFascist]

22. Government includes all 3 branches of government...

and my assessment was largely based on the CA Supreme Court justices (which I understand were all appointed by Republicans) as well as a large portion of the legislature. Even the governor eventually came around to supporting gay marriage.

I won't deny that a huge portion of the state is right-wing and has plenty of money available to oppose our cause. The first test of my optimistic thesis will come when the CA Supreme Court makes a decision whether to overturn Prop 8, sometime after March. The enlightened state AG, who would normally defend Prop 8, has already determined that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, I do view Obama as somehow bearing responsibility for Prop 8 by virtue of the comments he made at the Saddleback debate, and the fact that his comment was used to great advantage in Yes on 8 ads and robocalls. This is not a daft assessment.

[struggle4progress]

23. Obama rejects proposed California gay marriage ban (July 08)

By Aurelio Rojas
[email protected]
Published: Tuesday, Jul. 01, 2008 | Page 3A
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who previously said the issue of gay marriage should be left up to each state, has announced his opposition to a California ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote ...

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html

[struggle4progress]

24. Obama's stance on Prop. 8 (Nov 08)

7:31 AM, November 3, 2008

On MTV, Barack Obama tried to explain why he opposes gay marriage but also is opposed Proposition 8:

Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." At the same time, Obama reiterated his opposition to Proposition 8, the California ballot measure that would eliminate the right to same-sex marriage that the state's Supreme Court recently recognized.

"I've stated my opposition to this. I think it's unnecessary," Obama told MTV. "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about."

San Francisco Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross sum up the hopes of the pro- and anti-Prop. 8 camps this way: "The pro-same-sexers are betting on the coattails of a big sympathetic turnout generated by Barack Obama's run for the presidency. Democratic tracking polls show that 7 out of 10 Obama voters are ready to vote "no" on the proposed constitutional amendment the marriages. The anti-same-sex-marriage campaign is betting on something that may be just as powerful: a last-minute "Sunday surge" of ministers campaigning from the pulpit" ...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/obamas-tricky-s.html

[AntiFascist]

26. Yes, I realize Obama also took those positions...

it's too bad they didn't get as much airplay as his comment supporting heterosexual-only marriage.

Those stories are dated Nov. 1 and Nov. 3. That was a little late in the game.

On edit: ok so one story came out in July, but it was still only targeted to the liberal media and it was really only the GLBT news which repeated the story of what Obama said on MTV.

[struggle4progress]

28. Well, keep attacking your friends instead of your enemies: I'm sure nothing I say will get through.

[AntiFascist]

29. uh, where have I attacked anyone?

pointing out the truth about how Obama may have helped the Yes on 8 campaign is not an attack, my friend.

Let's see, I started off this sub-thead disagreeing with your characterization of California, then I stated that Prop 8 succeeded with a little push from Obama (and,ok I'll admit, more than a little ineptitude from the No on 8 side). How is this an attack?

I'm not one of those posters who comes in calling allies homophobes and so forth.

[struggle4progress]

25. Proposition 8 campaign misrepresents Obama's position (Nov 2008)

By Julia Rosen Saturday Nov 01, 2008 1:00pm

... The quote is real, Obama and Biden oppose marriage, BUT refuse to take away rights from Americans. Here is the statement they released in reaction to the mailer:

"Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' While Senators Obama and Biden oppose same-sex marriage, they support civil unions," said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

Now the question is will more people hear about Obama's real position on Prop 8 than will read the mailer? It is up to us to help spread the word ...

http://crooksandliars.com/julia-rosen/prop-8-campaign-misrepresents-obamas-p

[AntiFascist]

27. Again this was dated Nov. 1....

the Courage Campaign made a valiant effort, unfortunately most of the money seems to have gotten funneled into eqca, which some feel did a piss poor job towards the end.

The fact remains that both Obama and Biden only 'believe in' heterosexual marriage.

[jumptheshadow]

30. From the old thread, about New York...

The Democratic party just took over the state legislature for the first time in years. Both the governor and most of the Democratic legislators support gay marriage...

yet...

one man, Ruben Diaz, will block state-legislatedgay marriage (and civil unions) because of an internal compromise among the Democrats. When politicians compromise and triangulate (like P.E Obama does), the rights of gay voters are considered expendable.

May it also point out that one man, Gov. David Patterson, was responsible for mandating that state offices recognize foreign marriages, which means that my Canadian marriage with my partner of 17 years will be recognized. We don't know what this means, because they are sorting it out.

However, we still pay taxes on $6,000 a year on the domestic partnership insurance she gets for me through her company, because that is within the federal realm.

[AntiFascist]

34. Diaz is likely standing up for what he believes in religiously...

shouldn't we kiss his ass because at least he is willing to compromise? :sarcasm:

[cali]

31. wrong. there certainly is a very active movement in Vermont to move to full marriage

equality. It will almost certainly be fought in the legislature either this session or the next, and though it's likely to pass both the House and Senate, there's little doubt that our idiot repuke gov will veto it.

Make no mistake, Vermont will institute full marriage equality through the legislative process.

[Teaser]

33. "the civil unions only strategy is a dead end that at best will lead to no progress at all"

Assertion is not argument.

[dsc]

35. the whole rest of the post

It has lead to no progress at all toward marriage in any of the states in which it has been tried thus far. There is no movement legislatively, where it matters for this argument, to legalize gay marriage. I will admit, that courts are doing so, but civil unions is irrelevent to that. Vermont and the rest of the states with civil unions are serving as a case study and that case study shows it just isn't working.