Galois: Civil Unions: Some Suggestions (3 of 3)

Books Relevant to Same-Sex Marriage

Other Books of Interest

My Wish List

Blog powered by Typepad

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Civil Unions: The Problems (2 of 3) | Main | I'm Back »

August 06, 2004

Civil Unions: Some Suggestions (3 of 3)

(Part 1 is here.)

Despite all of these problems, civil unions do have a better chance of passage (especially in a state that already has an amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage). Such passage can lead to some real protections for real families that need them now, and not twenty years down the road. So for those people, especially politicians, who claim to support civil unions but not “marriage” for same-sex couples, I suggest the following:

Be clear about what you mean when you say you support “civil unions”. Politicians hate to be specific, but this is particularly important. I would suggest that all the laws which apply to marriage apply equally to civil unions, but at least if one does not support that he or she should explain how it would differ and why such differences are justified.
Do something about it. It is not enough to say you support in theory civil unions simply as a tool to justify a stance against marriage. You cannot say same-sex couples and their families do not need marriage because they can have civil unions when they don’t even have that much. For individuals, write and phone your legislators. For politicians, draft legislation and speak about the importance of protecting these families.
Work for federal recognition of civil unions. As noted this would solve one of the biggest problems with civil unions. There is no way to argue that civil unions could provide all of the benefits of marriage when the federal government does not recognize civil unions for any purpose.
Work for state recognition of foreign civil unions and marriages. You may wish to call a Canadian or Massachusetts marriage a "civil union", but that does not mean you must ignore it. Portability of marriage is a very important aspect and on what basis should it be denied to same sex couples?
Make it clear that civil unions deserve the same respect as marriage outside of the law as well. I do not believe it is a wise move to use a different term here, but if one is to go this route, it needs to be understood that the commitment made in a civil union is the same as one made in a marriage and is one that we all should honor.

11:52 AM in Civil Unions | Permalink

Comments

Nice post. I agree with the recommendations. I don't think any politician will adopt them because, cynic that I am, I think the whole point of saying you are for unions is to avoid saying precisely what one is for. Until a law defining unions is enacted, "unions" could range from "everything associated to marriage except the word", to "something distinctly less".

Posted by: lucia | August 06, 2004 at 03:54 PM

Thanks Lucia. It's kind of like a politician saying he or she is for eliminating government waste. That's great, but unless we know exactly what they consider "waste" it's impossible to judge whether that's a good idea. I don't expect most politicians to follow these suggestions, but I hope the voters and journalists try to pin them down a little more and ask to see what concrete actions they have taken.

Posted by: Galois | August 06, 2004 at 04:18 PM

One very serious difficulty that I have with civil unions can be stated as follows:

Marriage for gays and lesbians means that they get all the same things straight people do.

Civil unions mean a separate institution, one that is subject to separate tinkering, separate qualifications, and a number of potentially invidious distinctions to be made in what is after all a very new institution. A civil union plan in Vermont may offer everything that a marriage does--but one can easily imagine plans that fall far short of this. It's not even much of a stretch to picture that Nebraska or Texas might implement a civil union plan that was nothing more than a registry of gay couples--so much the better to keep an eye on them.

Posted by: Jason Kuznicki | August 06, 2004 at 08:51 PM

Yes, Jason. And I tend to suspect that's the whole point of using a different word! If you call it something different as a matter or law, then it's possible to define separates rights and responsibilities.

That's why, when I commented over at your site, one of my questions was: If it's supposed to be "exactly the same" as marriage,then what is the point of a different word?

Posted by: lucia | August 07, 2004 at 04:15 PM

Exactly Jason. A good point. And they've done that here in California. Of course they've been _adding_ more instead of subtracting, but if they can give they can take away, especially if its just 'those gay couples' and not everyone.

I for one find 'Domestic Partnerships' (which my partner and I have here in CA) and Civil Unions somewhat like being given raw chicken when everyone else gets a nice roasted chicken with vegetables, mashed potatoes and gravy. We are starving, so we'll at least hold our nose and force the raw chicken down... but the roasted chicken dinner that everyone else gets is what we really need and deserve.

Posted by: trey | August 08, 2004 at 01:23 PM

As I mentioned here, that is a significant problem of civil unions. I am only considering civil unions which are at least equal in law, as in Vermont. Possibly tomorrow I will write a little about domestic partnerships which is what I call it when there is any legal distinction (other than name) from marriage. Trey points out, however, another problem of even "equal" civil unions and that is even if there are no current distinctions, by separating it and giving it a distinct label you open yourself more to subsequent changes in the future.

Posted by: Galois | August 08, 2004 at 02:03 PM