I want to put in a good word about civil unions

[cali]

yes, marriage is preferable, but civil unions can be a stepping stone and provide protections to gay and lesbian couples that they wouldn't have otherwise. And all civil unions are not equal. It depends on how the statute is written. In Vermont, civil unions provide every single state benefit and responsibility that marriage bestows on straight couples. And marriage in MA and CT and CA is not recognized by the federal gov't.

Again, marriage is what we should strive for. But I think the comparison between Jim Crow laws which came into existence to codify oppression and bigotry and maintain the status quo, is just not accurate. Civil unions are intended to grant more rights not fewer.

I suspect I'll get some criticism for this post, so I'll repeat once more, that I'm not suggesting civil unions are an adequate substituton for marriage. I am trying to make the point that I think they can be useful to gay and lesbians couples on the way to full marriage rights for all.

[shadowknows69]

1. I've expressed the same sentiment in the past and been called a bigot for my troubles

Don your flame proof suit cali.

[mondo joe]

2. I'm practical enough to recognize the stepping stone. And in my state, I've taken

advantage of it.

I have no argument with you regarding that.

I do have arguments with other stances regarding civil unions.

[mtnester]

3. I am sure you will be thanked for the stepping stones sentiment, however

they don't work across state lines, nor at the federal level.

Nice try though....again.

[cali]

4. Neither does gay marriage work across state lines

or at the federal level. That's just a fact.

[cali]

5. kick

because trashing civil unions doesn't help in the fight for full marriage rights.

[HamdenRice]

6. Most people are clueless about the history of the GLBT struggle

The litigation strategy of the mainstream GLBT organizations, like the civil rights litigation strategy, was a very intelligent, very strategic, very long term strategy in which civil unions were a major victory and stepping stone.

The idea was to struggle for civil unions that provided all the rights and benefits of marriage, first. Once the population got used to the idea of gays and lesbians having all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage through civil unions, then it would be one last small step to abolish the semantic difference between civil unions and marriage.

We're almost at that point now, but there have been huge setbacks, such as in California.

But the idea that civil unions are some kind of evil almost like slavery is bizarre, ahistorical and counter-factual. It was the GLBT organizations that fought for equal civil unions in the first place.

In fact, the strategy worked: the majority of Americans support absolute equality via civil unions, except for "the word". Civil unions do not now provide absolute equality across state lines, but that could be remedied.

The strategic question now is whether: (1) to continue pressing for "the word, marriage" or (2) to continue pressing for absolute equality for civil unions as a stepping stone to getting "the word" marriage some time in the future.

Right now the symbolism of "the word" has become so overwhelmingly important to the GLBT community that the leadership and legal strategists of the GLBT movement probably cannot go back to option 2. But I also don't see how they can press for option 1 in the SCOTUS without risking an even worse catastrophe -- namely, a definitive federal opinion that marriage isn't required by the 14th Amendment. That would set the struggle back for decades.

I suppose the best thing to do is wait for at least one Obama appointment to SCOTUS and then gamble on 1.

And btw, talking about strategy should not be construed as not supporting full marriage equality, although some will try to do so.

[cali]

7. Excellent, excellent post, Hamden. (As are so many of your posts)

I'm afraid you summed up the way forward accurately.

Vermont is truly a case in point of the civil union strategy. 10 years ago the state was narrowly divided on civil unions and the fight was harrowing. 9 years after civil unions were enacted, over 70% approve of civil unions and a smaller majority support full marriage. This session or the next, the legislature will almost surely pass marriage for all.

People swiftly got used to civil unions that granted gays and lesbians
all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Now that that's happened, erasing the semantic difference is much easier. When the VT SC came out with their decision in 1999 to allow either civil unions or marriage to be enacted by legislature, I was disappointed that they hadn't mandated marriage. Now I can actually see the wisdom of that decision. I think the rifts would have been much harder to heal had they mandated marriage.

[HamdenRice]

8. Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) call civil unions "Momentous Victory"

Thanks for the kind words.

I realize that people want marriage rights now, but the idea that civil unions are some horror show is truly bizarre.

One of the most important GLBT organizations to litigate these cases is GLAD. Here's a link to their explanation of how they litigated the case in Vermont that led to what they call "A Momentous Legal Victory" in attaining "civil unions" in Vermont.

So if GLAD supported civil unions how are they "worse than slavery"?

http://www.glad.org/work/cases/baker/civil-unions

GLAD’s Role in Winning Civil Unions

GLAD represented the plaintiff couples in Baker v. State, the landmark case that set the stage for the passage of civil union legislation the following year, together with co-counsel Beth Robinson and Susan Murray of the Vermont law firm Langrock, Sperry, & Wool.

A Momentous Legal Victory!

Thanks to the December 20, 1999 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker v. State and the subsequent work of the Vermont state legislature, which enacted the civil union law in response to the court decision, same-sex couples are now able to enter into “civil unions” in the State of Vermont.

A civil union is a comprehensive legal status parallel to civil marriage for all purposes under Vermont state law. According to the Vermont civil union law, spouses in a civil union will enjoy the same state law protections and responsibilities as are available to spouses in a marriage.

<end quote>

That's why it sounds to me that many advocates of marriage now, however, well intentioned and emotionally committed to the cause, simply don't know their own history.

And that's sad, and is leading to lots of ill-will and misunderstanding.