One of the greatest things about America is the premise that we all have the same rights as citizens. We take that for granted, which is fairly revolutionary if you peruse the history of civilization. (Oh, for sure, we haven't always lived up to that premise, but we're getting better at it all the time.)
See, though, when we created a subset of supercool privileges that you had to be married to access, then we restricted certain adults from claiming those rights, we broke our promise to equality. Yes, I'm talking about the ongoing discrimination against our gay population.
Legally, it's an advantage to be married: visitation rights, parental rights, inheritance rights all are enhanced within the (mostly) friendly confines of marriage. In effect, to deny gays the right to marry is to block their path to a whole series of rights the rest of us married folk take for granted. That's not right, and I'm tired of pretending that it's OK.
There is a simple answer to this dilemma, and it calls for less government, not more. (Bad Democrat! BAD Democrat!!) It goes like this: we could just retire the government from the marriage business altogether.
What you do is, you let the state simply grant civil unions to all pairs of consenting adults. You let each church or each denomination or each religion grant marriage licenses. But no additional rights are conferred on the happy couple who chooses to wed in the church/synagogue/mosque/generic gym-sanctuary-concert hall-house of God. No, the civil unions give all couples the same rights. Regardless of sexual orientation. It's a clean solution.
It's called equality, and it's about time we started living up to it.
(EDIT 9:30 p.m.: Click here for a look at how uberpollmeister Nate Silver breaks down the polling trends on this issue.)
So, what other rights would you make equal? All of them? I'm not saying I disagree with you, in fact, I think this is yet another example of "moral" legislation that just doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteHowever, equality in everything is a slippery slope. Isn't that clost to saying, "Let's get rid of all crime by making everything legal"?
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteGlad you're doing a blog. I can't stomach facebook discussions. :)
Brad: huh?
John: You're proposal is fine, but help me understand how it is more substantial than a shifty change in vocabulary. You don't want the government to do anything but change the word they put on the license. You still want all the frills and advantages for couples...and the consequent disadvantages for singles and trios and other formations.
So you want the government to use nifty new semantics for the doublet arrangement. Fair enough. You're unlikely to get flak from the left for that. But I'm not sure you'll make any progress with people trying to keep marriage hetero. The reason is that they are not just interested in protecting a religious institution - Miss California wants to influence the civil situation.
So they'll happily let you change the words around, as long as "civil unions" are only given out to hetero couples.
I think the wide availability of gender reconstructive surgery makes this issue even more absurd. When the church (or state) refuses to sanction a union due to gender, are they/we not saying "come back after you get surgery?"
Here in Massachusetts we let people keep their original equipment.
Hey - I was in Ted Kennedy's senate office in DC yesterday...asking for earmark money. :)
If only you would have started your blog a day earlier I could have suggested your idea to him. :)
Eric
All I really care about is that folks get the same basic civil rights regardless of ... well, regardless of pretty much anything. I don't even think felons should lose the right to vote as they do in some states, but that's a different post for a different day. In the case of marriage, the main misstep gay marriage supporters have made is to misframe the issue. Americans support equal treatment and the protection of civil rights. That's the tack to take.
ReplyDeleteNow fortunately, the future is bright for a broader definition of marriage. Here's a cool link on the issue, where uberpollmeister Nate Silver dissects the trends in gay marriage polling. Just click here.
Eric - How's Teddy? Does he stand a chance of finishing out his term? So glad you visited, and I have more tonight on the way. I hadn't even thought about the T section of GLBT. Good point. And my timing clearly sucks.
Brad - I didn't follow your argument. Please try again from another angle or explain further, with new fancy words. You know, since you have mega-oodles of free time. :)
OK, my attempt to link to fivethirtyeight.com at the end of that comment's second paragraph was an abject failure. So I snuck it in at the end of the post instead. Feel free to try that. Or bookmark that site, it's completely worth it.
ReplyDeletefivethirtyeight kinda fell off my radar after November. Guess they're still busy.
ReplyDeleteTed wasn't in the office - I met with his Chief Advisor. He's not feeling great, I hear...but I doubt he bails on his term. I'd never been in the Senate Building (or any of those Capitol Hill buildings) before, so it was amazing. I have a friend who works in the old Obama office (Burris now) so I got to get into the part of the building too.
Looks like we may get some money to start a Center for Justice at ENC...earmark money, of course. Porkbarrel fun.
So if Silver is right, and people are trending toward acceptance of gay marriage, why bother getting government out of the "marriage business"?
I agree, by the way, that this is a civil rights issue. Either we build gay drinking fountains and put homosexuals in the back of the bus, or we legalize gay marriage...in the middle is creepiness.
Eric -- answer to paragraph 4: Nate may well be right, but I don't think it's acceptable to just wait it out for, say, 15 years, which is what it will take on a national level. We should do what we can now, which is to try get everyone their rights and worry about the language later.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we limit this to the construct of a civil union? There are many situations that an increased connectivity within family units would be appropriate. Aunts and Uncles that care for sibling children and the associated rights or that inherit their "boyfriends" estates. In reality we have protections for these unders the legal system such as adoption and wills. If carefully executed (such as in writing) these questions are answered.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of insurance from employers though, it is the employer's right to dole out benefits as they see fit. It is not government's role to dictate additional layers of care to partners from an employer. If the employer chooses to add that, it is there right as an individual entity. They should not be forced the additional financial burden.
Less government intervention in the first place I think would make a better society that is truly driven by the people rather than controlled from above.