Marriage Equality vs. Civil Unions
Yesterday Governor Markell held a meeting with state bloggers to talk about state issues. In the meeting I asked the governor if he supported marriage equality and he stated that he supports the Civil Union legislation being discussed in Dover now.. When I challenged him as to why he didn’t support full marriage equality, he stated that he hadn’t thought through it.
As I told the governor I’m not a fan of civil unions. It’s not that I don’t support the idea behind them but I think it still puts LGBT people in a second, “lesser” status. Civil unions still preserve the idea that opposite sex marriage is somehow better and purer and allows people to preserve their prejudice. It is ridiculous to me to argue about the sanctity of Newt Gingrich’s third marriage or Rush Limbaugh’s fourth marriage.
I like to tell people that my husband and I have a civil union. We were married by a judge at a B&B. One could argue that marriage is a religious ritual but it’s already too late. The state is already in the “marriage” business, recognizing marriage as a contract that comes with certain rights and privileges. Civil unions are supposed to recognize the legal contract while preserving the word “marriage” for heterosexual couples.
In my mind it’s a simple issue of fairness. If some couples are allowed marriage, it should be available to same sex couples as well. Our rights are supposed to be for everyone. Rights aren’t something that should be put to a vote.
If civil unions is the only thing we can get, of course I support this. But I can’t get excited about relegating same sex couples to a better (perhaps significantly better) second class status.
I’m in agreement with you UI. This whole “civil union” is bullshit. Either your married or not. It’s surprising that Markell hasn’t thought it through or maybe he has and he’s more concerned about his further political career that making a stand on marriage. But that’s just guess work on my side.
That said, I was disappointed in candidate Obama’s gay marriage stance during the election. However, I realized at the time that if Obama came out of gay marriage, he would never be elected.
Also, something to consider. Marriage should only be done by the state, not proxies for the state like ministers. If you want a church wedding, go for it. But to be legally married, you must be married by a judge or some other gov’t employee. This sort of system is done around the world.
When I was significantly younger than I am now I didn’t get married because of similar concern about marriage equality. It wasn’t right to have the privileges associated with marriage just in the case of my partner being the opposite gender. We agreed on it.
Then my partner became fatally ill. We got married, and everyone there was gay or lesbian. Because we were able to do that the nightmare that was being widowed was a BIT more navigable. Some of our friends went to Canada to get married, and therefore had their benefits recognized by NYS.
It’s easy, when you CAN get married, to be absolute about it. It’s easy, when you’re young, to think that “marriage” is about your dress tux, and the song you’ll play for your dance, and how happy your friends will be to celebrate your love. Or to think that it’s “just a piece of paper.”
I don’t think those things are the issue. I think that the right to have health coverage, inheritance, shared credit, hospital visits and to pick out a coffin are WAY more important than any more abstract notion. If civil unions gets that, the agony saved will be enormous.
Stupid people who oppose gay marriage are dying off. Then we’ll get the whole thing. But let’s get what we can, now. I’ve been involved in dozens of cases where the guardianship of children was at issue because the families couldn’t, or wouldn’t, legally marry. The state considers them orphaned, now, if the legal parent dies, and they go into foster care or have their fates decided by estranged and hostile families.
If Governor Markell will sign a bill for civil unions, let him sign it, and back him up 100 percent. It’s important.
Nemski, that first marriage was done by a minister. It was a holiday weekend and the local judge wouldn’t do it. When you have people like that character in Alabama who wouldn’t marry interracial couples, who may be the only judge in the area, you don’t protect gay rights by disenfranchising the ministers of Metropolitan Community Church and the Unitarian Universalists.
heragain’s comment reminds me that pushing for Delaware to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states is a good idea.
LOL heragain, because progressive churches out number conservative churches like 100 to 1. Oh wait, it’s the other way around 10,000 conservative churches for every 1 progressive church.
Take civil marriage out of churches period.
I do think that there ought to be a very bright line between what the State is interested in (civil unions) and the sacrament of marriage. There is no justice of the peace or judge who is performing the sacrament and clergy shouldn’t be allowed to sanction civil contracts between two people. If civil unions get you all of the legal privileges of a marriage contract but without the sacrament, that works for me.
Agreed Cassandra. For instance a civil union law could be passed that says if you were married by clergy prior to Jan 1, 2020 then it’s considered a legal civil marriage, after that date, if you want legal protection under the rights of civil marriage, then you must be married by the justice of the peace.
If the legal definition were to be set according to its traditional religious meaning, then we would have to look at the Catholic interpretation of it. If it become a matter of interpretation, then it is a matter for the U.S Supreme Court to decide (unless we amend the Constitution). There are six Catholics and three Jewish Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court (John Paul Stevens was the last Protestant on the Court), so the Catholic interpretation may well be the most influential. Since re-marriages after divorce are not recognized by the Catholic Church, will there be a whole new group of people (Gingrich and Limbaugh leading the way) crying out for marriage equality?
Actually, I think the state should get out of the marriage business entirely. If you want to get married, go see your priest/rabbi/minister/shaman. To dissolve the marriage, go back to them. No marriage licenses at all.
I agree MJ, that the state should be out of the marriage business. But the state still has to recognize the relationship for legal purposes, for such things as inheritance, next of kin issues, power of attorney issues, divorce and property distribution, taxation issues, testimonial privilege issues, etc., etc. Thus, what the state should do and all it should is issue a Civil Union Certificate to any two people who are of age, who are not related within whatever degree of kinship is the law, and who consent to the union. This certificate would be issued to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. And that’s it.
If any couple wants to have all the religious and traditional stuff that make up what we call a marriage today, i.e. the religious ceremony at a church, then they can go to whatever church or temple or mosque that will marry them.
I like Gov. Markell, but I don’t believe for one moment that he hasn’t “thought through” marriage equality. There is very little to think through about it. It merely extends what the state already does with heterosexual marriages. If he had simply said that DE is not yet ready to accept marriage equality and, therefore, he cannot support it now, I would have appreciated that answer more (although I would have still disagreed). By proffering the haven’t-thought-through answer but holding out civil unions, Gov Markell is trying to have it both ways. He is able to give the anti marriage equality crowd something they want while giving the marriage equality people and progressives a facsimile of what they want.
“To dissolve the marriage, go back to them. No marriage licenses at all.”
And to decide who gets custody of the kids we turn to…?
“Gov Markell is trying to have it both ways”
He made that clear when he ran as a Democrat.
Geezer – work it out. If you want a religious marriage, let the church/synagogue/whatever make the decision.
Sure thing, MJ. Want me to saddle up your unicorn for you?
This issue was brought to the Governor in early spring of 2009. Same answer then, “haven’t thought it through.” He’s been busy, but not THAT busy.
Gays getting hitched is a historical inevitability. Everybody is now fighting about how soon it should happen. That’s progress.
Eh, just give it enough time and there will be other types of marriages too. polygamy, line/group marriges; in about a 100 years, this is going to be fringe. Imagine the protests then, “marriage is between a couple! Not this abomination!” I say, as long as everyone consents and understands, let em have at it. The government should be out of the “love” defining business.
If Markell shoots for gay marriage now, it will be used as a wedge issue in 2012 and not only could it take out Markell, but it could lose the Ds control of the State House or the Senate, especially if the economy is still stagnant and if passage fails it will certainly send the Ds into 2012 limping. (And if you factor in the Blue Dogs like Atkins who will vote against gay marriage, failure is certainly a possibility).
If Markell waits until after he wins reelection in 2012 and then goes for gay marriage he doesn’t risk losing in 2012, and he has a better chance of keeping the legislature locked up by the Democrats.
Tactically the smartest thing for Markell to do with this issue is to think about rainbows and lollipops every time someone brings up gay marriage and then slam through gay marriage on the first week of the new legislative session in 2013.
That’s what I would do if I were the Governor, and I’d probably throw in a few choice, pro gay marriage comments from Dick Cheney at the bill signing to see if Republican David’s head explodes.
Markell’s comment that he hadn’t thought through gay marriage is still sticking in my craw. It’s getting quite uncomfortable.
If single payer comes to America it probably won’t start in Delaware.
That said, what sticks in my craw was the “prolonged smile” over single payer. And I wasn’t even there.
I guess a smile is better than what the White House said about us when we wanted a public option.
Phil: The government is not in the love-defining business. It’s in the contract-defining business.
Well I’m all for gay marriage, even though I’m not gay. But I think gaymale marriages should pay more income taxes because men, on the average, make more money than women. Likewise gayfemale marriages should get an income tax break.
Um…they already pay more taxes based on their higher combined incomes.
But I think gaymale marriages should pay more income taxes
You mean the first penis in the marriage is deductible, but the second one gets taxed?
I think the most remarkable part of UI’s story is the part when the Governor was asked why he didn’t support gay marriage (he only supported civil unions) and he actually said he hadn’t thought it through. Huh??? You come out in support of civil unions, so you have obviously thought about this topic. Am I seriously to believe that you never thought about the other alternatives. Spare me…we aren’t that stupid. You thought about it. You just don’t want it. Let’s be honest.
This is about civil rights. As far as I am concerned, it’s a no-brainer. It doesn’t matter if you are gay or straight, you should have the right to proclaim your love and commitment and have that recognized by the government whatever orientation you are. It’s just horrible that we deny people in this country equal rights based on who they love. It’s also a tremendous insult for the Governor to say he didn’t give it much thought. UI, I hope your response to him was …Well, think about it!
Yeah, that was pretty lame, Wilmington. This post is my response to that response in case he needs grounding to think about it.
I appreciate that, UI. Thanks for making this post.
I just read the part in the News Journal today where Colin Bonini actually asks about the financial impact of this. There’s another “huh” comment, just like the Governor’s.
Still scratching my head over why the NJ sought out a quote from Bonini. Best guess is that they saw Flowers’ name in the story.
Nonetheless, once again Clueless Colin shows he’s got not the slightest idea what he’s talking about.
I just can’t understand why the News Journal sought a comment from an opponent of marriage equality, but didn’t offer a quote from those supporting equality. Maybe an interview or some quotes from supporters is a blog post idea for DL.
It’s old-fashioned journalism at work. You see a sizable number of people on one side of the issue, so you’ve got to find someone from the other side. And then you give the other side equal space, regardless of the relevance/substance of their position.
Come to think of it, here’s why the NJ went to Bonini: He’s on the “No” side of every issue.
I don’t understand why LGBT activists don’t push to eliminate marriage licenses, and make civil unions available to all couples, gay, straight, and other. Sure, the government is already in the marriage business — but let’s get it out of the marriage business.
The civil unions bill that Sokola and George plan to introduce is not a solution. It’s a band-aid. It’s like saying, “We’re not going to push for equality, but we’ll settle for the next best thing, for now.” If the state only granted genderless civil unions, and allowed couples to handle marriage privately, wouldn’t we have equality in Delaware?
The alternative is to continue to push for state-recognized gay marriage, which will be quite a struggle, even in a blue state. Democrats control the legislature, but not all of those Democrats will vote for gay marriage. Civil unions, though — that’s something a bipartisan coalition could get behind.
“Sure, the government is already in the marriage business — but let’s get it out of the marriage business.”
One libertarian pipe dream, with a side of unicorn horns, coming right up.
The government is already in the marriage business, that’s my point. Yes, if we were starting from scratch I would say the gov does “civil unions” and marriage stays as a religious institution. However, the government is already in the marriage business.
But if you’ve got to fight an uphill struggle and make major changes to the way the state government recognizes couples, why not choose the one that is slightly more likely to attract bipartisan support?