The value of non-marriage relationship recognition

August 22, 2010

by Adam Bink

I got a few questions over e-mail after my piece the other day discussing how polling that includes questions of support for lesser forms of equality, e.g. domestic partnerships, doesn’t accurately reflect the feelings of those surveyed. The crux of the questions related to whether pushing for domestic partnerships or civil unions, since they give people a “way out” of supporting full marriage equality- along the “just don’t call it marriage” line- is a smart strategy for advocates of the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.

Two thoughts:

1. Non-marriage relationship recognition is both a product of, and a building block towards, the fight to win full marriage equality. I don’t believe we would be where we are today without having achieved other forms of relationship recognition. That’s not necessarily the path every state has to take, but the point is that there is value in these kinds of relationship recognition as a building block towards marriage equality. As Stan Baker, one of the plaintiffs in the 1999 Baker v. Vermont case that led to the legislature’s creation of civil unions, said on the occasion of the passage of marriage equality in Vermont:

The ground has literally shifted and I think the work we did 9, 10, 11 years ago has really paid off in terms of moving Vermont to a different place. So the dialogue has happened. I think people know that the sky isn’t going to fall, they know that life will go on. In fact I think they know that extending the franchise of marriage to gay, lesbian, bixexual people actually strengthens the fabric of our communities.

2. Rights still matter, and it comes down to what is best for the same-sex couples affected by the strategy. I touched on this in a piece at my home blog, OpenLeft.com:

The second issue is that if you ask couples in Hawaii if they’d rather have civil unions and the rights that come with them tomorrow or marriage equality in a few years, many would take civil unions, even with its problems. When I think about whether or not to engage in these kinds of campaigns, for me in the end, it all comes down to what would be best for those who are most affected by a law. Give-and-take over whether to reject civil unions and hold out for marriage are always important, but at the end of the day, we’re still talking about people’s medical rights, health insurance, burial rights, and more. If that’s what’s best for same-sex couples in Hawaii and it’s the best move to make strategically, then half-measure or not, that’s what works for me.

3. It’s not ideal, but non-marriage relationship recognition like civil unions can create real-world proof that less than full equality isn’t good enough. This was articulated well by commenter texas dem in my post:

A few years of civil unions, and a few horror stories of their failures, can help prepare people for and convince people of the need for full marriage equality.

We see this in New Jersey, where among other travesties, members of same-sex couples are denied visitation rights or won’t be given critical medical information about each other in hospitals because hospital staff ignore their civil union certificate. Garden State Equality produced a great video on this (actually, on the occasion of NOM’s visit to the state):

It is still important to fight for full marriage equality- after all, you don’t get civil unions by asking for civil unions to start with. And it’s important to tell the story of why marriage is the only acceptable form of full equality, and “call it something else” isn’t acceptable. But the point is that there is value in relationship recognition, and multiple routes to the same destination of full equality.

Filed under: Community/Meta

34 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Subscribing

  • 2. Ann S.  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Sub-subscribing.

  • 3. Linda  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:14 am

    subscrbing

  • 4. Kathleen  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Me, too… then back to bed. my own version of lost weekend. :)

  • 5. Matthew  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:23 am

    I'd have to agree with this sentiment. Here in Alaska there are no recognitions for gay relationships. I personally won't/can't be happy till my partner and I can get married. But I wouldn't begrudge anyone else for accepting a lesser compromise. Any more than I would judge a straight person for getting a civil union. The inevitable horror stories like what happened to Clay in Sonoma county, CA become powerful evidence to change hearts and minds.

    I can't believe how often people tell me I should just go to CA or Mass to get married. They don't realize the law they voted for here a few years ago strips away our rights when we cross the border. They hate the notion that someones marriage can be taken away from them. But they still have the 'you brought it on yourself for choosing to be gay' mentality.

  • 6. Don in Texas  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:24 am

    "Separate but equal is inherently unequal."

    The crux of the matter is the liberty, the fundamental right, to marry the person of one's choice in full equality under the law.

    There can be no incremental bestowing of rights. We either have equality or we do not.

    Rights are not something which are given to us. They are something that no one can take from us.

  • 7. Linda  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:35 am

    @Matthew…
    ‘you brought it on yourself for choosing to be gay’

    That sums it up quite succinctly. That is truly the attitude we encounter.

    I am non-religious. I don't seek the 'sanctity' of marriage, I seek the protection a civil marriage can offer. I feel perfectly capable of making a life-long commitment to my girlfriend without the 'blessing' of clergy or court. That's not the point of marriage, for me. Rather, I want a public acknowledgement of our commitment. I am willing to sign the contract; no problem. But I want the protections and benefits that come from signing that contract.

    I live in CA; and we do have a pretty comprehensive DP here. But…..it still isn't recognized federally; and it still doesn't extend to long-term care benefits, or social security. There are still limitations. And until DOMA is repealed there will be no such thing as 'separate but equal', even in states with full marriage equality.

    I think the public is deceived on this issue. They are lied to, and are told that CU's and DP's are just the same as marriage–minus that precious word. We need to make it clear that they are NOT. We, as American citizens, want access to the same rights as everyone else.

  • 8. Alan McCornick  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:35 am

    We’re working for a time when gays and lesbians no longer live as also-ran people, socially and legally. Denial of same-sex marriage rights only occurs to people who think there is something wrong with homosexuality. Every time I look at my domestic partnership certificate, I see a concession we made to those people. Separate-but-equal as a concept has a history of shame in the United States. It’s a good place to be only in relation to being bullied and rejected, not anyplace you want to end up. I think it’s important not to lose sight of the ultimate goal, and to work back from there. Our differences over when to settle for less and when to push for full equality become minor as long as we agree on what we’re ultimately after.

  • 9. PamC  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:54 am

    We were civilized (or unionized?) in CT in 2005, partly due to the desire to put my spouse on my health insurance. It was the only way to do this.

    Since then, both of us found that not only did we have to continue coming out continually, but also constantly explain what CU means. People don't get it. So we stopped using it, and just said we were married (which is true, now, as of the 5th of August, at least in CT).

    CT went thru a lot, at least red-tape-wise, in the interim between recognizing CU's and recognizing marriage for all. All of the forms that exist in reality or hypothetically were changed to accommodate CU as an option, and now that is changing to "marriage" and "spouse."

  • 10. Ann S.  |  August 22, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I'm so sorry you don't feel well today, Kathleen.

  • 11. Sagesse  |  August 22, 2010 at 9:01 am

    To have civil unions is progress. To achieve a level of legal recognition is less than equality, but better than no recognition at all. It makes the committed couples and families visible. But the hypocrisy has to end soon. With each state and federal battle against compromise and half measures, it becomes clearer that second class is always second class.

  • 12. JonT  |  August 22, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Helm, set course for Subscription 179, Warp Factor 7.

    Engage!

  • 13. Linda  |  August 22, 2010 at 9:03 am

    @Sagesse–

    And they're finding out that to legislate that 'second class' status is a nightmare, even for those who are staunchly against us.

  • 14. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 22, 2010 at 9:04 am

    Yes, ther is value in recognition via Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships, and they do give verifiable means to point out the inequities. That being said, we still need to fight for FULL Marriage Equality, and we need to compile accurate accountings of all the differences between marriage, CU & DP, and no recognition at all. And WRT CU & DP, part of the accountings of the differences needs to include the proof of relationship that is needed, including the cohabitation requirements. We also need to include the fact that CU & DP does not transfer over state lines, and that the cohabitation proof and minimum time period starts all over again.

  • 15. Don in Texas  |  August 22, 2010 at 9:15 am

    And until there is full equality — and a complete repeal of DOMA — there still is the matter of 1143 federal benefits that are denied to same-sex couples — another glaring example of inequality.

  • 16. Paul in Minneapolis  |  August 22, 2010 at 10:41 am

    Benefits that we, as taxpayers, help fund!

    I think the next rally sign I make will read "First class taxpayer, second class citizen."

  • 17. Ipse Dixit  |  August 22, 2010 at 10:45 am

    The incremental strategy worked in California (at least until Nov 2008), where DPs were expanded incrementally to the point of everything-but-the-word. The issue was thus reduced to an argument over the word marriage–and only the word marriage–culminating at the CA Supreme Court in In Re Marriage Cases. At that point, the defendants of opposite marriage could offer no legitimate reason why the state would create two classes of citizens, one entitled to the word "marriage" and one not, and so they lost the case (if memory serves) on equal protection grounds (under the CA constitution, not the US constitution).

    This case offers a template of how to win everything but the word legislatively, and then win full equality in the courts. I don't think full equality could have been won faster legislatively in CA, because Prop 22 (the older, diet version of Prop 8), tied the legislature's hands, and a voter initiative would have failed if Prop 8 is any indication. Whether equality could have been won faster through the courts alone is unknown. The court's reasoning in In Re Marriage Cases relied heavily on the fact that the legislature had established everything-but-the-word DPs. I don't know if the ruling tells us much about how they would have ruled absent comprehensive DPs.

  • 18. Linda  |  August 22, 2010 at 11:09 am

    Well, the DP's in CA are '*almost* everything but the word'. There are still some issues–specifically long-term care coverage–that are not equal.

  • 19. Linda  |  August 22, 2010 at 11:10 am

    @Paul–

    That's excellent. "First class taxpayer, second class citizen"

    Precisely.

  • 20. Fluffyskunk  |  August 22, 2010 at 11:18 am

    Agreed. It's not a building block; it's a stumbling block. To agree to civil unions is to concede that LGBT rights are something the government can grant and withhold at its will, something we do not inherently have that has to be extended to us out of pity.

    This is one big reason why we refused to get "domestic partnershipped" and instead got married for real in another state. We could not accept a paper from the government that officially confers to us a separate-but-equal status, with the implication that the government is so incredibly noble and magnanimous to grant us disgusting Untermenschen so much more than we deserve (which is nada).

  • 21. Ipse Dixit  |  August 22, 2010 at 11:53 am

    I think the legislature granted all the benefits within their power to grant, and that's what the court found significant. The benefits you mention are footnoted on p.43 of the In Re Marriage Cases decision. Long-term care coverage in particular is conditioned on federal eligibility requirements which, as the court points out, would exclude same-sex couples "even if same-sex couples were permitted to marry under California law, because for federal law purposes the nonemployee partner would not be considered a spouse."

  • 22. Dpeck  |  August 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    It's good to have whatever legal recognition we can get (DP, CU) while we're still fighting for full equality. This would be the 'bird in the hand is better than two in the bush" school of thought.

    But – this is ONLY acceptable if we make sure it does not interfere with our fight for full equality. I am reminded of a quote (anyone know who said this?) "The enemy of the best is not the worst, it is the 'good enough' ".

    Meaning we must not allow the achievement of DPs or CUs to make us complacent and cause us to ease up in our fight for full equality. These things should only be viewed as necessary compromises to offer same sex couples some degree of remedy for now, while we continue to work for full equality.

  • 23. Linda  |  August 22, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    You're right; it is a federal thing. But that makes the DP feel unequal to me. The implication by those who tout the DP as equal to marriage is that it IS equal…at least within the state boundaries. But it isn't. I cannot live with the same rights as my married neighbors.

    I guess my point is that marriage by any other name is just NOT the same thing.

  • 24. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    The first time I read that quote, Dpeck, was in a book that was first published in April 1939 and is currently in its 4th Edition. A book that is in two sections, and the only changes since 1939 have been in the second section of the book. A book I came to know as the Big Book.

  • 25. Ipse Dixit  |  August 22, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    I agree with others that we should not settle for anything less than equality. But I do see ways that incremental advances can serve us toward that end. Above I mentioned the role of CA DPs in the In Re Marriage Cases. I think another way to turn DPs/CUs to our advantage is to show how parallel institutions do not protect marriage at all, but actually undermine it.

    Public pressure has been successful at getting businesses, organizations, municipalities, and public institutions to stop conditioning benefits and services on marriage or on marriage alone. Thus, marriage gets marginalized to the extent that businesses and organizations deemphasize it in favor of equal pay and equal services. Our opponents have been unable to produce any evidence that marriage equality will lead to the so-called "deinstitutionalization" of marriage. Apparently, it's too soon to see the effects. Unlike them, however, we can show actual evidence of "deinstitutionalization," we can show it now, and we can show that it isn't caused by equal marriage. Ironically–even poetically, in a dark way–it's caused by their own drive to enshrine unfairness into the institution.

  • 26. Ipse Dixit  |  August 22, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Oh, and I don't mean evidence in the sense that we would use these facts in court, necessarily. But my hunch is that this trend away from marriage-based benefits would convince some moderates who might otherwise support DPs/CUs that marriage equality is really a better option.

  • 27. draNgNon  |  August 22, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    +1

  • 28. AndrewPDX  |  August 22, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Late to the subscribing party

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 29. Sheryl, Mormon Mothe  |  August 22, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Linda, I think you are correct that a lot people think the CUs and DPs are the same as marriage, just another word. I was one of those people. Then I went on-line and looked up what you have to go thru to get a DP and all that you don't get for that effort and cost. It's not that I was anti-equality, I just thought that you did have equality. My reading certainly game me an education. I only wish more people who think they are the same would do their own research and learn that a DP or CU (no matter how many state rights the couple might receive) are nowhere near the same as what a marriage confers.

    I'm still waiting for someone to give me a valid reason why marriage equality is bad for society.

    Sheryl, Mormon Mother

  • 30. IT  |  August 23, 2010 at 1:05 am

    There is an anecdote told locally of one of the architects of the CA DP bill who was in a rural part of the state and denied access to his partner in the hospital over some minor thing, despite his legal DP. "We don't do that here" he was told.

    I'm not sure whether this is apocryphal as I heard it at an EQCA even nad haven't sourced it. But the point is the same, and the same as all those actually sourced examples around the country, where DPs are treated as lesser.

    There is cold comfort in suing them after the fact if your beloved died without you.

    Separate is not equal.

    Ever.

    But apparently we learn nothing in this country, so we have to re-fight battles over and over again.

  • 31. Carpool Cookie  |  August 23, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Thanks for your support, Sheryl!

    I think the big problem is no one wants to read anymore! Someone hears the claim "Domestic Partnerships are the same as marriages!" from someone in a debate or an article and they're sold. Life (and legislation) is a lot more complicated than that.

    God forbid anyone should print out and read all the trial transcripts for themselves, and take the trouble to learn what was discussed and weigh the evidence.

    Jimminy Christmas!

  • 32. Carpool Cookie  |  August 23, 2010 at 2:07 am

    I have that book, though it's a bit dusty. (But not wet!)

  • 33. Dpeck  |  August 23, 2010 at 10:28 am

    OK, a little 'IN' joke for Richard & Carpool Cookie:

    Here in SF there is a drag queen doo-wop trio who are part of our little sub-family, and they are named –

    Happy, Rhoda, Destiny.

    Get it???? : )

  • 34. Richard A. Walter (s  |  August 23, 2010 at 10:43 am

    Yes, Dpeck, I get it. And I LOVE TI!

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!