Friday Gay Blogging

Civil Unions

A "state of the art" article from NYT on civil unions:

Massachusetts is the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry, and Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey have civil unions, while California and Oregon have domestic partnerships that provide similar benefits to civil unions.

Though such arrangements were created, often under court mandate, with a promise of treating same-sex couples the same as opposite-sex couples, many gays and lesbians say they have not delivered and can never do so because separate institutions are inherently unequal. Many also resent being denied use of the word marriage, which they say carries intangible benefits, prestige and status.

I believe it's Brown v. Board of Education that ruled that separate institutions are inherently unequal, and I can't believe anyone seriously considered that civil unions or domestic partnerships are true equivalents to marriage.

Melissa McEwen has some observations that pretty much parallel my own thoughts:

First, there was the description of civil unions as a "political compromise that several states have made in recent years to grant rights to gay and lesbian couples while preserving the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and woman." With each passing year, the conspicuity of the undeserved privilege being protected to mollycoddle the delicate sensibilities of straight wankers becomes ever more pathetically hilarious. Within the next few years, only among the most reluctantly egalitarian sorts will there still be arguments mounted against same-sex marriage, invoking gods by various names (Jesus, Mohammed, Tradition) as thin veneers to lay atop the desperate insecurity about their super-special relationships losing the shimmering, golden glow that only denying equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions.

I probably wouldn't be as snarky about it (well, maybe not), but the substance is there. If you've been following the Focus on the Family "anthropoligists agree about traditional marriage" flap over at Box Turtle Bulletin that I discussesd a couple of weeks ago, it's easy to see how desperate the anti-gay forces are. And how easily they are shot down -- all it takes is a small dose of fact. (It's also instructive that they seem to have given up on the "tradition, god's plan, natural law" arguments in favor of "scientists agree with us." Tell you anything?

Scott Lemieux also had some cogent observations:

Yesterday's Times article about the inequities of civil unions is indeed important reading. In many contexts, obtaining civil unions is an improvement on the status quo, but it's also important that civil unions haven't produced marriage-in-all-but-name but in practice seem to fall short of equality. For state courts considering the question, such inequities seem relevant to whether civil unions (as opposed to equal marriage rights) can be consistent with the equal protection of the laws, especially since the legislative entrenchment of gay marriage in Massachusetts makes assumptions that civil unions will provoke much less backlash than actual equality quite questionable.

I think the "backlash"contingent is overstating their case -- as I've mentioned before, the day of the backlash is pretty much over, and I think Lemieux has the right take on it.

Uh -- We Knew That

Via Andrew Sullivan:

Shihe Fu estimates that a rise of one percentage point in the proportion of same-sex couples living in an area raises median house prices by 9 per cent even 10 years later, controlling for some obvious other things.

This suggests that gays improve neighborhoods; they don't just choose to live in nicer places.

Ex-Gay

I try to avoid wing-nuts in Fridy Gay Blogging -- we have better news to pay attention to -- but this post made me think about the way things are framed on the right. Quoting Randy Thomas of Exodus:

“They are starting to have the integrity of reporting accurately about the condition of homosexuality,” said Randy Thomas, executive vice president of Exodus International. “We find this to be a very exciting move and hope that it indicates future movement toward recognizing that people can and do overcome homosexuality.”

First of all, the scientific community has always reported as accurately as it could about the origins of homosexuality. This answer is no different than the previous answers: We don't know for sure. The only ones who have a "definitive" answer are, of course, the anti-gay crowd. (Which happens to be an answer they made up from whole cloth -- not even Jehovah has said anything about the origins of homosexuality.)

Second, why should anyone want to overcome a basic part of their personality, absent the hatred being directed at them by people such as Randy Thomas?

Good As You gets it.

There may be more -- I'm rushing to get out to work this morning.

Oh, and happy First Day of Spring: the weather forecast for Chicago says chance of snow, 100%.

Note: I decided to liven up the Friday Gay Blogging posts with an image or two. Let me know what you think.