Civil Unions

Good post by Pam Spaulding at Pandagon.

Personally, I see these rejections as a good thing. Strategically speaking, “settling” for civil unions and domestic partnerships allows a few things to happen — 1) couples who had no legal recognition before may receive some benefit from them, and 2) inevitably, because of the federal DOMA and bigots out there, CUs and DPs are going to be shown to be inferior to marriage; and 3) it will eliminate the fantasy faux position of the top-tier 2008 Dem presidential candidates who have taken the ill-defined position of supporting civil unions as a magical solution that lets them off the hook — giving gays and lesbians a bone while clinging onto the institution of marriage.

Either you believe in equality or you don’t. Cases like this in NJ, where civil rights are butting up against DOMA and institutions continue to refuse to recognize marriage equivalency on paper, will eliminate the phony sales pitch of separate but equal.

So, letting civil unions and domestic partnerships fail in these circumstances, while painful is what we need to see right now. I know that there are those of you out there that say we should strive for marriage equality without half-measures, but from where I sit, there won’t be any success on this front for a long while to come. That requires changes in hearts and minds and the education of the masses that simply isn’t happening as fast as the wingers can pass legislation.

She's right, of course -- civil unions are at best a stop-gap, and separate but equal simply doesn't cut it legally and hasn't for a good long time. The only validity I can see in civil unions is tactical: as more an more states legislate civil unions or domestic partnerships, the more glaring the discrimination becomes.

I am not, however, sanguine about the chances of marriage equality before the Supreme Court as currently constituted. Thomas could hand us a surprise and actually vote with the Constitution, but Scalia and I suspect Alitto will put ideology first. Scalia has developed an amazing reputation as a legal scholar for asking -- and answering --the wrong questions. (My favorite is still "The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to homosexual sex." Of course, the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to any kind of sex -- or any kind of marriage, for that matter.)

At any rate, with an eye to the future: We shall overcome.