What I really said in Kalamazoo
This article from the Kalamazoo Gazette has caused some confusion. In my talk, I didn’t say a word about civil unions. The reporter came up afterwards and asked me some questions. I said that “all the practical problems of same sex couples can be solved without redefining marriage.” I didn’t say I favor civil unions or that I’m ok with civil unions. I’m not in favor of civil unions.
My position on civil unions/domestic partnerships:
I do not favor domestic partnerships or civil unions based on a sexual relationship. That is, some civil union statutes are written to be a marriage substitute. I think this is a bad idea.
I used to think civil partnerships could be ok if it were open to people whether they are sex partners or not. It seems wrong to me that in the UK for instance, two elderly sisters who lived together all their lives would have to pay inheritance taxes on their home when one of them died. In this particular practical case, the surviving sister would have had to sell their home in order to pay the inheritance taxes. But if they were lesbians, they would have been treated like a married couple, and been exempt from the taxes. They appealed their case to the European Union court, and lost. So because of cases like this, I thought it might be ok to create a kind of civil partnership that anyone could participate in, but which does not single out unmarried sex partners for special consideration.
Upon further reflection and observation, I don’t even think this is a good idea. In some European countries with civil unions, a lot of straight couples are choosing civil unions over marriage. Blurring the lines between marriage and non-marriage, setting up “half-way houses,” weakens the whole institution. The problem of the elderly sisters in the UK could be solved in a much more just and direct fashion by abolishing inheritance taxes.
I also think that the position, “I’m against same sex marriage, but I favor civil unions,” is not a stable political position, nor a reasonable compromise, but a dodge. Advocates of same sex marriage do not view civil unions as a compromise position, but as a stepping stone. Domestic partnerships or civil unions have never been good enough from their perspective, as they have repeatedly stated. Hence, I think the “civil unions, not same sex marriage” position doesn’t really buy anything.
Loading ...
Interesting. I would agree with you if this were a perfect world, but in the current reality, many states, including my state of Massachusetts, already have same sex marriage, so if we could end that, in every state, and preserve marriage by offering a compromise on CU’s, I think that is worth it. You would have to convince me that we are going to end same-sex marriage in every state soon without a compromise on CU’s. And, another way this isn’t a perfect world, our schools and government have already taught millions of people that it is OK to be gay and those people are not going anywhere, or likely to become straight, so I think the government is now obligated to care and support them and help them form monogamous permanent relationships with Civil Unions that bind them just like marriages.
Also, the CU’s I proposed, which would be defined by each state as “marriage minus conception rights” would not be a stepping stone to marriage, but would serve instead to highlight the meaning of marriage as the right way to procreate. Oh, and the compromise would also stop same-sex procreation and cloning and genetic engineering of children, which is super important, and also worth the compromise on CU’s.
“Hence, I think the “civil unions, not same sex marriage” position doesn’t really buy anything.”
Then legal same-sex marriage it is! I hope more people would adopt this “all or nothing” position. It would accelerate marriage equality even more quickly than it is already happening, and more fairly.
Do you really think that Sean? You’d rather have nothing than Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus conception rights?” Obviously you aren’t one of the thousands of same-sex couples who have no protections all over the country.
No I think that the concept of legal recognition for same-sex couples is so socially and legally powerful that same-sex marriage is the inevitable result, if substitutes like civil unions are unavailable. I realize this is a huge source of stress for the homophobes, and divides the homophobe community: do we argue for civil unions, knowing that it might lead to marriage, or do we argue against any legal protections at all, knowing that most people want gay couples to have at least some legal protections.
Well, my proposal would solve that dilemma, because the Egg and Sperm law (which would prohibit same-sex procreation), combined with the federal law affirming that all marriages must be allowed to conceive offspring of their own genes, would mean no state could declare any same-sex couples married. And the third law of the Compromise would be to federally recognize as if marriages state civil unions if they are defined as “marriage minus conception rights,” thereby giving all the other rights and protections and obligations of marriage to couples that are prohibited from procreating offspring together.
Merging nonmarriage with marriage under any name is unreasonable and no compromise. Indeed no special status (call it civil union or whatever) is merited on the basis of gay identity. On the other other hand, provisions for designated beneficiaries does not require a merger nor does it mean that society must set up new types of relationship statuses at law. The SSM campaign revealed the duplicity of the civil union concept when it promoted it in California but then has used it ever since as an excuse to make outlandish accusations of hatred, irrationality, and bigotry against even those who had been willing to accept that particular political compromise (Dr J is correct that his is no compromise in fact).
No to merging marriage with SSM; no to merging marriage with Civil Union; yes to affirming the core meaning of the most prochild social institution we have — that core meaning is sex integration combined with provision for responsible procreation. The marriage idea is in conflict with the SSM idea; the marriage idea means far more than the SSM idea ever will. A merging would reflect the SSM argumentation that would make marriage mean less and less. This is so no matter the name attached to the SSM idea.
“Merging nonmarriage with marriage under any name is unreasonable and no compromise.”
You’re right. So let’s just call the legal union of two adults, “marriage.”
“Indeed no special status (call it civil union or whatever) is merited on the basis of gay identity.”
True again. The special status is for having a committed relationship.
“yes to affirming the core meaning of the most prochild social institution we have — that core meaning is sex integration combined with provision for responsible procreation.”
I agree! Good thing that legal same-sex marriage does nothing to diminish responsible procreation!
“The marriage idea is in conflict with the SSM idea”
Hardly. Opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage can peacefully exist side-by-side. The problem is that civil unions create a constitutionally impermissible “separate but equal” accommodation. If civil unions offer same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage, then the courts will strike them down and insist that same-sex couples be able to marry. If civil unions are substantially different from marriage, then they will reinforce the second-class status of gay people. If the anti-gay crowd really wants to keep marriage away from gay people, it will have to offer them civil unions that are substantially BETTER than marriage, to avoid falling afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection and separate but equal doctrines.
How badly do the Straight Supremacists want to keep the word “marriage” to themselves? Bad enough to give same-sex couples even more rights benefits and protections than they have???
“The problem is that civil unions create a constitutionally impermissible “separate but equal” accommodation. If civil unions offer same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage, then the courts will strike them down and insist that same-sex couples be able to marry. If civil unions are substantially different from marriage, then they will reinforce the second-class status of gay people.”
That’s exactly right, Civil Unions have to have a substantial difference in rights to be constitutional. My proposal is that they lack the essential “sine qua non” right of marriage to procreate offspring together, by being defined as “marriage minus conception rights.” That would make them constitutional. Because the fact is, the rights of same-sex couples are different in exactly that way, so the name of their bundle of rights needs to be different, for the same reasons it needs to be the same if their rights are the same. People don’t have a right to procreate with another person of their same sex, just like people don’t have a right to procreate with a sibling. It’s not rooted in natural rights or in history or found in any penumbras of privacy to procreate with someone of the same sex.
That wouldn’t be enough of a different, John Howard. Setting aside your highly debatable belief that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce, the distinction between marriage and civil unions would have to be substantial, and represent a state interest in making the distinction.
It’s easy enough to grant marriage rights to both straights and gays and merely outlaw same-sex procreation as a separate matter, much as we’ve outlawed incest as a separate matter.
That would be enough of a difference legally, as far as the constitution is concerned. Marriage without procreation rights would not be marriage at all, that’s what “sine qua non” means. There has never been a marriage in history that was prohibited from procreating offspring, that would have gone to jail if they procreated offspring. Every single marriage has been allowed to conceive, even elderly cousins in Arizona (who aren’t expected to, but it wouldn’t be a crime if they did). So it would be a HUGE substantial difference, and in fact the only difference that would make them “not” marriages anthropologically or legally.
But you’re right, it wouldn’t be a difference at all as far as the benefits and protections go, to couples that can’t procreate offspring together anyhow.
Yes, we’ve outlawed incest as a separate matter with incest laws. No state or country in history has ever allowed a couple to marry that is prohibited from having sex or procreating offspring by incest laws, because marriage is always reserved to couples that are allowed and approved to procreate together. If we were to allow people to marry their sister but then prohibited them from procreating with incest laws, it would strip procreation rights from marriage, it would mean that marriage no longer affirms and approves of the couple combining their genes to create offspring.
You seem to want Margaret Sanger’s eugenic “parenting licenses” she proposed as the American Baby Code. Sorry, but I think all people should have equal procreation rights, even if experts think they are unfit for whatever reasons.
you do realize, jennifer, that you would at least get a sliver of respect from people, after all the damage you’ve done, if you came out in support of at least civil unions? So you think we’re *truly* undeserving of *any* legal protections?
History is just going to smear your name so horribly. You should be ashamed of yourself.