Political Crossfire Forums

[Ch33kY]

I just saw - what appears to be - the perfect solution to the gay marrige issue being introduced in the UK.

This way same sex partners can now be married - but wait! The word marrige is not included, thus not to offend the traditional legalisation of partners, yet it is a legal binding document giving the same rights and entitlements to same sex partners.

Not that I'm for marrige in the first place, however this does seem to be a positive step in the way of equality.

What are your thoughts?

[F'losrix]

Ch33kY wrote: I just saw - what appears to be - the perfect solution to the gay marrige issue being introduced in the UK.

This way same sex partners can now be married - but wait! The word marrige is not included, thus not to offend the traditional legalisation of partners, yet it is a legal binding document giving the same rights and entitlements to same sex partners.

Not that I'm for marrige in the first place, however this does seem to be a positive step in the way of equality.

What are your thoughts?
I can only speak to the situation in the U.S.A. First, you need to understand that in the U.S., marriage is mostly controlled at the state level, not federal. Federal regulation of marriage thus far is limited to protecting one state from being forced to reconize the marriages of another state, and prevents recognition of gay couples' marriages at the federal level. Only the state of Massachusetts recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples, but they must be residents of the state. And that law is in danger of repeal. Of the 50 states, 39 have laws that ban recognition of gay marriages.

16 state constitutions ban recognition of gay marriages (most via amendment). Hawaii's constitution leaves the matter to the legislature, which voted to ban it - so if you count that, it's 17.

Of those who have banned gay marriage, at least 8 have included wording that appears to also ban civil unions and domestic partnership recognition. Many more are expected to follow this example.

It's important also to note that the so-called 'gay marriage bans' don't actually ban the marriages - only the government's recognition of them. Gay couples have been having weddings for quite some time, but without the force of law behind them, they're largely symbolic, not procuring any access to government benefits or protections.

So now let's turn to the question of recognizing gay couples via 'civil union'. Civil unions seem unlikely to gain any serious ground in the U.S.A. To date, only two states have civil union laws - Vermont and Connecticut. Vermont's were enacted at the direction of their high court; Connecticuts were legislative enactments undertaken without the court's intervention. A few other states have 'domestic partnership' registries (Maine, New Jersey, California) which allow gay couples to get some - but not all - of the benefits of marriage at the state level. Hawaii has something called 'reciprocal benefits' that also extend some of these benefits, but it is a broad law that covers not only gay couples but any 2 state residents over the age of 18 who are otherwise not allowed to marry. In other words, an elderly parent and their adult child can register for these same benefits.

As stated above, the trend in the U.S. appears headed toward banning not only gay marriages but also recognition of gay couples via civil union or domestic partnership legislation.

There is no civil union recognition at the federal level, and to my knowledge there have been no formal proposals to offer it. I don't think it's on the table at all, nor likely to be.

Federal law does not provide any recognition tied to the civil unions or domestic partnerships recognized in state laws, nor to the gay marriages of Massachusetts.

Whether it's a good way to handle the issue is immaterial in the face of such overwhelming opposition to any recognition for gay couples.

[F'losrix]

One more note:

Part of the reason civil unions will fail in the U.S. is because of the strategy being used by gay marriage opponents. They have discovered that because people are so fired up to ban gay marriage, they can easily slip in language that also bans civil unions at the same time on the ballot and get them banned as well. Success of the maneuver hinges on two factors:

1) Voters being too apathetic to actually read and understand the full impact of the ballot as worded, instead relying on suitably vague summaries.

2) Voters being so hot to ban gay marriage that they care very little about civil unions becoming a casualty in the process.

Lastly, proponents of the bans have used a campaign of misinformation, telling voters 'this is only about marriage' and that they aren't going to use it to target existing domestic partnership benefits. As soon as the measures pass, the lie becomes evident, as they start suing public employers to force them to rescind the benefits, basing their arguments on what they assert is a conflict with the wording adopted in the marriage ban, making the offering of domestic partnership benefits unconstitutional. They aren't even worried about the civil union part because they know that in most states there's no great desire to extend recognition to gay couples via this method. It's more a case of we'll do it if we're forced into it, but otherwise we're content to treat it as unimportant and not worthy of our time. Connecticut, in my opinion, is an aberration in this regard.

So I'll repeat - civil unions aren't a solution for the U.S.A. because there is no great desire among the people to extend this recognition. Most of them would rather it just went away.