Submitted by admin on Mon, 2005-10-24 08:00. ::
Early voting starts today on a statewide ballot that includes , a proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent state judges from overturning the current state law banning gay marriage.
But I am perfectly willing to describe our legally binding, state-sanctioned relationship as a "civil union." I'm happy to give the word "marriage" to the church and live in a "civil union" if it would bring us closer to equal rights for gays and lesbians.
It is, after all, the religious community in certain permutations that has been most strident in its objections to marriage for single-sex couples. And I have no argument with organized religion drawing its line in the sand wherever it wants. They don't wanna? Fine. They don't hafta. I'll keep out of it. None of my business.
The compromisers in the debate over gay marriage say that gays should not be allowed to "marry" but should be allowed to enter into "civil unions," which would give them the same legal rights and privileges Tom and I enjoy.
It's a squirrelly distinction. To my mind, the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is semantics (which is why I'm using quotation marks - they're just words).
Tom and I were not "wed" in a church but in a park building, and the ceremony was conducted not by a minister but by a justice of the peace. We've been "married" ever since.
But except for the word on the license affording us this legal status, what we have is essentially a civil union. Our relationship is sanctioned by the state and carries all the attendant privileges, even though no church blessed it.
How is that different from what the compromisers are offering gays and lesbians? Like Tom and me, single-sex couples want to pledge their troth, share their riches and struggles, have family insurance plans and enjoy the law's acknowledgment of their mutual commitment. Some even want to raise children together, which Tom and I have opted not to do.
If the religious convictions of a segment of society prevent gays and lesbians from officially sharing the word "marriage" with heterosexuals, then, as a nonreligious heterosexual, I'm willing to share "civil unions" with gays and lesbians. What if we make the dividing line between the two states of union not sexual orientation, but religion? Couples of any sexual orientation who belong to religious organizations willing to bless their unions will have marriages. The rest of us will have civil unions.
I suppose that will mean that many in the religious community will look down on anyone in a civil union. I can live with that. People like me - a secularist in the Bible Belt - become accustomed to scorn and pity from a certain segment of society. It's not as bad as the condemnation my gay and lesbian friends must withstand.
Because even if we compromise on the term "civil unions" for gays and lesbians and give their relationships legal protection, what we offer in the compromise is separate and unequal. Gays and lesbians in committed and loving relationships - no different from what Tom and I enjoy - would be relegated to the kitchen while everyone else sups on linen and china (wedding gifts, probably) in the dining room.
This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. More headlines...
This is cache, read story here
