Gay People Should NOT Worry Too Much About California Proposition 8
“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,†said Elton John, who cemented his relationship with David Furnish in 2005. “The word marriage, I think, puts a lot of people off. â€
Gay marriage is being presented by many gay people and liberals on both sides of the Atlantic as the touchstone of gay equality. Settling for anything less is a form of Jim Crow style gay segregation and second-class citizenship.
But not all gay people agree. This one sees gay marriage so much as a touchstone as a fetish. A largely symbolic and emotional issue that in the US threatens to undermine real, non-symbolic same-sex couple protection: civil unions bestow in effect the same legal status as marriage in several US states – including California. As a result of the religious right’s mobilisation against gay marriage, civil unions have been rolled back in several US states.
Living as I do in the UK, where civil partnerships have been nationally recognised since 2004, perhaps I shouldn’t carp. But part of the reason that civil partnerships were successfully introduced here was because they are not “marriages”. At this point I’d like to hide behind the formidable figure of Sir Elton John, who also expressed doubts recently about the fixation of US gay campaigners on “gay marriage”, and declared he was happy to be in a civil partnership with the American David Furnish and did not want to get married.
Amidst all the gay gnashing of teeth about the inequality of Proposition 8, it’s worth asking: when did marriage have anything to do with equality? Respectability, certainly. Normality, possibly. Stability, hopefully. Very hopefully. But equality?
First of all, there’s something gay people and their friends need to admit to the world: gay and straight long-term relationships are generally not the same. How many heterosexual marriages are open, for example? In my experience, many if not most long term male-male relationships are very open indeed. Similarly, sex is not quite so likely to be turned into reproduction when your genitals are the same shape. Yes, some gay couples may want to have children, by adoption or other means, and that’s fine and dandy of course, but children are not a consequence of gay conjugation. Which has always been part of the appeal for some.
More fundamentally who is the “man” and who is the “wife” in a gay marriage? Unlike cross-sex couples, same-sex partnerships are partnerships between nominal equals without any biologically, divinely or even culturally determined reproductive/domestic roles. Who is to be “given away”? Or as Elton John, put it: “I don’t wanna be anyone’s wife”.
The homosexual community is hurting themselve with ordinary California voters with their insistence of redefining marriage – “whether you like it or not.”
The American voters have spoken loudly with thirty states now banning gay marriage and several having reversed civil unions.
In California when the California Supreme Court likely upholds Proposition 8, the gay community will have to decide whether they wish to force another election in 2010 (which they will lose) or change direction for more gay equality with civil unions in other states (California already has domestic partnerships which confer all of the legal rights of marriage).
Exit question: Will the gay marriage rage against Proposition 8 be redirected or will it be all consuming?
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, California Proposition 8
5 Comments
Philip Chandler
Simpson should speak for himself when he writes about civil unions being an adequate substitute for marriage.
The vote in California, to overturn gay marriages that had been recognized since the California Supreme Court held that the prohibition of gay marriages violated both the due process and the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution, was very, very narrow (52% to 48%). Furthermore, the opponents of Proposition 8 were winning until the last moment, when the Mormons (LDS) pumped 19 million dollars into the State of California, producing grotesquely misleading and inaccurate advertisements (these advertisements, for example, proclaimed that churches would be forced to recognize gay marriages). The gay community failed to reach out to the black community, which largely voted in favor of Proposition 8 (by a vote of 70% to 30%). The bottom line is that the gay community in California would have blocked Proposition 8 but for the behavior of the LDS and its own failure to convince black persons that Proposition 8 was monstrous and unfair. Next time, just two years from now, we will do what has to be done. If we fail in 2010, we will try again in 2012. If we fail then, we will try again in 2014. We will eventually overturn Proposition 8. Time and changing attitudes are on our side. In any civil rights struggle — whether it be the abolition of apartheid in South Africa, or the abolition of the disgusting “separate but equal” doctrine in the USA — there are setbacks and difficulties. If we sit and cry, or if we accept Simpson’s pronouncements, we may as well concede, right now, that we will never be considered full citizens, equal to heterosexual persons, in the USA.
Simpson should also be careful in prognosticating that the California Supreme Court will uphold Proposition 8. Although one of the four justices who voted to strike down the prohibition of gay marriages also voted not to hear the challenge to Proposition 8 (not a good sign if you believe in reading judicial tea leaves), the status of case law in the State of California is now such that, notwithstanding the passage of Proposition 8, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is now considered to be as malign and as unconstitutional in the eyes of the judiciary as discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin (classifications on the basis of sexual orientation are now “suspect,” and Proposition 8 did not (and could not) undo this determination). One or more of the three justices who voted not to strike down the prohibition of gay marriages may well accept that, notwithstanding his or her vote in that case, the law now reads differently from the way it read before in re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) was handed down. Quite bluntly, Proposition 8 is exactly analogous, from a legal perspective, to a measure that withdraws the right to marry from Catholics only, or from black persons only.
Simpson should also speak for himself when he characterizes gay male relationships as being “open.” This may be true of many gay couples — but persons who wish to marry are NOT the same as persons who do not wish to marry. Those gay men I know who wish to marry are in monogamous, faithful relationships. Simpson should be careful before making generalizations.
Nobody is the “husband” and nobody is the “wife” in gay relationships — and I don’t understand how a gay columnist could purport not to understand this. Marriage today is not about cementing into place gender norms and stereotypical behavior. As society has changed and discarded gender roles, so marriage has evolved. Simpson’s arguments may have been valid in bygone eras, when women were considered to be the property of their husbands — but they are most certainly not availing today.
Simpson also refers to civil unions being rolled back in several states. Quite simply stated, Simpson does not know what he is talking about. I have checked and double-checked my sources, but nowhere can I find an example of a state that once recognized civil unions now no longer recognizing civil unions. Vermont became the first state to recognize civil unions, back in 1999, as the result of the Vermont Supreme Court’s judgment in Baker v. Vermont. Today, legal frameworks that grant to gay couples all the state law benefits and protections (and responsibilities) of marriage now exist in Vermont, California, New Jersey, and New Hampshire. Maine, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia have all created legal unions for same-sex couples that offer varying subsets of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Gay marriage is recognized in both name and substance in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Efforts to repeal the recognition of gay marriage in Massachusetts failed when the legislature last addressed this very issue, and since then, the margin of gay marriage supporters versus opponents has widened in both the state legislature and public opinion. The governor of Connecticut announced, when gay marriage was mandated by that state’s supreme court earlier this year, that she would not oppose that ruling; since then, the legislature has either codified the court’s decision, or is in the process of doing so. Gay couples can now get married in that state.
(Perhaps Simpson refers to states such as Nebraska, where a state constitutional amendment was passed that prohibits the recognition of all gay relationships; but neither civil unions nor marriage was available to gay couples in that state prior to passage of this amendment. Simpson really should get his facts straight before he undertakes a comparative analysis.)
Gay marriage is now legal in Canada, South Africa, Norway, The Netherlands, and Spain. The full legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage are now available to gay couples in Germany, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, Denmark, and several other jurisdictions.
Nice try, Mr. Simpson — but equality is not divisible. If you are happy with civil unions, good for you. But some of us believe in full, unqualified equality.
PHILIP CHANDLER
RJ STRITTMATTER
Philip – Though it may be true that no state that has recognized civil unions/domestic partnership has yet to reverse that decision, many proponents of Prop 8 have stated that with it’s passage they will attack the validity of civil unions/domestic partnerships in California as they are ‘approximations’ of marriage and are, therefore, prohibited under Prop 8.
UnifiedVoice
Obama speaks and the Campaign for Civil Partnerships Launches in Arizona
December 1, 2008
On the day when President Elect Obama announces New York Senator Hilary Clinton as his Secretary of State and Arizona’s Governor Janet Napolitano as his Homeland Security Secretary
Gino Meriano and Philip Cotton gay rights campaigners for same-sex families says “I offer my congratulations to Hilary Clinton for her new position as Secretary of State. Her appointment and commitment to equality will be a great move forward for our community. Hilary has always been a supporter of our rights and in anticipation of her new role I will be writing to Hilary Clinton to seek support for our proposition to introduce Civil Partnerships supporting Equality and Human Rights for same-sex couples across America.”
Arizona : Civil Partnerships campaign website launches http://civilpartnershipsaz.com
Meriano Continues “I would also like to extend our congratulations to Janet Napolitano for her new position which I feel is a great move forward for the people of Americaâ€
This is the perfect time for us as a company and with our partner UnifiedVoice (Philip Cotton) to launch our new campaign for the introduction of Civil Partnerships in the USA starting with the State of Arizona.
END
Notes to press
Information:
* 5th December 2005 was an important day in the UK, this being when Civil Partnerships became law
Press calls to
Gino Meriano
UK : 07971 277609
USA : 480-319-1115
Philip Cotton
US: 760-554-4676
Pink Weddings: the group
Pink Weddings LLC
The group launch into the USA with its new office in Arizona
http://www.pinkweddings.us
Pink Weddings Ltd
Celebrating 6 years of gay wedding planning and campaigning for same-sex couples
http://www.pinkweddings.biz
The Gay Wedding Show Ltd
Celebrates its 5th year in Civil Partnerships Expos
http://www.gayweddingshow.co.uk
UnifiedVoice
Founded in the 2008 by Philip A. Cotton, UV’s mission is to help all LGBT Americans with achieving the basic rights of life. The right to have a Civil Partnership is a leading factor in the Creation of UV and we believe that here and now is the “time for Change”. We make a promise to all LGBT Americans that we will fight for your right to have equal rights.
http://www.unifiedvoice.org
Philip Chandler
RJ STRITTMATTER writes: “Philip – Though it may be true that no state that has recognized civil unions/domestic partnership has yet to reverse that decision, many proponents of Prop 8 have stated that with it’s passage they will attack the validity of civil unions/domestic partnerships in California as they are ‘approximations’ of marriage and are, therefore, prohibited under Prop 8.”
************
Response:
************
I state with absolute confidence that constitutional challenges to California’s Domestic Partnership statute (on the grounds that these are “approximations” to marriage) will fail completely.
I make this statement with utter certitude, because I read the California Supreme Court’s decision in in re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) very carefully. The Court dedicated page after page to an analysis of the similarities of marriages and domestic partnerships, and concluded, most forcefully, that domestic partnerships are emphatically not equivalent to marriage. Proposition 8 was carefully worded by its backers so as not to annul domestic partnerships and / or civil unions, because all the polling data showed that attempts to repeal domestic partnerships and marriage would be roundly defeated. The Court made it clear that domestic partnerships are not the legal or social equivalent to marriages, and then turned to its due process and equal protection analysis. As a matter of law, the California Supreme Court has held that domestic partnerhips are distinct entities, different from marriages. This court is now collaterally estopped from concluding that domestic partnerships may be treated similarly to marriages; Proposition 8 addressed marriages only.
It would actually be to our advantage were proponents of Proposition 8 to attempt to challenge the constitutionality of domestic partnerships, because this would lay bare to the people of the State of California the full extent of the hatred and ugliness of the forces that animate this group of depraved, disgusting people.
Simson’s column disgusted me because of its arrogance, slap-dash research, generalizations, and flat-out bigotry.
I stand by my assertion that no state has repealed its civil unions or domestic partnerships since Vermont became the first state to create civil unions in 1999.
Far from conceding loss with respect to gay marriage, now is the time for us to rally and to keep fighting. The history of every minority in the country has shown, repeatedly, that minorities have to fight — and to keep fighting even in the teeth of bitter setbacks and disappointments — in order to realize the aspiration of true, full equality.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Pingback: