"Will you Civil Union Me?"
Let us today put to rest this nonsense that words do not matter. Today we must claim as a community of moral-people that the word Marriage is available for all those that legally commit to their other. Words matter, we know they do -- and while they may not break bones, sometimes words can bend wills and unjustly break spirits.
Awkward conversations abound as I seek to explain my relationship with my 'partner', Dan. First, I'm often mistaken as a heterosexual. Thus, when I first declare that I have a partner, the next question is usually an inquiry as to our line of business. Sometimes, in jest I might offer as an answer that we are in the business of making babies. Yet, in business settings that is not a well-appreciated answer. The odd dialogue follows, we are lovers (which makes me squirm; you too?)
"Oh!" they say, "that's great!" I feel like the proverbial toddler that managed to take his first step. "Well, how long have you been together?" the conversation will inevitably continue. "Wow, that long! -- are you registered?" they'll next ask.
No, we are not registered domestic partners. Have you ever heard of a phrase so devoid of poetry, a phrase empty of the love, the passion and of the dedication I have for that man of mine. People register for the draft (euphemistically now called "selective service"), for wedding gifts, and to vote -- activities not at all analogous to love.
Inevitably, that status inquiry is quickly followed by, "well, if you are committed to each other, why don't you register?" This predicates only two answers. First, is the challenge -- you are not dedicated enough to make that marriage-like commitment to one another and society. That is certainly not the case for us. Then, the only other option is that I'm a radical liberal awaiting equality. Ding Ding Ding, you win.
If the moral argument for equal marriage rights is not persuasive, then think of it this way: allowing gays to marry will lead to savings of time for so many of us that labor to explain our commitment to each other. This cost savings when aggregated over the life of gay couples will doubtless lead to massive increase in productivity, thus increasing GDP.
Failing the moral argument or the fiscal argument, think of it in terms of a movie you are watching. The camera zooms in on two men walking at dusk. The two have just had a romantic evening dinner, followed by ice-cream. They meander home quietly, each lost in feelings and thoughts of love for one another. One falls to his knee, looks up in the face of his would-be life mate and asks, "Dan, (pregnant pause, gulp) Will you register with me?" Awkward moment, as Dan looks down at David and is confused. David realizing that his proposal had all the romance of a grandmother's ancient papery kiss at a family reunion, tries again. David rethinks quickly, "Dan, love of my life, will you domestically partner me?" Dan looks down, and David realizes no, that's not quite right either is it.
Words matter. Marriage means something, even if it's just a word. I don't want to sit in the middle of the bus, but anywhere I chose. If that makes me a radical liberal, so be it. Truly though, I believe it denigrates us all as people to suggest that one who loves so hard, so fully, and so truly must name that love anything other than marriage.
Out of necessity Dan and I may register as domestic partners. The nation lurches forward towards full equality for gays and lesbians in this year of hope and change. Yet, that process is slow, and on our one trip around this sun together, I cannot risk not enshrining our relationship in the warm embrace of partial legal rights afforded by domestic partnerships. After all, my love for him means I'll sacrifice my ego and political indignity at being part of a second-class institution, to ensure that we are protected legally; and that our relationship is encrusted with some sense of legal prophylactics against the persistent homophobic attack on the sanctity of our relationship. What choice do I have? Daniel, forgive the lack of poetry... but, will you domestically partner me?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The word "Marriage" is very important. Traditionally "Marriage" is between a man and a woman. We all know that whether we admit it or not. If the rights of marriage are what is being asked for then alter the "Civil Union" / "Domestic Partnership" contract to provide the rights. However, that is not the issue, it is not the rights that many in the Gay Community are truly seeking because they would have had it by now. This has become a way to spit on religion, and prove something to society. Why? Get the rights you seek as partner's, without having to change religion to accomodate your way of life.
Anne Boleyn had a traditional marriage to King Henry. That was until he had her beheaded for
infidelity. Maybe traditional marriage is not all it's cracked up to be. Must you be so stingy that others cannot have marriage too? That's right.....
OMG did you just propose?!
Marriage is not a civil right, it’s a social institution. CJ Warren Berger got it wrong in Loving v. Virginia when he wrote: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Humans existed long before the institution of marriage was invented and the race survived. In 2007, about 40% of all babies were born out of wedlock. It’s obvious that marriage is not fundamental to either our existence or our survival. Therefore, marriage is not a “basic civil right of man (humanity)”. Should same-sex marriages be recognized and be equal to opposite-sex marriages? That’s up to society since it’s a social issue, not a legal issue. Society has the right to determine what it accepts as a valid marriage, not the courts, or even the legislatures.
Marriage is an agreement, a contract, between two individuals. Society has NO interest, NO legitimate reason, NO RIGHT to interfere in the agreement between two people to honor and support each other. One of the primary purposes behind the formation of civilization is the recognition and enforcement of marriage contracts. We've come a long way since it was acceptable to club women over the head and drag them off!
There is no civil right more basic and fundamental than the right to marry. Its not a social issue, its a private issue. Our parents, our pastors, our governments do not decide who our husbands and wives will be. We do. Its no-one else's business.
If the government refused to honor anyone's marriage there'd be no civil society. The government's only interest in marriage IS the legal issue, in recognizing and enforcing marriage agreements.
Society has NO RIGHT to pick and choose whom may marry. The government has NO RIGHT to pick and choose WHICH marriages it recognizes.
And courts and legislatures are how e choose to order our society. Maybe your "society" is still a pack living in caves but in our society courts and legislatures were created to recognize, AND ENFORCE, our basic civil rights.
The basic civil right is that two (or more) adults have the right to live together, to share their lives and fortunes. No one can prevent that and no one does. Marriage is a social compact between two (or more) adults and society which the individulas decide is in their best interest and society decides is in IT'S best interest.
Enfrocing basic civil rights is only one function of courts and legislatures. There are many laws that have nothing to do with basic civil rights. Does a driving speed law have anything to do with civil rights? How about tax laws? What about zoning laws?
Well, if society has not interest in the matter, then I hope gays will decline all the benefits and privileges that come with marriage. The reality is that the whole society has a crucial interest in making sure that the maximum number of its new members have the distinctive advantage of have a mother and the distinctive advantage of having a father. Nothing else promotes social stability more effectively than that and gay relationships don't produce that vital combination.
Ever heard of the 14th amendment?
Aren't you cute. Ever read the 14th amendment?
So then it's even MORE important to ensure that the social contracts (called "laws") are enforced equally! You cannot win based on this strawman argument!
Its not a matter of laws being enforced equally. They are. LGBTs can marry; that's the la its enforced equally. Most States HAVE NO LAWS requiring the States to recognize and enforce LGBT marriages, so there is nothing to enforce.
You have the right to marry. You've been conned into not taking advantage of that right because you've been fooled int believing you don't have it.
You do not have a right to government policing your private contracts IF laws are enacted against it. BUT if government is policing other's marriage contracts you have a right to demand they police yours.
And most Americans would understand and support that if anyone bothered to explain it to them.
I'm afraid yours is the strawman argument. And what is it that you think I'm hoping to win? Frankly, I don't care if society decides to recognize same-sex relationships as marriage. If society wishes, it can recognize sme-sex, poligamy, polyandry, and group marriages as legitimate if that's what it wishes.
First, the government doesn't regulate marriage. You can marry whomever you want, and say so. One of the biggest mistakes of the gay community has been to accept the you need a "marriage license" to marry lie. Accepting that has allowed churches to claim marriage is about religion when they only act as government agents to register marriages.
Second, "civil unions" is what you want. You want civil law to apply to all marriages not just heterosexual marriages. Marriages recognized under civil law are known as "civil unions," always have been. Falling into the trap of speaking against gay "civil unions" neutralizes what would otherwise be readily apparent discrimination by again allowing the word "marriage" to be used to cloud the issue.
GLBTs SHOULD have been making the argument that all legal marriages are civil unions and there's no reason for some different civil union for gays.
Most Americans are fair-minded and against discrimination which is why opponents want the issue to be religion and marriage, not civil unions. And you're helping them.
You have your facts wrong - and it matters.
Marriage IS a civil matter. You need a civil marriage license in order for a church to 'marry' you, which really is a religious acknowledgement of the civil marriage. Therefore, your point is lost.
Civil Unions are by no means the same as marriage and that is the problem. There are many rights and responsibilities in marriage that are not accorded by civil unions.
What most don't realize is that marriage is ALWAYS first and foremost a civil legal matter. Church weddings are church sanctions of the marriage, but you cannot be married in a church without a civil marriage certificate first!!!!
Please folks, pay attention.
Marriage means standing before witnesses and pledging mutual support and fidelity. Its been that way for thousands of years. Until less than a century ago unregistered "common law" marriages were the norm. The church's role in marriage only to "bless the union" when invited to.
NOW its important that government recognize and enforce the marriage contract and government generally won't do that unless the marriage has been dully registered by procuring a "marriage license." And since priests are allowed to act as government agents to register marriages AS CIVIL UNIONS, JUST like Judges and County Clerks, most people NOW allow the church to officiate, bless the union and take care of registering the marriage. Its a convenience and privilege that churches have twisted and abused into a claim that marriages are "religious matters." They are not. Never have been. Never will be.
Prop 8 passed because GLBTs don't know what they're talking about, they believe what you do. You can't beat the system if you don't understand the system. You can't educate others unless you first educate yourself.
Let me be perfectly clear:
You do NOT need a Marriage License to marry.
You do NOT need to be married by a church.
Churches do NOT need Marriage Licenses to marry people.
Marriages do NOT have to registered to be legal.
IF you want to ensure your marriage will be recognized by the government you must register it by obtaining a "Marriage License."
Marriages registered with "Marriage Licenses" and recognized by the government are known as "Civil Unions."
FIRST people marry, with or without, the aid and blessings of a church. THEN they may register their marriage with the State to form a Civil Union. For that a "Marriage License" is required.
So the fact that if I could find a church willing to perform the ceremony, I could go marry my brother, but have NONE of the LEGAL BENEFITS that come with the civil union called "marriage" is acceptable to you??
Why don't you and your wife get a legal divorce then, and live together as "husband" and "wife" according only to a church, and see how far you get with that!
You don't need a church to marry your brother, a practice I suspect is traditional in your family. If you'd actually read my comments maybe you'd know what was "acceptable to me."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
