What Is Lost When We Settle for Civil Unions
[photo by Kimberly Bednarski, KB Image Photography]
In the marriage debate, the focus is always on rights, those granted federally and by each state: immigration, taxation, hospital visitation. It's a way to talk about inequality concretely so that those around us can understand what all the fuss is about.
I used to think that was sufficient. Then I got married.
Last weekend, a slew of family and friends descended upon Chicago to celebrate my relationship with my partner of five years. My mother, a judge in Canada, performed the ceremony and we exchanged rings and vows. But, the wedding wasn't legal. It didn't change the fact that, in the eyes of the state, my partner and I were roommates.
I never grew up thinking that marriage was something essential or important. My parents have been together over 35 years, happily, without ever being married. It seemed like nothing more than an invented occasion.
What I couldn't have understood until I was standing in front of an audience about to say my vows is that ceremony can be incredibly important. Participating in the rites of passage society expects and supports holds meaning on its own. The simple fact that the marriage pronouncement was not part of our script, couldn't be part of our script, created a deep sense of hurt and exclusion. It was an injustice, separate and apart from the rights we do not enjoy and legal discrimination we suffer. Our status as outsiders was reinforced, even as we were surrounded by so many close friends.
In many ways, LGBT people in the United States are luckier than most. Our relationships, themselves are not illegal. Many of us have supportive families and friends. And some of us live in states that recognize same-sex relationships.
Still, we cannot underestimate the damage marriage inequality causes. LGBT people are excluded from social institutions that hold real significance in our lives. We look at pictures of our family members on their wedding day. We watch television shows about weddings, see our favorite sitcom actors and movie actors go through the ceremony, wait for the moment where the couple are pronounced legally wed and embrace and kiss.
I didn't get to do that in front of the people I love. And, although my wedding was the best day of my life, it was incomplete.
That is a loss no civil union and no domestic partnership can undo.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
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
I truly enjoyed reading your article. It touched a very emotional nerve for me... thanks for writing it.
Beautiful post, Emma!
How wonderful your mother, a judge, was there to perform the ceremony.
My best wishes to you and your spouse.
Warm regards,
Philip
Unfortunately, marriage isn't defined by man. If it was, there would be no difference between man and woman. The problem of this debate stems from the blatant disregard for the creator of marriage. At the chance of having a bunch of hateful comments on this post, I am stating the truth that no one seems to want to accept. God created man and woman they way He desired. You can cut off/attach fake body parts to alter your sex (if you believe that will make you a man/woman) but His work has yet to be undone. Man has been trying to play God for a long time and this is no exception. But the truth remains, marriage isn't up for debate. He's designed it to work in the way He designed it. Period.
In this country, you have the freedom to make a choice to be with whomever you like. That isn't a debate. But redefining marriage doesn't seem like it will every go over the way many are trying to.
Okay, first of all, where is your archaeological or anthropological evidence of the existance of this creator?
Of course, you have none, because there is none. The only proof of said Creator's existance are a few scratches of ink on a few pieces of 2.000 year old papyrus. And if we're going to use that burden of proof, then I believe in The Wizard of Oz and The Wicked Witch of The West.
Not to mention the fact that if you could prove there is a God,there would be no need for God. God is nothing more than the Anthropomorphic embodiment of your so called Creator, which as I stated, there is absolutely no scientific proof of.
And if there is no God, nor a creator, then God could not have created man, woman, or in fact the institution of marriage. In fact, I don't even recall Adam and Eve being married, they strutted around in the garden, Eve ate a bad apple, and had a couple kids.
So Eve was an unwed mother living in sin?
Interesting
Now if you can show me one single shred of reference to God, or Jesus or any of the apostles outside of The Bible, then we might have the basis for a debate. But it hasn't happened in the 10 years I've been researching this topic, and I doubt you have the scientific impirical proof either
Man invented marriage. Brush up on your history.
You are free to believe what you want, even if there is no objective basis for your belief. After all marriage is not equal to procreation, and can't be reduced to a simple, inaccurate biological definition. Plenty of people reproduce without marriage, plenty of people have marriages without choosing to have children.
Marriage is a human institution. Animals do not get married, despite having male and female sexes. And then there are homosexual animals, observed in at least 1,500 mammal and bird species so far. If your creator made homosexual animals, that being also made homosexual people. A good and loving god would support love in all its forms. If not, such a deity would just be cruel.
As for same sex marriage in law, that is a human creation, and it is up to the government to apply it equally to everyone, regardless of what one religion or another dictates.
So why did God create hermaphrodites?
Hateful enough for ya?
IRep - I encourage you to engage in a face-to-face dialogue with a GLBT person. Your comments do not reflect an understanding of the experience of being Gay, Lesbian or Transgender. As you are very devoted to your faith, I assume that would want to advocate your beliefs in this dialogue. I would encourage you on this issue to listen, you know your beliefs, you don't know the GLBT experience. Best to you.
Marriage is a civil legal contract. The religious ceremony has no legal significance. If you want a religious union have on e mut do not confuse that with a marriage-which is a legal contract.
Seperate but equal, isn't.
Everyone has the right to marry under the laws of the State where the live. No one is prevented from marrying acording to those law. Therefore there is no separate.
Hmmm. Yeah. Racists said virtually the same thing regarding interracial marriage.
I fully support the right of the gay community to get married. but I also fail to understand this column and the "ceremonial" distinction between marriage and civil union. If you are making your vows in front of your family and friends, that is the same as a wedding. Say you're getting married. Call it spouse and spouse. Get someone to pronounce you wedded, married. From a political view gay marriage is an issue. from a personal point of view it shouldn't be.
Did you get married in a box? There is a larger society out there.
Politics is about policies. Policies affect people. Anything concerning people has a personal impact on the people involved, therefore Poltical issues are about people
Beautiful.
Marriage is a RELIGIOUS sacrament that should not be legally recognized by the government. Do you know of any other sacraments the government recognizes? I don't remember needing government paper work or a government representative for my baptism or my grandfather’s last rites...
I understand the historic and social need to recognize and legally document marriage (considering end of life care, property, and taxes), but I think the separation of church and state is clearly being violated seeing that the state is sanctioning a religious sacrament.
All citizens should simply be able to file for their joint tax status and "legal partner" paperwork if they are a consenting adult.
The progressives and libertarians should be able to form a coalition on this, problem solved.
This is the big fallacy of the Christian World. Marriage historically is NOT a religious rite in cultures and civilizations outside of The Christian World. Marriage has *traditionally* been a legal contract between FAMILIES where bonds were formed around the exchange of property to ensure that property is not usurped by other outside sources. It is only The Christian World, most of whom object to homosexuals and homosexuality in general, otherwise we would not even need to be having this conversation. When Christians realize they do not own the copyright on the word "marriage", and they start actually treating others the way their so called leader supposedly did, with genuine honest integrity and equality, not damning us to hell for who we are, then maybe we'll talk. But, until Jesus Christ himself comes back from the dead with the signed approved copyright papers on the word marriage, the term is open to anyone the government deems worthy, even if your precious little cult of personality founded on the principles of a man sending his only son to his death, turning said son into an invisible man in the sky zombie ghost doesn't
Man, I hope you get over the hate soon. Why do people who claim that there is so much hate in world harbor so much of the hate? Christains don't have the copyright on marriage, but according to what YOU wrote, neither does the government. You wrote that it was a contract between families, not government. Why not get government OUTof the marriage business and let families decide? That way, if you don't agree with a church or organization, you can be married in whatever form, by whoever you choose. That way, you don't have to have so much hate for Christians, who don't demand you believe anything.
Yes! I couldn't agree more. Get government OUT of marriages! It will be much easier to eliminate all tax breaks, incentives, etc for married people. If someone feels greatly committed to another, they can get married in a church and/or have a lawyer draw up a legal contract regarding possessions and kids. It would be so much simpler.
Are there any politicians that share this approach?
Ever try to get divorced in Church?
"Marriage is a RELIGIOUS sacrament"
Only if you are religious. Atheists and other non-religious people can -- and do -- get married every day.
His point is this:
For legal purposes, we should have a civil union for whatever couples choose to enter into this agreement. If you want to be "married," hold a wedding ceremony a church to celebrate that event, if the church in question will allow it. You know as well as I do that there are churches all across this country that will sanction same sex marriages as soon as the government allows it. But no special rights/priveleges should be attached to "married" couples as opposed to those in a recognized civil union. So long as we don't mandate that churches must perform these ceremonies, the liberal/libertarian coalition should hold up just fine on this issue.
Under all US law marriage is NOT a religious act. If a couple is "married" in a religious sacrament in a church the state does NOT recognize it as a marriage UNLESS it also registered with the State as defined by State law.
The state will recognize a marriage done by a Justice of the Peace as defined by state law between a couple who have NEVER set foot in or taken part in a religious ritual.
Marriage in the US is NOT a religious sacrament.
Just abolish marriage altogether. Then everyone is equal. Clearly the "social" benefits do not depend on the law. Aside from the sentimental attachment to the *word* marriage, there is no difference between a marriage and a civil union.
I agree with that position. Let churches be in the "marriage" business if they chose. The feelings described by the writer are exactly those that some conservatives fear. Call it marriage, then some couple is going to feel slighted by the fact that a particular church refuses on religious grounds to perform the marriage and end up losing their protection as a non-profit religious group.
How likely is that? Probably not likely...I really have no idea. But, so long as the concern is perceived, in the minds of some it will be considered a certaintly and they will continue to resist.
It certainly wouldn't erase all objections to same sex marriage, but I think it would open enough to allow same sex marriage rights to be instituted in all 50 states.
Silly question:
If someone has a sex change, can they then marry the (now) opposite sex partner?
If so, and they change their mind and are restored to their original sexual organs, does that end the marriage?
The fact that making same sex marriage illegal can lead to questions like this shows how silly the prohibition is.
As for the fear that allowing same sex marriage would allow poligamy, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and several others I could name have multiple wives, that they abandon one when they like another doesn't make it better, it makes it worse.
Matter of perspective. You think your scenario makes the prohibition just silly. Many would think that switching genders back and forth is far more silly. (I'm included in that group).
The answer is generally yes, just so you know - if someone has a sex change, they can then marry their partner. But only in some states - so it's possible for a female-to-male to be male and married in one state, female and not married in another, and female and married in the next, depending on the laws regarding transgender, gay marriage, and recognizing marriages from other states.
As you said, utterly silly!
This came up recently in a column in the NY Times, I think - the answer is, "depends on what state you live in ..."
If you call marriage something else......it is something else.
I've pretty much come to that conclusion also. I used to be a civil union supporter, but I happened to meet a lesbian couple who changed my mind by the example they set. I realized that they really were a married couple, why can't they make it legal like anyone else?
Great article. Succinct and poignant. Too often this debate becomes about the religious right, and why they are wrong. this debate (which shouldn't even be a debate) is really about individuals and couples like the ones described above. Kudos.
It is not just the right but also the center who oppose having the definition of marriage changed.
64% of voters ( almost 2/3) have voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. 2/3 of voters is not just the religious right but also the center and some of the left.
And those numbers are shrinking every day...
Great article Emma. My husband and I were registered domestic partners for years, but it was when we took advantage of the "marriage window" here in California that we realized what a difference having that marriage license makes, even if we don't get the federal tax and spousal benefits (yet!) The clerk at the very bureaucratic Los Angeles County Clerk's Office taking our papers (and check) stamping them and saying "Have a great marriage...Next!" The time a credit card company wouldn't give me information until I said, "I am his legal spouse" which was followed by "Oh, in that case, here's the situation...." Even checking the box "married" on some dumb marketing questionnaire-- it really means we are a part of society. Unfortunately, the religious right get it! They do NOT want us to be part of everyday society-- because having LGBTs as "bogeymen (and women)" somehow helps them feel better about their wretched lives. It's very neo-Puritan. They know that if we have relationships blessed by the social and legal systems that they have lost a whole group of people to look down on and feel superior to. They have already lost communists, minorities and women so I guess gays are the only ones left. So sad that they seem to have to have someone to hate to feel better about themselves.
It's when I thnk of how blissfully happy I am in my own marriage, that I am reminded of exactly unfair this all is. Why should anyone be denied this joy? Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. It seems so clear to me. When people my age are in charge, this just won't be an issue anymore. (NOT that I think you all should have to wait, but it must be some comfort that it is only a matter of time...)
The path forward: make all unions recognized and celebrated by the state "civil unions" - after all, what else do you call a marriage sanctified not by a church but by a civil government?
Anyone who thinks a "civil union" is the equivalent of a "marriage" should be willing to accept the proposal that in states where gays are offered civil unions, heteros should also be required to seak civil unions (and the "marriage" should become an entirely non-state affair). (for the record, this is how it is done in Mexico, except that in Mexico gays have not yet obtained the right to civil unions yet).
If anyone objects, they will have to admit a civil union is not the same as a marriage. I personally don't object, however, because if I (or any other hetero) am going to expect my gay friends to settle for a civil union, I should be willing to settle for it myself. Let's just get the State out of the "marriage business" and into the "civil union" business.
It's tht way in California..
That is NOT the way it is in California. They are two completely separate and UNEQUAL institutions.
Currently: marriage licenses can be sealed, domestic partnerships cannot. Who is grossly affected by this? Soldiers. Soldiers who if they register as domestic partners, their careers are at risk because their registry becomes public record. If they were to be able to marry, they are protected from military intrusion into their personal lives.
This is just ONE example of MANY of the inequities between the two.
Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Bad for people, but Great for Divorce Attorneys.
If you love your partner and stay together throughout your lives, then why do you need a government to issue a piece of paper to 'bless' your union?
The bond between two individuals is more important than any document.
Believe me, if you both decide to break up in 5-10-15 years later, you will be glad that you don't have to hire a divorce attorney.
However, if you manage to stay together forever, fantastic.
Just enjoy Life!
"If you love your partner and stay together throughout your lives, then why do you need a government to issue a piece of paper to 'bless' your union?"
Hmmmm, let's see.... being able to visit your partner in the hospital, not losing your home if your partner dies and his/her homophobic family contests the will. You know, silly little things like that.
I have NEVER had any problems visiting anyone in a hospital, related or not.
On losing your home... If the home is in BOTH names and you have a well written will the family can not take the house. People have problems with wills and family even if they are married. Marriage will not stop that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
