Gay marriage, the incremental approach
One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons appeared a couple of years ago. An elderly husband and wife are sitting in their living room watching the news on TV. The man says: "Gays and lesbians getting married &mdash haven't they suffered enough?"
Not in Washington, apparently. Gay leaders in Olympia have worked tirelessly in recent years to gain access to as much of the marriage institution as they possibility can (survivor rights, pension benefits, adoption privileges, to name just a few). Rather remarkably, if only because they've encountered such little opposition, they are on the verge of winning every marriage benefit that exists.
Let the suffering begin!
Consider how quickly this all came about. Here in Washington, gay lawmakers succeeded in creating "domestic partnerships" with some basic marriage rights attached in 2007; last year they won several more benefits; and this past week they proposed a law (widely expected to pass) that will finish the job.
We are therefore within months of same-sex couples in this state having all the rights and responsibilities of married ones (nearly 450 separate ones, if you can believe it). The only thing that would be different is what those unions are called, domestic partnerships vs. marriages.
Washington would be only the fourth state in the country to provide full marriage benefits to same sex couples. The others are New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont. Two states, Connecticut and Massachusetts, actually allow gay marriage outright. (California famously enacted it and had it overturned by a ballot measure last fall.)
It's a notable turn of events for Washington, given that just a decade ago (1998) Olympia lawmakers passed the Defense of Marriage Act prohibiting same-sex unions. It's doubtful that many of them would have expected the end-run that has happened in the intervening years.
The incremental approach here in Washington was pursued deliberately: Add some rights every year as people grow more comfortable with the idea, rather than pushing for marriage all at once. Once the full-benefited domestic partnerships are around a few years, gay leaders can make a strong run at the name change as well. They'll argue that merging domestic partnerships into marriage would be just a technicality, as all the rights and responsibilities have already been conferred.
"Let's be unambiguous in our discussion of this issue," says gay State Rep. Jim Moeller (D-Vancouver), "words are extremely important. Marriage is the word and civil marriage is the goal."
Moeller has actually introduced legislation this session that would allow gay marriage, but it's not being pushed hard and it's not expected to pass. Even most gay leaders believe the time hasn't come. The general public still needs to be acclimated. Just look at what happened last fall where voters in three states, California, Arizona, and Florida supported constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.
Some in the gay community will no doubt be satisfied just to have all the benefits of marriage, even if they can't have the name to go with it. But gay leaders, like Moeller, are clearly on a mission. In this they part ways with the sentiments expressed in one of Shakespeare's most memorable lines (from Romeo & Juliet): "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Uh uh, they contend, the term "marriage" has a fragrance all unto itself.
Comments:
Posted Tue, Feb 3, 6:55 a.m. inappropriate
In one of Shakespeare's most memorable lines (from Romeo & Juliet): "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Yes the path to LGBT Marriage seems to be taking the incremental approach; Hybrid as Roses.
www.civillywedd.com
Posted Tue, Feb 3, 7:26 a.m. inappropriate
If the LGBT community had not been so obsessed with the word "marriage" we would have gotten domestic partnerships with all the state benefits of marriage years ago. The Big Lie in the LGBT community is that if such a legal category is called "marriage" then it is falsely proclaimed "marriage equality" even though it lacks have the federal benefits of marriage. True marriage equality would have all the state and federal benefits of marriage regardless of what it is called.
Posted Wed, Feb 4, 8:36 a.m. inappropriate
Whatever your private religious beliefs are on homosexuality, you cannot remain true to our Constitution and its unique message and guarantee of full equality for all its citizens, and continue to actively oppress gay Americans and their constitutional rights. I do understand the tactic of incremental approach, and that would be a huge step in the right direction for our state. I'm hoping though that once the haters can 'understand' why their views are truly unconstitutional, this process will be hastened across the nation.
Here is a brief snippet of some beautiful legislative literature, courtesy of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Although the original is much lengthier, I believe these few paragraphs show the truth, justice, and irrefutable rationality of their ruling.
Supreme Court 1
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil union does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.
Supreme Court 2
We also conclude that our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.. for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and therefore, our statutes discrimination against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage.
Supreme Court 3
A cognizable constitutional claim arises whenever the government singles out a group for differential treatment. The legislature has subjected gay persons to exactly that kind of differential treatment by creating a separate legal classification for same-sex couples who, like opposite-sex couples, with to have their relationship recognized under the law. Put differently, the civil union law entitles same-sex couples to all of the same rights as married couples except one.. that is, the freedom to marry, a right that "has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men and women" and "fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. a, 12, 87 S, Ct. 1817, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1010 (1967)
Supreme Court 4
We do not doubt that the civil union law was designed to benefit same-sex couples by providing them with legal rights that they previously did not have. If however, the intended effect of a law is to treat politically unpopular or historically disfavored minorities differently from persons in the majority or favored class, that law cannot evade constitutional review under the separate but equal doctrine. See Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. (1954)
Supreme Court 5
In such circumstances, the very existence of the classification gives credence to the perception that separate treatment is warranted for the same illegitimate reasons that gave rise to the past discrimination in the first place. Despite the truly laudable effort of the legislature in equalizing the legal rights afforded same-sex and opposite-sex couples, there is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have a constitutionally cognizable injury.. that is, the denial of the right to marry a same-sex partner.
Supreme Court 6
Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state and national constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice.
To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons, and another for all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these constitutional requirements, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.
Posted Wed, Feb 4, 8:19 p.m. inappropriate
Nice post CR. incremental turns out to be a workable way to win equal protection.
Thanks to leadership in the legislature to take charge of the strategy that had been left to rich gay and lesbian people with absolutely zero political skills. They have plenty of money and passion between meals, they get to stand up at community dinners and preach their passion. They just have no smarts. Never have.
The problem they cause for gay people is real, because gay people are passionate about more than just equal rights for gay people. And the stupid passion of the most holy rich but dumb crowd cost people progress on other big things and probably helped re-elect George W. Bush a few years ago.
Posted Sun, Feb 8, 8:49 p.m. inappropriate
CR-
Ed Murray is a cautious politician (an incrementalist). Is it your sense he proposed this now because he has the votes? Will the governor sign the legislation? Will there be enough of a backlash against domestic partnership of this order to fuel an initiative all the way to the ballot box?
Interested in your take on it.