Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Is separate always unequal?
Note: This is the start of a weekly conversation between the 365gay.com bloggers, Jenna Lowenstein, Emma Ruby-Sachs and James Withers. We’ll take one topic and have a conversation about it. This week we start with the debate about fighting for marriage or civil unions.
One of the things that irks in the marriage debate is how some gay marriage advocates smooth out the edges in black history. In their desire for the grand prize of marriage as opposed to civil unions, people rightfully point to the fight against “separate but equal” (effectively killed by Brown v. Board of Education). All fair really but what is lost in the conversation when we don’t even acknowledge that the debate about “separate but equal” was messier than most realize? And would we change our tactics if we knew the father of the civil rights movement, W.E.B. DuBois, opined that voluntary segregation was no sin?
In David Levering Lewis’ biography, W.E.B. DuBois: The Fight for Equality and the American Century, there is the story behind DuBois’ infamous editorial called “Segregation.” Written when DuBois was fighting with the NAACP board (for his whole long life DuBois seemed to be in intellectual warfare with everyone), the essay sent shock waves in the NAACP community and beyond because DuBois seemed to be taking up an argument that was once put forth by his nemesis, Booker T. Washington.
“It must be remembered that in the last quarter of a century, the advance of the colored people has been mainly in the lines where they themselves working by and for themselves, have accomplished the greatest advance.”
Here was the leader of the race, when the phrase actually had meaning, extolling the virtue of segregation.
Why the early morning history lesson? Those who demand marriage rights always say that the benefits of the institution can be conferred with the name and civil unions are at best a poor substitute. But if the rights of marriage are transferred to civil unions, then what’s the problem? By pushing for marriage and marriage only, aren’t we boxing ourselves into a corner and making the fight for equality more complicated than it needs to be? And let’s be honest: vigorous demands for civil unions that match marriage in everything but name will earn a large number of straight doubters and put our enemies on the defensive.
Maybe the debate is over. It’s marriage or nothing, But if we can get marriage minus the word, what’s the problem?
The word means everything, if for nothing else than portability. If a straight couple filed for a “civil partnership” in the UK, no place else on earth would that couple have any couple-centric rights. No visitation if hospitalized on a trip, difficulties through customs, job transfers not going through.
It is calling the relationship a marriage that gives it power because all soverign states use the same nominclature when discussing couples, “marriage”.
Calling it anything else is just to appease those zealots who incorrectly think the contract between two people for property and goods (aka marriage) is somehow religous.
To answer the final question posed, it’s not just about rights conferred. It’s also about the simple right to have access to the same words. If you don’t want to get married and choose a civil union, that’s voluntary segregation. If you get a civil union because you don’t have the right to get married, that’s pretty involuntary. For quite a few of us who want a public and legal confirmation of our relationships, the dream is to walk down the aisle, not the hallway, so the fight for the grand prize should continue.
I don’t know James, perhaps you can suggest that black people such as yourself not be allowed to have marriages – but something just like it, without the word.
And while we’re at it, why don’t we have a seperate name for those who get married who cannot or chose not to have children? I’m sure they wouldn’t mind their own special label, you know, with all the benefits – just “not the name”.
It becomes readily apparent that the “name” is a very large factor in this matter. This is a major cultural institution, not some Boy Scout badge.
Even with all the same rites, the “name” proves the equality on a societal level. Many don’t care about this, but many do.
Marriage without the name would be good and I fervently hope for that because there are rights that my family could benefit from RIGHT NOW with such recognition.
Would it be good? Yes. Would it be enough? No.
What’s wrong with marriage without the name? The principle of the thing.
Would I delay getting my marriage recognized because I would wait for the name? HELL NO! I want my safety, security, and legal provisions NOW! Once my family has been protected THEN I’ll fight for a name, thank you very much.
Why not have water fountains for blacks only, and water fountains for whites only? They perform the same function, right?
Sure, I’ll drink at the gays only fountain, if it means getting water that I need right now. Once I’m not dying of dehydration I’ll raise seven kinds of hell to drink at any fountain I want to, but first things first, folks.
There is nothing inherently wrong about creating civil unions for gays and lesbians. The problem with creating a separate legal form of relationship is how they will be treated by everyone. B vs BoE was struck down because schools for minorities were not truly treated equal. Had those schools received the same amount of money and their students given the same cultural recognition, we would have probably seen the separation continue. Civil Unions will only work if the federal gov, all state govs, and all public corporations/hospitals treat them equally.
I wholeheartedly agree, and have long rallied for the equality of relationships, if not for marriage. I really don’t care what the government calls my partnership with a man, so long as we receive the same legal rights and recognition as opposite-sex couples. Call it civil unions. That’s fine with me. And I think obtaining that legal advance would come much sooner than trying to change the definition of “marriage” to include us. Marriage has too much history associated with it.
Building a separate but equal institution would work just as well for my family.
I have absolutely no problems with ‘civil union’ being the term to describe our relationships – just so long as the legal terms ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ are treated exactly the same in ALL legal areas, federal, state, and local – and that all involved in EITHER legal union are beneficiaries of precisely the same rights and privileges.
In other words – NO legal distinction whatsoever.
First things first, eh?
If one was thirsty enough one would drink whatever was made available, even if it was poison.
-c
Withers, you’re making a fool out of yourself with these inane arguments. When did W.E.B. DuBois make this argument? What was the reality of racial relations in the U. S. at the time? And what year is this?
It was my husband and I who launched the challenge in British Columbia against the Canadian federal government for the right to legally marry. The government had, by this time, fully recognized gay and lesbian couple relationships. They asked us why that wasn’t enough. After all, we had what all straight couples had, except that our relationships couldn’t be called “marriages”. Our response was: but that isn’t equal treatment as guaranteed by our constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. “Marriage” carries with it societal approbation and recognition that a civil union doesn’t. Everyone knows what it means to be “married”. When anyone asks me now if I have a wife, I reply, “No, but I have a husband!” That sometimes throws people, but immediately they know what it means. Were I to explain I have a “partner”, no one knows exactly what I mean. Is it a business partner, a bridge partner, a running partner? No, to accept anything less than full marriage is to accept that we gay and lesbian couples are somehow less than straight couples. We weren’t prepared to accept that and neither was our Supreme Court. So, our advice is, don’t accept anything less either. Keep up the challenge – you will eventually win!
The issue of marriage vs. civil unions is best illustrated by New Jersey. They instituted a civil unions law that demanded the unions be treated the same as marriages. It didn’t happen. It still hasn’t happened. People don’t know what a civil union is. That is not to say that over time people wouldn’t learn, and change the way they treat our families, but in reality we shouldn’t have to fight through that.
That having been said I am for civil unions. I think part of the pie is a lot better than none of the pie. More importantly I am a student of history, and I know that over time people will wonder why there is this silly difference between civil unions and marriage anyway. That is far off into the future, but I do not mind stepping on the stepping stones to get where we deserve to be. However, I take those steps knowing I am not there yet. Separate is not equal, and it never will be. The people who want separate want it because they feel some privilege in what they are protecting. As long as they have that attitude they will make sure it isn’t equal, and when they cease to have that attitude the extra energy of maintaining the separation will seem stupid. It’s the nature of people.
It has to be the word “marriage” and under the same laws of marriage, because the religious conservatives will keep fighting to maintain less rights for marriage alternatives. The fight only ends when we have the same exact rights they have, and they are hurt by attacking the institution they cherish.
“Marriage” as it is commonly known today – has changed many times throughout the course of human history – from highly informal to elaborately rirualistic. The marriage contract has also evolved and changed over time. The right-wing neo-cons are holding onto this word because they know it rallies the ignorant masses. But make no mistake – they don’t want Civil Unions or Domestic partnerships either!