Comments on: Withers: Is separate always unequal?

By: Todd

Todd — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:53:49 +0000

By accepting civil unions over marriage it is setting a precedent that it’s ok to treat people separately and differently even in matters of equality.

Is that the right thing to do? No! Don’t be so selfish! It matters because it will affect how the next minority class gets treated in regard to the treatment of their inequality! Once you start saying it’s ok to treat people differently or slightly less than, then it becomes easier and easier to do that instead of giving people what they actually deserve 100%!

Equality right? Important word in there being EQUAL!

Again, in the latest California Supreme Court hearing one of the judges commented in regard to domestic partnerships and implied that they are ok because no rights were being denied gays by having a domestic partnership as opposed to marriage.

By: randyl

randyl — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:59:58 +0000

Let’s for a minute imagine that Barack Obamas parents couldn’t get married because they were of different ethnicities. But they could have gotten a civil union.
Do you think that he would be the man he today,having had to think all his life that his parents were somehow not as equal as Black/black or white/white married couples? Would he have had a stigma knowing that he was the product of a civil union ,having to explain to all and sundry what that was. Would they have been given a horrible name by the other children back then,,like oreo union. Would he be a different person. If you can answer no then go for civil unions if you think that the stigma MIGHT have existed then you must call it and have it be FULL marriage with no distinction.

By: Nanuq

Nanuq — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:24:06 +0000

When Vermont enacted civil unions. I wept with joy. As a longtime lesbian feminist, I was not especially attracted to the patriarchal concept of marriage-as-ownership.
But what I’ve come to see in the intervening 9 years is that separate will never be equal in my lifetime (I’m in my mid-fifties).
One of the arguments of the opponents is that passing a marriage equality bill won’t change any of the problems gay and lesbians have — because we already have ‘equality’ in the state, and all of the inequities (taxes, federal health insurance, social security, portability, etc.) are due to federal law. One state legislator even suggests that we should be campaigning for Congress to change all the marriage law language to ‘civil union.’
I should live so long!
The practical fact is that the word ‘marriage’ governs all the rights and benefits we still don’t have access to. After we get those rights and benefits, then maybe we’ll have the leisure to work on changing the language.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:59:45 +0000

It might be good political strategy to go the route of civil unions first, marriage later, but ultimately it is marriage that we must have. The California Supreme Court ruled that marriage and “domestic partnership” (the CA version of civil unions) are by no mean equal, even if the rights and responsibilities are identical. Marriage is not only a bundle of legalities, but also a status and an identity. It is “marriage” that society respects and honors. The whole notions of civil unions arises simply to deny equality to same-sex couples. It is inherently unequal in that it’s intention is to institutionalize a second-class status for same-sex couples. Civil unions will always be regarded as something less than marriage, because it is precisely and solely the belief that same-sex unions are not as valuable that opposite-sex unions that originates them.

About the DuBois quote – just to take a sentence or two out of a single essay by a complex and dynamic thinker, without any noting of context whatsoever – historical, social, personal, immediate (is he debating someone else) etc – means nothing at all. It is impossible to use such data in trying to form an opinion or shape an argument.

By: drewski

drewski — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:30:41 +0000

Separate but equal isn’t equal. If you’re “equal” within your microcosm, that doesn’t oblige the larger society to acknowledge ANY of your rights. Choosing to remain with your own group is like what you see in a high school cafeteria. Sitting with other art students, or black athletes, or 4-H members, has no impact on your grades. Your grades are based on your performance as a student, not a student focused on the arts, or a student who’s a black athlete, or a student who’s a 4-H member.

In my high school, one of my friend’s parents had to file complaint with the administration. Like many other students, she was steered to less-demanding classes because she was black–and in full contradiction of her middle-school performance. Time proved her (and her parents) right–she graduated with a strong GPA, as a member of High School Who’s Who, and with admission to Wash U in St Louis. If she were considered solely on her skin, then she couldn’t even apply to Wash U–she’d have to be happy with “black” schools like Fisk, Tennessee State, Spelman, Hampton, Howard or others. No consideration of an Ivy, no consideration of any other schools.

Just as justice delayed is justice denied, so too is it a denial of rights to evaluate one person by one standard, and another by a lesser set, based on one criterion which is ultimately irrelevant to achievement, aptitude or potential. No compromise. No separate, only equal.

As for DuBois, would anyone like to cite any recent case history where US Federal courts have–excluding gay cases–endorsed separate but equal? How was it justified, and is there an ongoing effort to appeal and/or overturn that standard?

By: Daniel S

Daniel S — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:30:23 +0000

History in other nations has shown that acceptance of civil unions is NOT an abandonment of the pursuit of equality.

The first nation in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, the Netherlands, went through a phase of civil unions for several years before moving on to legalize same-sex marriage. The same is true of Norway, which just legalized same-sex marriage, and is true in Sweden, which is moving towards doing so in the coming years.

These are VERY liberal societies by American standards. So why the training wheels? Why not legalize same-sex marriage to begin with?

Because culturally they weren’t ready. They needed to get to a state of being ready socially and intelligent activists saw no reason why they should have no legal rights at all while debates continued over the word “marriage” and all it’s historical baggage.

Of course in the long-run they won. Our issue is that being Americans, with our tendency as a culture to see things in absolute either/or terms notions of staged progress are considered anathema.

But I would prefer at least some forward progress rather than the backsliding the tunnel vision marriage activists have been bringing us.

By: Robert, NYC

Robert, NYC — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:48:13 +0000

Dbzeag…that’s not entirely true about UK civil partnerships. Spain recognizes them and many western EU countries that have some other forms of unions often reciprocate with their fellow members who have similar laws. France currently is negotiating to recognize UK partnerships, and the UK recognizes France’s PACs (unions). There is current debate in the EU that all member states should recognize legal unions other than marriages even in member states that have nothing but marriage. The UK civil partnership actually confers all of the rights and privileges of marriage except the name at the national level. I’ve no doubt that the terminology will inevitably change since all of the rights of marriage are already in place. It could easily be merged into the 1973 marriage causation act and probably will now that British society has become accustomed to them and realized that partnerships have definitely not affected or harmed marriage in any way.

By: Todd

Todd — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:31:59 +0000

“But if we can get marriage minus the word, what’s the problem?”

It’s obviously not marriage without the word ‘marriage’…

By: Butch

Butch — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:28:45 +0000

Perhaps, if we said we wanted the very same name and rights that straight folks have in the definition of their marriage. What ever it is called in the long run, it has to be the same name and rights as straight folk.

By: Mercedes

Mercedes — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:32:20 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board recognized, for the first time, the arguments and extensive evidence offered by friends of the court, that separate but equal in inherently unequal because of the PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE separate but equal does to the self image of Black children and adults.

The same is true for Gay children and adults.

I believe that getting the bag of rights is important but we should never pretend that the bag itself is a label used in social ranking. I believe we need to stand up and work for the entire enchalada for those who will come behind us.