Subscribe to Breaking NewsRuby-Sachs: Washington Civil Unions and the State by State Struggle
When Massachusetts first won gay marriage, I was ecstatic. It seemed impossible, even coming from a State that falls on the liberal end of most spectrums. As of today, we have four states: Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut, with gay marriage and 6 states/ districts, New Jersey, California, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia, with civil unions or robust domestic partnership legislation.
Yesterday, Washington State became one Governor’s signature away from joining this list.
I still celebrate every time there is a win like this. Especially when it happens in states I care deeply about like Connecticut and (cross your fingers) Illinois.
But jeez it’s moving slowly.
While a likely eleven states recognize my right to choose a partner, 30 have gay marriage bans on the books. And, as has been stated over and over again, the number and magnitude of state benefits linked to marriage pale in comparison to federal rights. Even if many of those rights were secured through the DOMA legal challenge and the passage of the UAFA, would c0uples living in states where same-sex marriage bans are in place be granted access to federal marriage rights?
For example, if you are married in Massachusetts and “only a marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California,” can you live in California and still receive Federal tax credits for your married status?
One only needs to look back through America’s history of slavery to see how dangerous a state by state solution to a problem can be. At a certain point we will need widespread national change. And I’m not sure I’m willing to wait for the replacement of three Supreme Court Judges (what it would take to tip the balance given the likely retirees at this point) to see that happen.
We can celebrate these state victories. But we must also pressure the Federal government to pass progressive legislation, appoint progressive judges and pressure states to fall in line when it comes to equality.
For DC- “Do we really want a Supreme Court case?”
You betcha we do! Our arguments are strong, and it’s ok to voice them even in the highest court. DOMA cannot hold up without an amendment to our constitution, and I don’t think even the conservative bunch on the court can find otherwise.
Finally, it is risky! We do not make gains in this country by not taking risks. (Other civil rights fights required risks for their advancement, why should we be any different!?!) African Americans in the US waited, and from the civil war until MLK JR, only a small percentage were significantly advantaged, a small percentage were left essentially unchanged, and a significant percentage continued to suffer persecution, sometimes worse than immediately after the war! Did waiting work for them?
Yes, there may be a disasterous court finding (though I honestly don’t think so) but didn’t they have their share of bad cases (Plessy??? Dred Scott???) Didn’t it take a tired woman who refused to give up her seat on the bus to push their civil rights to the forefront?
We need Political wins (read as popular opinion and legislative ones) but there are three coequal branches of gov’t for a reason. The courts are there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, to protect the people from intrusion by the gov’t, to protect the powerless from the powerful! We are strong, our voices loud, but powerful we are not!
Roe and civil rights have no connection, and I don’t see the point of trying to create one. Yes, marriage equality and the right to control your own body are controversial issues. However, civil rights advance by allowing the majority to see that the minority is not all that different. If the supreme court eliminated the inequality, and GLBT people married, had the same rights as everyone else, what would change in the lives of the majority? Wouldn’t those who are reluctant to see us as people who deserve equality be “forced” to concede that we are in fact people, and deserving of equality? And if not, won’t those who condem us as less than worthy become a significant minority themselves? Racial civil rights have not eliminated all racists, and it never will, but I don’t hear anyone argue that the status quo is not better than years past.
We must fight for what is right. Goodness knows the other side is patient, and waiting for us to wither our way to rights, one microstep at a time!
Okay, my mistake… Sorry.. in re-reading your article I see the federal tax bit was in a hypothetical situation. Sorry.. : )
“For example, if you are married in Massachusetts and “only a marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California,” can you live in California and still receive Federal tax credits for your married status?”
You can’t get federal tax credits even now in Massachusetts.
Also, in your list of states that afford gay couples rights, you left out Hawaii… the one that ’started it all.’
Do we really want a Supreme Court ruling? Do we want to go into a Roe vs. Wade situation where the matter is never settled? And a ruling will just be the beginning of a constantly battled and debated over issue? Shouldn’t we focus on reaching out to people?
My partner is Male, and has had “top surgery” which he both wanted, and needed for the change in his documentation. However, he did not desire the often disasterous “bottom” surgery. Our love story is almost as old as Adam and STEVE! We just took advantage of our unique biological situation to expand our family. We already have one adopted son, and he’s wonderful.
As for the legal issues, he is legally male in all 50 states. We are in a gay relationship, and thus we fight the same discrimination as other couples fighting for marriage equality.
On a different note…We do live in a federal republic. We are a collection of 50 “independent” states, who have agreed to allow the federal gov’t supercede our individual state laws in certain areas, such as trade, defense, the treasury etc. We have left certain rights up to the individual states, such as the definition of marriage. HOWEVER, we as a federal republic, also require that the laws of one state must be respected by the other states. Family law has already been ruled in federal courts to be subject to the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. THEREFORE, DOMA must be ruled unconstitutional, at least with repect to other states needing to recognize all marriages from other states (two 13 year olds from Arkansas who marry, are still married if they move to NY for example). It may be a separate issue if the Federal gov’t must recognise all marriages the same. I believe they must, but it isn’t addressed by the full faith and credit clause, rather by equal protection clause.
In the end, I think we must pursue federal court cases to end DOMA. Once ended, and everyone learns that the Sky has not fallen, as have those in MASS and elsewhere, those who would discriminate against us will find themselves fewer and fewer. We should not fight this fight slowly. Sure we will win eventually, but not before my childrens children have been discriminated against!
I am in the David Paterson group. Let NY legislature vote! If we lose, we’ll know where we must bring the fight to bring equality. Let the current supreme court rule on DOMA. Yes, the odds seem stacked against us there. BUT, I don’t believe even these conservatives will be able to justify DOMA with the constitution. It is so obviously unconstitutional! (yet, there was the Bush V Gore decision, and the court is even worse now…)
Thirty states still don’t have employment nondiscrimination laws. While states that have those laws progress even farther with relationship protections, the others are still left with little or nothing. Remember your sisters and brothers who can get fired just for being who they are. They deserve protection too.
To Howard:
You are the poster who is mistaken.
Federal law supercedes state law at every level. Equal civil rights is not a state-by-state issue but is a federally protected and mandated issue.
The rights for which same-sex couples are fighting are minimal on a state level, but most important at the federal level.
For example, if state-by-state, states determined that left-handed people were no longer citizens, federal law would supercede that decision and left-handed people would still be protected by federal law.
How much were you paid to place this post to keep same-sex equality issues trapped in the time-wasting pursuit of state sanction?
To Gay Daddy.
Why is your partner legally male? In case after case, when family has challenged the legality of a marriage of a FTM who has married, the courts have come down on the side that the person is genetically labeled from birth.
Therefore, your partner, regardless of appearance, would still be genetically female.
I only mention this to bring up the absurdity of this country’s determination to attach law to gender. It’s ludicrous.
One state says gender is determined by birth…and apparently, your state determines gender by document.
Or—they just determine which way it would be most invasive and detrimental to the couple involved.
Then there are the intersexed…which may identify either way, but still must address, somehow, the labyrinthian maze of judeo/christian hypocrisy that has made its way into our legal system.
Once again, folks, aren’t we all just a bit tired of the delusional who believe in invisible friends having so much control and recognition in our laws?
Again…the 14th Amendment makes no distinction based on gender in its rather clear definition of who is and who isn’t a citizen of the United States and therefore guaranteed equal protection under the law.
And yet we continue to allow our Federal government to continue this charade of forcing this issue as a “state by state” decision.
The Supreme Court isn’t all powerful either. If they continue to refuse to acknowledge that homosexual citizen equality is a civil issue, then the legislature must simply over-rule them.
This post shows a lack of understanding about the nature of the American System. This country is a collection of states with an umbrella federal government. The state by state approach is the correct one, and while it may take a bit longer to achieve a national census, it will achieve it.
You forget that what is driving this is the gradual acceptance of gay people and their ability to chose their partner. As acceptance rises, the opposition decreases (obviously).
Slow and steady wins the race.
Get rid of DOMA and the hopes of the GOP will come crashing down on them. Without that act, states would be FORCED to recognize marriages from other states, and the judicial fights could begin.
My partner and I are anxiously awaiting the arrival of our twins. Yes we are pregnant. What makes us unique is he is a FTM and we conceived spontaneously! He is legally male, and as such we can not get married in our home state of NM.
I don’t understand the religious right’s condemnation of gay marriage, of course, but they have no idea how it is affecting children, some of which are conceived in these gay relationships!
Check out my new blog at http://www.myspace.com/gaydaddynm
Hopefully marriage equality will happen soon, so our children will not be discriminated against!
One can only dream of full equality nationally. It’s not a matter of if, but when. And when it happens it won’t be truly equal.
Even today after years of struggle for civil rights, African-Americans are still discriminated against. Non-discrimination laws do not change opinions and actions. Minds and hearts need to be changed and that takes time.
Yes, it will take a long time to achieve equality doing it state by state, just as it took a long time to get rid of sodomy laws state by state.
The fivethirtyeight.com blog notes that support for marriage equality gains about 2 per cent each year and charts the “tipping points” of the states, i.e., when they reach the point in which a majority of voters would vote in favor of same-sex marriage or against a constitutional amendment. According to them, the last state on that list will be Mississippi in 2024.
Interestingly, California will reach the tipping point in 2010, just in time for a new referendum to repeal Prop 8 if it is upheld by the California Supreme Court.
Iowa will not reach its tipping point until 2013, so it is important to try to delay a referendum on same-sex marriage there until then.
Of course, what is likely to happen is that the US Supreme Court will at some point have to weigh in on the issue, either addressing the question of equal rights under the law directly or the “full faith and credit” clause. I suspect that when a majority of the population live in states that recognize same-sex marriage or robust civil unions and domestic partnerships, the US Supreme Court will rule in our favor. The justices watch the polls too.
When the Supreme Court finally invalidated the sodomy laws in 2003, there were still 13 states that stubbornly refused to repeal their laws. I think many states will be as backward as those for a long time to come, but eventually we will win. I just hope that my partner and I live to see it.
I wholeheartedly agree!