LEONARD PITTS JR.: Stop calling it gay marriage

[kweerwolf]

It's worth noting that two years ago, before the Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law and cultural conservatives cranked up the fear machine to make "Adam and Steve" the biggest threat to American life since Sept. 11, nearly half of us supported gay marriage. When Gallup polled the issue last year, that number had tumbled to 24 percent, with 54 percent opposed. (The remainder had no opinion.)

But here's the interesting part: When the phrase "civil union" was used in place of the word "marriage," support climbed by 10 percentage points and opposition dropped by 12. Which suggests that a lot of people are drawing the same distinction Emily does.

But you know what? Go with it. Were I a gay activist, I would forget I ever knew the phrase "gay marriage." I would say "civil union" until my tongue fell out.

<snip>

Gay men and lesbians face many obstacles in winning legal recognition of their relationships. Any that can be readily removed from the table ought to be.

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/pitts10e_20050610.htm

[camby]

1. Agreed. Civil Unions it is.

But I have a hard time figuring out why people feel that the institution of marriage is threatened by the concept of gay marriage. I would think that the institution of marriage has been threatened way more by the high incidence of divorce. Not trying to sound facetious, but the threat to marriage does not come from homosexuals. Sorry folks. (BTW, I am a married hetero, and a Christian, and I'm sick of all the gay bashing that goes on in the name of "godliness".)

[VPStoltz]

2. Once again the Repugs have appropriated

a term that had a wide definition and narrowed it for their own purposes. I really don't think that many people thought much about the "sanctity" of marriage before the Bush league started using the term like there WAS anything sanctified about it. We all know about the Elvis Chapel in Vegas and if that's santified any union is. What they are basically saying is that marriage is witnessed by God. Oh, really?!?! Even those at the Elvis Chapel? Almost 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce. Where's the sanctity in that?

[terrya]

3. How about "equal marriage"?

Leonard Pitts, Jr. has it exactly right. It's a matter of equality, pure and simple. To be honest, the words "gay marriage" is going to be a loser for us. That's harsh and unfair, but in this political climate, that's the way it is.

I don't care what it's called...so long as we get the same, EQUAL rights that heterosexuals have. Marriage, employment, housing, adoption.

[Lexingtonian]

4. He means well

but he's wrong.

If you take a long hard look at polling and the materials, at what people say and think and mean, civil unions may be politically expedient. The problem is that they aren't politically securable.

The distinction in the public mind between marriage and civil union is that the former represents a relationship with a conceded religious/spiritual dimension (or at least its possibility), and the latter does not entail this concession. The distinction is between admitting and not admitting gay people to be spiritually real and proper.

The argument about civil unions will always have the anti side saying "but we know they want marriage rights next, this is just a gateway". And it works for them, politically. Because when groups can't or won't defend their standing as spiritual beings, concede it, their status in society falls to the equivalent to that of people who are mentally ill- there's no way they can educate their children properly if that part of reality is beyond the group's ability to teach it, and then there's always doubt to be raised about their relationships as mere material interdependence and experimentation of the pre-marital or prostitution kinds.

Also don't forget what the civil union side will have to countenance when it tries to say "no, we don't want marriage rights". That will be taken to be a rejection of organized religion and of the heterosexual institution of marriage.

So, people like Leonard Pitts Jr. think that they can cut a deal with the anti-marriage crowd. Let me say that it has been tried. The truth is that it can't be done. It's an all or nothing game for the anti-marriage sorts. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what he thinks or recommends, speculative and naive as it is. The game is that in two or three years the Supreme Court will be faced with a challenge to the federal DoMA emanating out of New England which is logically and evidencewise and precedentwise airtight. You can figure out what happens when it succeeds.

[Misunderestimator]

7. Well said.... I like the analogy of them perceiving civil unions as a...

gateway drug... that's exactly how they see it. How else did we lose such ground in that arena? Bottom line... they hate us and they feel that THEY deserve special rights... they want to maintain this inequality to prove that they are somehow better than us.

Massachusetts is the only state to do the right thing. The precedent they set WILL bring us equality, eventually.

[freestyle]

5. I usually like Pitts, but I disagree here. Equal is equal.

The institution of marriage does not have a sexual orientation. There is not such thing as gay or straight or bi or other marriage. There is marriage and there are the participants. The debate is about equal access to the government recognized thing called marriage. If states wanted to stop recognizing marriages for everyone, and only recognize civil unions for everyone, then we would have equality. But we have learned that separate is inherently unequal.

A local organization has a banner that states "We're Black, We're Gay, We Pay Taxes, and We Vote." We deserve equal rights are will fight for them.

[davidinalameda]

6. there is a big honking difference between marriage and civil unions

and I really wish people would understand that