The myth of the compromise of civil unions

[dsc]

We keep hearing about how civil unions would be easier to pass, and cause less electoral trouble, than marriage equality. Over and over again, we gays hear from Obama on down, that we should accept civil unions and STFU about marriage equality. Forgetting about the merits of accepting a seperate but equal status that no one else would, or would be told to; there is another huge problem the compromise shows no signs of actually working.

The following states have used a constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality but have not affected civil unions or domestic partnerships. Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee.

The following states have used a constitutional amendment to not only ban marriage equality but to also either ban or greatly restrict civil unions and domestic partnerships. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin

Now, does anyone seriously think that MS and TN have fewer people who hate gays than say Michigan and Ohio? Wisconsin actually has a pretty good rep as a state that protects its gay citizens (it had one of the first ENDA style laws in the nation). Ohio was the very first state which removed its sodomy law. It is very hard to see any correlation between homophobic citizenry and which states did and didn't ban civil unions.

There is exactly one state where an amendment which banned civil unions and domestic partnerships failed but one which only banned marriage equality passed. That was Arizona. But there is a major problem. Arizona has a very large retiree population who have a huge incentive to have some marriage rights but not any on the federal level (due to pension and social security issues). That certainly made the difference. But this is directly opposed to the compromise we keep getting told to take. The people who switched their votes did so because civil unions don't have the federal rights of marriage. Once they did, they would be useless to those retirees.

I don't see a theory for this compromise working, nor to I see any evidence of it working. Yes civil unions poll better than marriage equality. Similarly absolute gun rights polls worse than limited ones. But who succeeds on the gun issue? It is the extremes. On a national level those who want unlimited gun rights have won nearly every major battle of the last decade and a half. In big cities those who wish to ban guns win elections. The middle on gun rights just don't vote on them. Similary does anyone really think there is a huge population of people who will vote for a candidate expousing civil unions that are in every way equal to marriage but against a candidate for marriage equality? Really? A single issue voter on this issue that is that precise? I really don't think so.

So what about political office holders. Surely they are sophisticated enough for this compromise. well try Hawaii where the GOP governor vetoed a civil unions bill because it was too much like marriage. Try Rhode Island where a GOP governor vetoed a bill that would have permitted a gay widow or widower to control the remains of their partner. Why? because he felt that a couple in a one year relationship wasn't enough of a relationship to be allowed to do that. It would undermine marriage.

so the populous shows no sign of accepting this compromise, and neither do the elites. why should we be embracing this again?

On edit Ohio wasn't the first state to remove sodomy laws.

[NightWatcher]

1. We dont vote on civil rights. How would a vote (amongst whites) gone prior to the 15th Amend?

How would a vote (amongst men) gone prior to the 19th?
" " amongst whites gone prior to the Emancipation Proclamation?

We dont vote on rights. Equal rights is just that EQUAL. That we are voting on rights in this day and age is shameful in America.

(on edit)

DO NOT COMPROMISE YOURSELVES. FIGHT FOR AND DEMAND EQUAL TREATMENT.

[david13]

2. You have a right to equal treatment. The churches do not own

marriage and never did. The state does not own marriage and never did. The people, the two people are the owners of the marriage.
dc

[kevinbgoode]

3. I don't think Ohio was the first to remove sodomy statutes, was it?

I believe Illinois did that in 1961 or 1962.

[dsc]

4. thanks I corrected it

[dsc]

5. kick

[dsc]

6. kick

[saracat]

7. K+R

[VMI Dem]

8. It is pragmatic to push that separate but equal bullshit.

[dsc]

9. actually, no it isn't

If it worked, then it would be pragamtic, but there is no real sign it works.

[dsc]

10. kick

[struggle4progress]

11. I'm not a militarist, but military strategies can provide useful analogies for political fights

A general rule is: Do not allow your enemy to choose where the battle will be fought and how the various sides will be positioned. They will obviously, unless they are very stupid, choose a place and arrangement to your disadvantage and to their advantage. They will choose positions they can defend and from which they expect to attack successfully. A corollary is: not every encounter is a good opportunity for battle. Sometimes one ought to withdraw. Sometimes one ought to simply walk around them to pursue more strategic objectives

Another rule is: the outcome of any particular battle is determined by local conditions. A success there-and-then cannot necessarily be reproduced here-and-now, because the place is different and the time has changed. Flexibly adjusting concepts is continually necessary

Another rule is: Look at the whole map. An apparent win is not really a win unless it actually promotes one's overall position -- and sometimes losing a particular battle can promotes one's overall position. One might "lose" in ways that draw the enemy out and expose the enemy, for example. A loss on the field may sometimes translate into a propaganda victory. If the enemy continually loses troops and supporters, while you continue to gain troops and supporters, then the momentum is favorable even if you seldom win battles

So at every particular locale, one should try to embrace tactics locally that contribute to larger strategic goals. No single slogan can capture the complexity of the landscape in a country of 300 million: what people should try to accomplish in one place in Alabama is probably different from what what people should try to accomplish in another place in Oregon

[Rhythm]

12. Oh, but sometimes it can... or is the Constitution not good enough for everyone?

No single slogan can capture the complexity of the landscape in a country of 300 million:

United States Constitution -- Article 4, section 1:
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.


Amendment Fourteen: (Section 1):
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[struggle4progress]

13. "Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human

liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress


Whatever one might abstractly hope, it is usually inadequate to notice what-ought-to-be, which is always in the distance: obtaining it is typically a real fight, that requires substantial work from a large number of people -- and I aimed my comments in that direction

[dsc]

14. but again the data doesn't really show that

Alabama, Mississippi, Tennesse, and Louisiana are roughly equally bad for gay rights. Yet they split on banning civil unions, Alabama and Louisiana do, while Mississippi and Tennessee don't. Similary Oregon and Wisconsin are about even on gay rights. Oregon doesn't ban civil unions, Wisconsin does. I really don't think the electorate sees a huge difference between the two.

[struggle4progress]

16. I'm simply not competent to analyze actual political differences between the states in this regard

What seems clear is that the reactionaries had some success on this issue in the last fifteen years, and the result is a political landscape littered with barriers -- chevaux de frise or minefields or trenches

[HillWilliam]

15. K&R

and tired of being a political football then winding up taking hindmost.

[mitchtv]

17. hawaii is proof

there is no compromise