February 27, 2005
The Righteous Wing's War On Civil Unions In Oregon
Also, 'Oregonian' Editorial Board (Imagine Our Surprise) Screws Up Again
Back in the middle of January we mentioned a civil unions bill being proposed by Senator Ben Westlund (referring to coverage in The Portland Mercury in the process).
As argued by the Mercury, and by us, with the apparent involvement of Tim Nashif, who headed the Special Rights for Heterosexuals Coalition during the battle over Measure 36, it seems rather inevitable that it won't be a true civil unions bill, but one which includes only those marriage rights and benefits which meet with the approval of the state's righteous wing.
Inspired by a recent post to the Basic Rights Oregon blog (who knew they had a blog?) about an even more direct attack against civil unions, we thought we'd poke our heads into the Oregon State Legislature website and see what else our state's righteous wing might be up to.
At issue is the recently-introduced Senate Bill 799 (which is what the BRO blog mentions), which seeks to declare that "the recognition or extension by a public body of this state of the statutory benefits of marriage to nonmarital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state."
In other words, it would ban not only same-sex marriage by that name, but civil unions (or other similar legal constructs) as well. You can thank Senator Gary George (R-McMinnville) and Representative Mac Sumner (R-Molalla) for this gem.
Those with long enough memories know that we favor only one of two solutions: Marriage for all, or civil unions for all. Ultimately, only these solutions serve the interests of simple rationality, since a state-licensed marriage is nothing more than a civil union wrapped in a religious term.
Meanwhile, today's Sunday Oregonian featured the latest same-sex marriage salvo from the paper's editorial board, in which (among many other things), they take direct aim at the notion that the civil unions approach somehow equates to a "separate but equal" problem.
(We note in advance here that the editorial in essence supports civil unions, so this section is not meant to imply that the paper is part of the righteous wing attack on civil unions. It is, however, part of the paper's continuing attack on same-sex marriage.)
Critics say civil unions exemplify the separate but equal doctrine used to justify segregation in the South, but it's a "facile and deeply wrong" comparison, suggests Yale law professor William Eskridge Jr., an expert on civil unions.
The difference? As both Eskridge and [David Moats, author of a book on Vermont civil unions,] have argued, "separate but equal" was a legal doctrine used to mask inequality. Vermont used the term "civil union" to mask equality.
Let's take Moats first, since he's also said some other things which The Oregonian editorial board isn't telling you, and isn't likely to. In an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News in February of last year, Moats tackled the notion when San Francisco simply decided to allow same-sex marriages, the city were engaging in civil disobedience.
We've made that argument in the past here, explaining that because state-licensed marriage is not something a couple can obtain on their own, any act of civil disobedience required the assistance of a governmental entity. For us, that was reason enough for Multnomah County -- which The Oregonian savaged at the time -- to do what it did last year.
As it turns out, Moats -- who The Oregonian quotes as an authority on the general topic of same-sex unions -- appears to agree with us.
As in the civil rights movement, there are already questions about whether Newsom has pushed forward too quickly, creating the potential for a serious backlash. But as Rosa Parks did when she refused to give up her seat on a segregated bus in 1955, Newsom has taken the issue beyond the courtroom, forcing the people of California to confront the question head on. As they do, they will face the question Stafford posed: What is the harm?
Let's see the editorial board mention that part of Moats' beliefs and observations about the ongoing battle over same-sex marriage. What's more, the editorial board also apparently didn't do very much due dilligence about their other referenced expert, William Eskridge Jr., either.
In a commentary for the FindLaw website, Eskridge argued that "by creating quasi-marital options just short of marriage, the Vermont law makes a concession to moral and religious traditionalists who seek to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage as the organizing institution in western society" -- and that "experimental laws like Vermont's will undermine the institution of marriage -- much more so than simply legalizing same-sex marriage would."
So we appreciate the editorial board's selection of the experts they used in an attempt to buttress their own confused and backward views on same-sex marriage, although as we mark that appreciation we must also chastize them for not actually doing any research on what those experts actually believed.
If they had done that research -- journalists, or even editorialists, do still do research, don't they? -- they might have noticed that their choice of experts apparently supports not their arguments, but those made by people with our perspectives on the issue.
Oops.
Comments (8)
Sid Anderson on 27 Feb 2005
Ditto on the two solutions, but I'd like to go further and have it be strictly civil unions for all who want the state and federal benefits of partnership, and marriage is a private matter left to the couple and their place of worship.
The One True b!X on 27 Feb 2005
That's what I mean by civil unions for all -- because all we can dictate as a matter of policy is what the state does, so I wasn't even addressing the spiritual/religious question.
Bryan Boyd on 27 Feb 2005
Glad you found our blog (Basic Rights Oregon). We actually started it right after the No on 36 campaign (which had a blog) but have just started posting a lot more.
Jim Clay on 28 Feb 2005
I suppose there's one way to test the Editorial Board's veracity on this. We could ask each of them who are straight and married how they would feel about swapping a civil union -- as they are defining it -- for their own marriages. That shouldn't be any problem for them, since they're convinced they're both the same thing, just with the equality masked.
John Wilkinson on 28 Feb 2005
To see why civil unions aren't equal to full marriage, see the friend of the court brief, "Shortfalls of Civil Unions," filed by the Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington, Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders in Washington State's marriage case now before its high court: http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/404.pdf
— John Wilkinson
LMA Secretary
Elaine of Kalilily on 28 Feb 2005
I still think the issue gets confused by semantics. b!X's solution would negate the "separate but equal" problem. If the legally authorized union of any two individuals were called "civil union" and if all pairs of individuals who want to be united were required to establish that "civil union" under the law, all such unions would have equal status and benefits. Any couple who then choose to have their union "sanctified" by a cleric can do so, but that sactification would neither add nor detract from the status and benefits of the registered civil union. We are letting religions define our terms and our legal procedures. This "equal marriages under the law" issue has the religiously imposed "marriage" tail wagging the "legally united/with benefits" dog.
If all this energy were put into fighting to rebuild our fundamental separation of church and state, this wouldn't even be an issue.
Paul on 01 Mar 2005
The real challenge in the marriage issue for the "defense of marriage" crowd is the issue that US law, constitutional or common, and British law do not define gender adequately for these measures to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Questions are bound to arise when issues of proving gender arise, or are we to use biological sex and how will the state enforce this. I think the conservatives who support Measure 36 and the like accidentally dug a hole they will never get out of. If M36 survives, who will be the first to "audit" the marriage licenses in their county and demand proof of sex?
Private Marriage on 02 Mar 2005
I'd rather see marriage privatized.
If any 2 people want to form an *spiritual* union, they can find the religious institution of their choice to do it for them. No economic or legal benefits are attached to this union.
If any 2 people want to form an economic and power-of-attorney union, they should be able to choose from some standard contracts available from family law practices, or they can draw up their own unique arrangement (think pre-nups), although that would cost extra.
Likely, the people performing the spiritual union would have some of the standard economic contracts available at the same time. But having one sort of union in no way implies or obligates that the other union exists.
The most important part of private marriage is that government can't muck in it. It can't decide who can and can't marry.