April 15, 2005
In The End Was The Word
Civil Unions Bill Shows It's All Semantics
It's no secret to supporters of true equality that opposition to same-sex marriage has tended to be some combination of religion, confusion, bigotry, and semantics. Those of us who support the so-called "civil unions for all" solution do so in part because removing the word "marriage" from the state-sanctioned construct exposes the prejudices of those who most oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians.
So we've found it extraordinarily amusing to be able to sit down and read the civil unions bill that was introduced into the Oregon Senate this week.
The bulk of those portions of the bill which create civil unions is simply the addition of the appropriate language to those portions of Oregon Revised Statutes which establish and define marriage. What we find interesting is how the bill's authors address the problem of ensuring that all of the various marriage-related portions of Oregon law will also apply to civil unions.
Rather than methodically amend each and every reference to marriage to include a reference to civil unions, the bill instead adds some new language to ORS 106.
SECTION 67. { + (1) Partners in a civil union have the same privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities under the laws of this state, whether derived from statute, administrative or court rule, policy or common law, as are granted to or imposed on spouses joined in a marriage. If a law provides privileges, immunities, rights or benefits to, or imposes responsibilities on, a person because the person is or was married, the law applies equally to a person who is or was in a civil union.
(2) This section is intended to extend to partners in a civil union the privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities that flow from marriage under Oregon law. Many of the laws of this state are intertwined with federal law, and the Legislative Assembly recognizes that it does not have the jurisdiction to control federal laws or the privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities related to federal laws.
(3) This section shall be construed to secure for partners in a civil union the same legal status as that conferred upon spouses in a marriage, with the same privileges, immunities, rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage.
(4) Whenever the term 'husband,' 'wife,' 'married woman,' 'spouse,' 'family,' 'immediate family, ' ' dependent' or 'next of kin' or any other term that denotes or includes the spousal relationship is used in the laws of this state, the term includes a partner in a civil union.
(5)(a) Whenever the term 'marriage' or any other term that denotes or includes the marital relationship or the status of marriage is used in the laws of this state, the term includes a civil union.
(b) Whenever the term 'marry,' 'marries' or 'married' or any other term that denotes or includes the act or state of being joined as husband and wife in marriage is used in the laws of this state, the term includes the act or state of being joined as partners in a civil union. + }
In other words, while the bill does create a separate category for gay and lesbian couples and gives it a different name, the bill also declares for the sake of convenience that any use in Oregon law of the terms listed -- husband, wife, married woman, spouse, family, immediate family, dependent, next of kin, marriage, marry, marries, married -- no longer describe only the "marriage" construct but the "civil union" construct as well.
In one fell swoop, the bill demonstrates the semantic idiocy of the opposition to same-sex marriage. Whatever their motivations -- be it a matter of confused uncertainty or outright bigotry -- opponents of same-sex marriage simply want to retain ownership over the secular use of a word which for them carries a religious connotation.
So while the bill does create a separate (or, says The Oregonian, parallel) category for gay and lesbian couples, it goes on to say that all references throughout Oregon law to "marriage" will no longer mean only "marriage".
Which makes one wonder just how long it will take Oregonians to realize just how nonsensical it was for so many of them to wage a holy war over a word that doesn't belong only to them after all.
Comments (11)
carla on 15 Apr 2005
You're absolutely right. It's nothing more than syllabic semantics.
But we have to start somewhere.
The One True b!X on 15 Apr 2005
Well, as I said in my previous post, I support the bill. My point is that it's just one more good demonstration that the motivations of the hardcore opponents are and have always been suspect, and the motivations of the "mushy middle" opponents were.. well, let's face it, they were duped by the religious bigots who spearheaded the opposition into being irrational.
Lelo on 15 Apr 2005
....and that's because the REAL issue here is not about marriage, it's about being gay. They are so uncomfortable with the term, they can't even face it. Instead, there's marriage, and what's right for the children, and what the bible says, and what has always been "traditional", and those are just clouds around the real topic. Maybe when the day will come and we can really talk about the truth, the religious bigots will be shot down by all of the rest of us who know they are just that. Bigots. Until then, we're only skirting the issue. It's fascinating to watch, and to be a part of, but it's somewhat painful if you're one of the couples who have experienced the incredible highs, and lows, of the past year.
Sam P on 16 Apr 2005
For as much as people are willing to reference their religion as a defense of their anti-equality positions, there's a sinful arrogance that I can't get around, in that people feel they have the divine right to determine, as a majority, that the minority should be treated unequally.
Jack Bog on 16 Apr 2005
Hope it survives the inevitable challenge under Measure 36.
The One True b!X on 16 Apr 2005
I imagine the fate of that inevitable challenge depends mainly on whether the courts recognize the difference between a legal definition and a technical usage.
GA - Keith on 16 Apr 2005
Whether or not same-sex couples and their supporters come together in a public way may play into it as well -- I think its long past time that we show how much it means to us to be treated equally.
panchopdx on 17 Apr 2005
Sam wrote:
"For as much as people are willing to reference their religion as a defense of their anti-equality positions, there's a sinful arrogance that I can't get around, in that people feel they have the divine right to determine, as a majority, that the minority should be treated unequally."
Well put. But the yin to this yang was an overreaching desire to forge cultural acceptance of a lifestyle by manipulating the mechanisms of government.
This was as much about social acceptance as gaining rights and benefits. The proper legal route was for SS couples to challenge the (presumably illegal) benefits provided to married couples rather than to try to elbow their way into the same (illegal) club.
Now it is not at all clear that they will be able to do anything about the benefit disparity. Art. I, Sec 20 cannot be read in conflict with M36, because M36 supercedes it where any conflict exists. When M36 defined the institution of marriage in the constitution, one would assume that the term "marriage" included all the rights and responsibilities appurtenant to the statutory legal defintion in existence when M36 passed.
In other words, all the pre-m36 benefits springing from "marriage" are presumably safe from challenge now.
Then recognize that it is highly unlikely that the OSC will direct the Legislature to fashion a civil unions law (it doesn't really have the authority to do so).
All you can really do is work with Karen Minnis or hope the D's gain a full majority (and hold on to the Governorship) in '07.
That's the reality.
SB 1000 is mostly political posturing for the base.
Scott R on 18 Apr 2005
Well put. But the yin to this yang was an overreaching desire to forge cultural acceptance of a lifestyle by manipulating the mechanisms of government.
Very well put. The combination of attempting to gain social acceptance through legislation, coupled with perversion of that same legislative process, has permanently soured many folks - myself included - on expanding any of the so-called "gay rights".
Within the bounds of the law, people may choose to live their lives how they see fit, but society does not have an obligation to recognize, sanction or "celebrate" any particular choice.
Tanner v. OHSU is likely to be overruled by implication in the years ahead.
torridjoe on 18 Apr 2005
The soft bigotry shows in references to "cultural acceptance of a lifestyle," and "'celebrate' any particular choice." It would seem with the latter that ALL secular recognition of marriage should be banned, so that the state never be charged with celebrating the choice of marriage. I certainly don't recall choosing to like women; I wonder when it is gay people get their chance to choose. You'd think the biology of genetic heterosexuality would have been sussed out by now; that we'd have discovered when we get programmed to consider desirously the opposite sex, and when gay people fail to heed that programming.
I think it's intellectually spurious to suggest that "the way they do it" has any bearing at all on the correctness of the position--that is, that you can decide it's wrong to grant already naturally held civil rights* on the basis of how pushy the aggrieved group might be perceived. It's indicative to me that the process wasn't really the culprit at all; it was merely preexisting animus hidden behind a safe rationale.
*by this I mean that absent compelling state interest, we should presume anyone has the right to marry another of their choosing. I can give you compelling reasons not to allow incest, bigamy and bestial marriage--so far I'm stumped on same-sex marriage, and my persistent request for a solid reference of same is yet unfulfilled.
panchopdx on 19 Apr 2005
The soft bigotry shows in references to "cultural acceptance of a lifestyle," and "'celebrate' any particular choice."
TJ,
Were you trying to imply that I'm a (soft) bigot?