COLUMNS: August 14 
 Marriage doesn't mean going to the chapel
The denial of civil marriages and even civil unions (in 49 of the 50 states) may be the evil doing of right-wing religious extremists (ahemm, George Bush) but the legal precedent that backs them was passed into law by a Democratic president. In 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." A spouse is defined as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Pretty shocking coming from Wet Willy, considering how seriously he took the sanctity of marriage.
DOMA does not bar states from legalizing same-sex civil marriages, but other states are not obligated to recognize those marriages. For instance, Vermont's civil unions are not recognized in neighboring Massachusetts (at least, not yet) or any of the other 49 states. But look out, you nutty right-wing extremists, because the same goes for straight couples. Gettin' drunk and gettin' hitched by an Elvis impersonator/Justice of the Peace doesn't mean you're still married when you get to your hangover home.
The bill puts control into the states' hands, but it's the nationwide, federal advantages that carry all the weight. And although one state has granted civil unions, there's a difference between a civil union and a civil marriage, something that's rarely been explained in recent media coverage. (It also wasn't noted that the Canadian legislation was not approved in one swoop. It's being approved province by province.)
Civil unions grant:
Automatic inheritance rights.
Preference for making healthcare decisions.
Property transfer tax.
Family medical leave.
Greater (but limited) access to health benefits.
Protection from discrimination in insurance and credit.
But civil unions do not grant the federal benefits that come with a civil marriage. Gay and lesbian Americans spend a lifetime paying into the Social Security system but are denied the right to make a same-sex partner the beneficiary of those benefits. They are also being denied a basic constitutional right. A right to a civil marriage.
The problem is that the American government can't seem to keep church and state separate. Civil marriage is not a "holy union" or whatever you want to call it. It's a legal proceeding, plain and simple, that the U.S. Constitution should guarantee for every American under the correct interpretation.
In the struggle for same-sex civil marriage, the Supreme Court made one small step when it ruled to strike down a Texas sodomy law. It seems the Court did make a correct interpretation in ruling it unconstitutional. But not without the noted dissent of Justice Antonin "Antiquated" Scalia who accused the Court of having "largely signed onto the homosexual agenda." If First Amendment Rights are part of the "homosexual agenda," then sign me up.
A recent article in The New York Times cited polls and experts that say the term "marriage" is what makes people uncomfortable and is what caused a shift in Gallup poll numbers. The number of people who opposed same-sex civil unions increased 8 percent between May and July. (Before and after the coverage of the Texas sodomy case, much of which addressed same-sex "marriage.") Take away the term "marriage," so-called experts say, and you've got something that many people find more favorable. But take away "marriage" and what you've got is a "union." If you're a same-sex couple you don't even have that. Settling for civil unions instead of a civil marriage is a concession that some gay and lesbian advocacy groups are willing to make if it means taking the small battles to win the war. However, Little Bush says he would consider proposing a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage if the timing were right. I'm sure after slipping the Patriot Act in there while no one was looking, it's obvious that he has no regard for the complicated nature of the Constitution.
Despite the obvious breakdown of the 1950s "nuclear family," the government is still holding strong to antiquated notions of marriage and family. In 1996, when DOMA was signed into law, then Senator Phil Gramm (R - Tex.) said: "The traditional family has stood for 5,000 years. Are we so wise today that we are ready to reject 5,000 years of recorded history? I don't think so."
Recorded history also includes documentation of the lives, loves
and marriages of same-sex couples. However, that history has been
repressed for millennia by hypocritical "Christians" like Bush,
all the way back to the nutcases behind Manifest Destiny and beyond.
Religious institutions like
the Vatican and their outdated ideas of social mores have
no place in American politics. What should (and does for many)
stand at the forefront is the U.S. Constitution, which grants
all Americans the liberties that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
couples are being forced to fight for.
About
Carla Costa
Carla Costa lives in Providence, Rhode
Island, a city where mayors are indicted and incarcerated. More
of her ranting nonsense can be found in Punk Planet, Women Who Rock
and at The
Rogue Reporter. Her Gusto politics column appears every Thursday.
E-mail Carla
Talk politics at the The Water Cooler
Past Columns:
July 28: Election 2004 Warm-Up: What's Left for Liberals?
August 7: We can handle the truth about Saudi Arabia
August 14: Marriage doesn't mean going to the chapel
|
