From the official whitehouse.gov website:
"President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights."
It's right there.
Except it never says "all." And that's where it can get tricky. The rights spelled out in the last sentence are among the easiest to provide equal access to. Only the most callous of the homophobes believe in denying access to a loved one in the hospital. The other three are just about money, and not that much of it in the larger scheme. Why not highlight federal immigration rights and Social Security survivor benefits?
I realize I should be over the moon about even the language that exists. The past eight years were not good ones for civil rights in general, and for gay people in particular. Society took many steps forward -- as witnessed by the ever-rising approval numbers for marriage equality (and even higher numbers saying yes to equivalent civil unions) -- but our government didn't come along.
So don't get me wrong, I'm grateful. But this is not our first time at the rodeo. We've been screwed in the past. Promised one thing, then told we had to settle for another. It happens. That's politics.
Which is why this bothers me. Because the language seems just vague enough to be politically-expedient if Obama can't get the whole deal done. Maybe Social Security is too broke to handle more survivor benefits, or immigration is too high anyway, and the right guard play enough games that the civil unions bill extends 1134 Federal benefits instead of 1136. (Or whatever the exact number is -- I've never seen it as an exact number that I can recall. It's either 1000+ or 1100+ or 1200+. UPDATE: It's 1138. Interesting that I estimated it so closely!) So it's not quite "all." It's still "1,100+," just as stated in the President's agenda.
This is weasel room that the simple placement of an "all" or two would clear up: "...civil unions that give same-sex couples ALL legal rights and privileges...", would be my first addition. Then: "...enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits..." Change "the" to "all" in that sentence and it's perfect. Two word changes and we're done.
Since Obama seems to act more with savvy than expedience, perhaps it's part of larger plan. Either way, let's get the show on the road.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I believe in equal rights. I agree with you on that stance. Offer as many of the same rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples as humanly possible. That is only fair. I support protecting gay citizens from discrimination and persecution. It is the Christlike thing to do.
It's changing the definition of marriage that I cannot accept.
At the end of the day, by nature, the two unions are different- one is between two people of the same gender and one is between a man and a woman. No matter how much you try to make them the same, in this they will always be different. Being treated equally does not mean making things the same (saying that both are marriage).
J&S -
Thanks for staying tuned to the Feast.
Here's my question -- when you say "Offer as many of the same rights to same-sex couples as heterosexual couples as humanly possible" are there any you don't think should be offered? Is it strictly the word "marriage" that you want to hang on to? Because if we can create fully equivalent civil unions (that are required for ALL couples that want the civil benefits, not just same-sex couples), I think virtually all gay people could get behind that.
As far as treating different things differently, that's fine -- as long as there is a logical reason to treat them differently. For example, motorcycles, cars and 18-wheelers all use the same freeway, but there are small differences in the way drivers of those vehicles are licensed, how they are taxed, etc.
What's the logical reason behind treating same-sex couples differently in terms of civil marriage? It can't be because heterosexual couples can have children -- gay couples have (and sometimes adopt) children, and there are plenty of straight couples that don't want to or can never have children.
So why treat us differently under the law?
I'm not an expert on all the legalities, which is one reason I put "as much as humanly possible." You guessed my thinking that the one possible reason for a gay couple to have slightly different rights than a hetero couple is the ability/right to have children.
I've considered your argument extensively and I respect that you feel gay couples should be able to adopt children. I understand that any person with a desire to be a parent would most likely do a very good job at it and love that child with all they had, regardless of their sexual orientation. That is not what I have issues with.
I have a hard time with the absence of either a mom or a dad in a parenthood relationship. To me, two dads or two moms does not make up the difference for absence of the other gender. Even if the mom and dad switch the more traditional "fatherly" or "motherly" roles, there is still an influence of having both genders in a parenthood that I think cannot be underestimated. You might correctly assume that this is why I equally advocate healthy, stable marriages to avoid the unideal situation of divorce and single parenthood. The most ideal situation for a child is to have both a loving mother and father. Why should the law deny this to any child?
I believe some people might be born with natural tendencies toward the same sex, but unlike you thinking it is as innocent as being left handed, I compare it to someone being born with natural tendencies to consume alcohol. (research shows that in some cases, one's genes are programmed to crave it). If someone is born with a tendency to consume alcohol or drugs we, as a society and even individuals, do not automatically condone one's alcoholic behaviors. Most of us have a moral instinct that tells us alcohol takes away our ability to judge right and wrong, so we have laws that protect us from alcohol abuse. Those laws are also based on lots of research supporting our instinct that ultimately alcohol has a negative effect on people.
I propose we compare this to homosexuality. Someone may be born with the tendencies- very real tendencies- even in their genes, but that shouldn't justify the act. There is a moral instinct within many of us that says it thwarts our human existence. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of research on this subject as to what kind of consequences it has on those that participate in it and those that are raised by same sex couples. To simply assume based on less than 10-15 years of research that those children- and even the couples- are fine is pretty scary to me. It seems that we should proceed with all caution and maturity rather than offense and ridicule (from either side).
Hopefully that helps answer your question as to why I believe there is really one very key difference between gay unions and hetero unions. That's the only logical reason I can think of to treat them differently. As far as EVERYTHING else, I see no reason for them to be denied any rights.
btw- CA already provides all of the same rights to gay domestic partnerships as married people. Perhaps there are a few loop holes in this piece of legislation that I don't know about?
J&S -
"I have a hard time with the absence of either a mom or a dad in a parenthood relationship."
Kids who are up for adoption have NEITHER. I'd think having even a single parent or two of the same gender is far better than languishing in an orphanage or foster care.
Most adoption agencies agree with you and first priority is given to stable, heterosexual couples. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of those, especially for mixed-race or special needs kids. Those are the children that gay couples usually are allowed to adopt.
"The most ideal situation for a child is to have both a loving mother and father. Why should the law deny this to any child?"
Which law denies this? Certainly not any potential marriage equality law. Gay couples being able to have a civil marriage license does NOTHING to increase or decrease the number of children growing up in heterosexual, two-parent homes.
"If someone is born with a tendency to consume alcohol or drugs we, as a society and even individuals, do not automatically condone one's alcoholic behaviors."
But we don't prohibit alcohol consumption, except for minors. We punish any bad BEHAVIOR that might result from excess alcohol consumption.
What is the "bad behavior" that would be associated with gay couples getting married? Or are you worried about society's "stamp of approval" on homosexuality? We already gave that when the Supreme Court overturned sodomy laws.
I feel very sorry for pedophiles or people with addictions, because they are drawn to (or compelled) to participate in activities that are either unlawful in themselves, or encourage unlawful behavior. That's a cross they bear. But it has no bearing on marriage equality, because there is no unlawful or anti-social behavior associated with it.
"It seems that we should proceed with all caution and maturity rather than offense and ridicule (from either side)."
However, your point about adoption is a red herring -- gay couples can adopt now. At least in most states. We're talking about marriage equality, not adoption. Let's stay on track here. I only raised the issue in the first place to remind you that gay people DO sometimes raise children. Me included. (My nearly perfect 4.0+ daughter is heading off to college in the fall.) Why don't we deserve the social stability and financial benefits and responsibilities that come with civil marriage?
"CA already provides all of the same rights to gay domestic partnerships as married people. Perhaps there are a few loop holes in this piece of legislation that I don't know about?"
There are a few loopholes, primarily in terms of taxation and health care benefits. But the bigger issue is federal-level benefits. I have friends on the East Coast who have been together for 15+ years. One of them is not American, so they always lived in anxiety as to whether he could get a visa extension, or whether he'd have to return to his home country, thereby separating them. After many years -- and SIGNIFICANT expense -- he was able to obtain his green card. But if they had been a man and a woman, instead of two men, they could have gone to courthouse and married, then gone to INS to file the paperwork for permanent resident status for a spouse. The whole thing would have taken a few months and a few hundred dollars. Why the inequity?
Again, I appreciate your faith and sense of morality. I just don't see why YOUR idea of what's moral gets to trump MY idea of what's moral.
Post a Comment