On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> If queers settle for domestic partnerships that will be it for same-sex
> marriage. Nothing will evolve from them. To think otherwise is to play
> into the hands of queer haters.
Brian, I hesitate to trigger understandably very easily triggered wrath on this subject, but I'm not following you at all. Stop me where I'm misunderstanding.
1) The reason you don't like civic unions is because they don't entail federal rights; but
2) You think the path to change thing is through the courts.
Am I right so far? Because these two propositions seem to completely contradict each other.
The only courts you can bring this suit in are state courts (and only 10 states at that, and soon maybe less). And the best you can win in state courts is full civic union. It may be called gay marriage in Massachusetts, but afaict (and clearly the case law has barely begun to be developed) Massachusetts gay marriage is exactly the same rights-wise as Vermont civil union: neither involve a single federal right. Nor can they under current federal law which specifically forbids recognizing any state law on this subject.
So afaik
3) if you really want is to fix the federal rights part, then you have to go legislative;
4) if you don't want to go legislative, and want to go through the courts, then that means you're fine with full civic union in the current Vermont form.
You seem to disagree with both of those assertions. So what am I missing?
I personally think the current outlook for gay rights is a lot better than you do. I think the time is ripe to make huge advances. And for gay rights to become as central to progressive politics as abortion is to conservative politics. There fact that there is enormous resistance doesn't mean we can't win, and win big, and keep on winning. We can divide and crush them like they've done to us.
But it all depends on tactics and naming, which in turn depends on an accurate picture of the political and institutional landscape. And if I may be so bold, I think the most fruitful course is exactly the opposite of the one you've embraced. I think civic union not only has possibilities for evolution, it has the best chances. It has has the best chance of getting the most rights fastest for the most gays in the most places; it has the best chance of leading to the most federal rights fastest; and most importantly of all, it has the best chance of cumulative progress, where each victory pushes the political balance of forces more and more in favor of full gay marriage recognition, while creating facts on the grounds that can never be rolled back.
But before we go into that, perhaps you could tell me what I'm misunderstanding about propositions 1-4.
Michael