On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> I dare you Democrats to begin the culture war by challenging John Kerry
> to define civil union as an institution that grants *exactly* the same
> rights, benefits, and duties as marriage does,
That's easy. That's exactly what most Democratic voters think it is. It's also what most Republican voters think it is.
> rather than as an institution that is 1049 federal rights short of
> equality to marriage that civil union is today.
Yoshie, not only are you drawing a curve through one point, even that one point doesn't support your case. There is presently one state-wide civil union in the US and one state gay marriage. They are exactly equal. Both confer all the state-wide rights that come with marriage. Neither has any legal recognition outside their respective states, and neither has any of those 1049 Federal rights you keep harping on, because DOMA works equally against them both. The only difference is the name.
The idea that gay marriage is inherently superior to civil union is similar to the idea that marriage is inherently sacred. It's strongly believed in, but there's no legal basis for it. It's a fetishism of the word.
The only way to get those 1049 federal rights is to change the federal DOMA. You have two choices. You can try to amend it -- which necessarily means going for civic union -- or you try can to repeal it (which is your only choice if you insist on the term marriage.)
If you try to amend it, you not only have a solid chance of succeeding and gaining those 1049 federal rights, but the fight itself will be productive. It will pull the political debate to the left by framing the issue not in terms of defending or attacking marriage, but in terms of nondiscrimination, of live and let live, and of keeping the church out of our private lives. Those are all winning issues. Those are all issues which draw a bright line between right and left, and they are all issues which the majority warmly supports. They are *principles*, they are something we are for. A fight framed by them would help transform a conservative majority into a progressive majority. And that is the sine non qua for any lasting improvement, not only in gay rights, but in everything else we care about.
On the other hand, if you try to repeal the DOMA, you not only have zero chance of prevailing, you will accelerate the conservatizing drift of the last 25 years. The conservatives loved passing DOMA's precisely because of the way they highlighted their favorite wedge value issues. They will love defending them even more. They are citadels they built with the whole object of getting us to charge up the hill and attack them.
To me, the choice is obvious. You have to go for amendedment. Amendment will bring rights, change reality and progressivize the country. Making march along this terrain will eventually improve our position to the point when repealing DOMA will be something we are strong enough to do. Our intermediate victories will build the basis for our ultimate victory. This is how a minority becomes a majority.
And the reasoning is the same at the state level but even more so. 41 states currently have DOMA's or the equivalent and 7 more have them on their november ballots. (FN: some overlap with current ones because they represent a tightening up of already existing law, so even if they all pass it won't add up to 48 states. Conservatives love DOMA's so much they want to pass them twice just for the benefits of goosing up their turnout.) That means that in 80% of the country gay is already impossible. The liklihood is that that will soon become 90%. In all those states, you'll have to start with their DOMA whether you like it or not.
Just to reiterate for the nth time: I'm all for repealing the DOMA and the mini DOMA's too. And I'm all for gay marriage. My ideal endpoint is a world in which marriage is open to all, regardless of gender combination, and where civic union is open to all, regardless of gender combination (because for every person for whom the term "marriage" is inherently sacred, there is another for whom it's inherently icky, and who would be much happier if she could have the rights without the baggage.)
The only question is the surest way of getting there. And the surest way is bringing the country with us, not dividing it against us.
Michael