Playing shell games with people's lives.
May. 19th, 2011 02:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinSo, a lot of people are still opposed to gay marriage. This is a true thing, and one we have to contend with. But a lot of those people are equally quick to say that they don't support equal rights for gay people. Some of them are just being assholes and will add, "A gay guy can marry a woman just like any other man can!", but I genuinely believe that most of the people who are against gay marriage would not be opposed to gay people deciding who inherits their property, being able to share property jointly, being able to be at each other's bedsides in critical or end-of-life care situations, etc.
If you are one of those people who don't mind gay people existing and having rights... if you're in favor of civil unions or domestic partnerships, or if you're opposed to those things but think that there's nothing wrong with a gay couple designating each other as beneficiaries, co-account-holders, executors, attorney-power-holders, etc., just like any other two human beings can...
Then you have to ask yourself: is your fondness for the word "marriage" as a legal term exclusively referring to something between one man and one woman more important than your belief in equality for all?
Because as long as you're willing to show up at the polls and vote for gay marriage bans and as long as you're willing to sign petitions or answer surveys saying you'd like to keep marriage between one man and one woman, you are a weapon that is being used to take away rights from your fellow human beings.
See, whatever you believe you're voting for or against, the people who are completely against gays having any rights at all are going to take the support you give them and argue against everything. If a gay couple try to change their names to signify that they're a family, someone with no vested interest in their case can step in and say, "The voters of this state approved a ban on gay marriage. If you let these two people both be Smiths, then you're doing an end-run against the wishes of the people." Even if the couple in question is following the statutory name-change process that's open to anyone in their state.
Think no judge would listen to an argument like that? It's happened. Sometimes the judge is the one who puts the argument forward. Here's a news article from three days ago about such a case that references another one. Note that in both cases the initial decision was changed, but these cases show that anyone who thinks that we don't "need" marriage equality because there are other routes to the same rights and privileges is making an unfounded assumption. Note that it was the same judge in both cases... he had to be argued into allowing it twice. This isn't a settled question by a long shot.
And of course we have Wisconsin's governor fighting to balance the budget and create jobs by declaring a civil union law to be unconstitutional. Why? Because Wisconsin has a gay marriage ban. In some cases these arguments are made on the basis that a gay marriage ban implicitly bans something that's just like marriage but with a different name. In this case, the Wisconsin ban also covers "equivalent structures".
Did 100% of the people who were in favor of a gay marriage ban in Wisconsin understand that they were also approving an "AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!" clause? Did they know that their support was being used to make gays second-class citizens in a way that goes beyond "well, they can't get married" to "and they can't use other laws to do things that other people, even unmarried ones, can freely do if they follow the legal procedures"?
And if they had known, would it have made a difference?
Or is protecting the sanctity of a word so gosh-darned important to small government social consevatives that they will strip away any number of existing rights from their fellow citizens in order to be able to vote for a gay marriage ban?
If you read the comments on any news story or blog post about gay marriage rights in the wilds of the internet, you'll find a number of ban-supporters saying things like, "Let them have civil unions." or "Give them the rights but call it something else." or "Nobody needs to get married. You can accomplish the same thing with incorporation, living wills, power of attorney, name change, and so on. If they cared so much about this they'd be willing to do the work."
Yeah, that's a nice thought (sort of), but it doesn't change the reality that gay marriage bans (or possibly even just the absence of legal recognition of gay marriage in the first place) are used to stop people from doing just these things.
Here is a simple truth, my fellow citizens of the United States of America: if you don't want marriage to be applied to same-sex couples but you are in favor of equal rights in every other way, then you have to make a choice every time you go to the polls.
As long as you're willing to vote for and give money towards the banning of gay marriage, you are aiding in the destruction of civil liberties. Don't salve your conscience by telling yourself that there are other options. You are destroying those options even as you say that.
If you believe in your heart that marriage is between one man and one woman, go on believing it in your heart. But when you put it in writing with the force of law then your voice will be cited as the reason that families are torn apart, that people who are loved die alone anyway, that houses and property are confiscated in the midst of tragedies... all of these things have happened and will continue to happen anywhere that gay marriage has been banned or voted down.
For people who do support marriage equality: remember this when it's on the ballot or on the political radar where you live. Remember that a good chunk of the people who will vote against marriage equality are doing so under the assumption that they're leaving the door open for alternatives, or that alternatives already exist.
Pointing these cases out needs to become a bigger part of the movement's repertoire. We need to be telling the people who think we're all entitled to the same rights but don't believe that marriage is a right that their vote will be used to take away rights. We need to be telling the "Call it something else!" people that when they vote against the word "marriage", they're voting against "Something Else".
If you are one of those people who don't mind gay people existing and having rights... if you're in favor of civil unions or domestic partnerships, or if you're opposed to those things but think that there's nothing wrong with a gay couple designating each other as beneficiaries, co-account-holders, executors, attorney-power-holders, etc., just like any other two human beings can...
Then you have to ask yourself: is your fondness for the word "marriage" as a legal term exclusively referring to something between one man and one woman more important than your belief in equality for all?
Because as long as you're willing to show up at the polls and vote for gay marriage bans and as long as you're willing to sign petitions or answer surveys saying you'd like to keep marriage between one man and one woman, you are a weapon that is being used to take away rights from your fellow human beings.
See, whatever you believe you're voting for or against, the people who are completely against gays having any rights at all are going to take the support you give them and argue against everything. If a gay couple try to change their names to signify that they're a family, someone with no vested interest in their case can step in and say, "The voters of this state approved a ban on gay marriage. If you let these two people both be Smiths, then you're doing an end-run against the wishes of the people." Even if the couple in question is following the statutory name-change process that's open to anyone in their state.
Think no judge would listen to an argument like that? It's happened. Sometimes the judge is the one who puts the argument forward. Here's a news article from three days ago about such a case that references another one. Note that in both cases the initial decision was changed, but these cases show that anyone who thinks that we don't "need" marriage equality because there are other routes to the same rights and privileges is making an unfounded assumption. Note that it was the same judge in both cases... he had to be argued into allowing it twice. This isn't a settled question by a long shot.
And of course we have Wisconsin's governor fighting to balance the budget and create jobs by declaring a civil union law to be unconstitutional. Why? Because Wisconsin has a gay marriage ban. In some cases these arguments are made on the basis that a gay marriage ban implicitly bans something that's just like marriage but with a different name. In this case, the Wisconsin ban also covers "equivalent structures".
Did 100% of the people who were in favor of a gay marriage ban in Wisconsin understand that they were also approving an "AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON!" clause? Did they know that their support was being used to make gays second-class citizens in a way that goes beyond "well, they can't get married" to "and they can't use other laws to do things that other people, even unmarried ones, can freely do if they follow the legal procedures"?
And if they had known, would it have made a difference?
Or is protecting the sanctity of a word so gosh-darned important to small government social consevatives that they will strip away any number of existing rights from their fellow citizens in order to be able to vote for a gay marriage ban?
If you read the comments on any news story or blog post about gay marriage rights in the wilds of the internet, you'll find a number of ban-supporters saying things like, "Let them have civil unions." or "Give them the rights but call it something else." or "Nobody needs to get married. You can accomplish the same thing with incorporation, living wills, power of attorney, name change, and so on. If they cared so much about this they'd be willing to do the work."
Yeah, that's a nice thought (sort of), but it doesn't change the reality that gay marriage bans (or possibly even just the absence of legal recognition of gay marriage in the first place) are used to stop people from doing just these things.
Here is a simple truth, my fellow citizens of the United States of America: if you don't want marriage to be applied to same-sex couples but you are in favor of equal rights in every other way, then you have to make a choice every time you go to the polls.
As long as you're willing to vote for and give money towards the banning of gay marriage, you are aiding in the destruction of civil liberties. Don't salve your conscience by telling yourself that there are other options. You are destroying those options even as you say that.
If you believe in your heart that marriage is between one man and one woman, go on believing it in your heart. But when you put it in writing with the force of law then your voice will be cited as the reason that families are torn apart, that people who are loved die alone anyway, that houses and property are confiscated in the midst of tragedies... all of these things have happened and will continue to happen anywhere that gay marriage has been banned or voted down.
For people who do support marriage equality: remember this when it's on the ballot or on the political radar where you live. Remember that a good chunk of the people who will vote against marriage equality are doing so under the assumption that they're leaving the door open for alternatives, or that alternatives already exist.
Pointing these cases out needs to become a bigger part of the movement's repertoire. We need to be telling the people who think we're all entitled to the same rights but don't believe that marriage is a right that their vote will be used to take away rights. We need to be telling the "Call it something else!" people that when they vote against the word "marriage", they're voting against "Something Else".