I remember when Howard Dean first started running for president in 2002, his support for Vermont’s civil unions law was supposed to be an almost disqualifying part of his record. Dean refused to back gay marriage, but his signature on the state’s civil unions bill — which came, effectively, under court order — allegedly put Dean far outside the national mainstream.
Considering the current political landscape, I can’t help but find this hilarious.
After the Massachusetts Supreme Court cleared the way for gay marriage in its state, compounded by San Francisco’s move to start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, the debate has shifted dramatically in just a couple of months. And while the public may remain, shall we say, concerned about state-sanctioned gay marriages, I actually think the debate has moved the goal posts in a helpful way.
Oddly enough, civil unions — up until recently a wildly controversial move on behalf of gay rights — are now seen as a reasonable compromise embraced by moderates. That’s an incredibly positive development.
Conservatives want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages. The public, in general, seems hesitant, worried that this might be overly aggressive. Liberals, meanwhile, want gay marriage. The public, again, seems wary.
This is actually great news for those of us who’d like to see greater legal protections extended to the gay community. The result may be widespread acceptance of civil unions as a reasonable extension of legal protections.
Was this part of the plan all along? Did I miss the memo?
In case you’re new to the debate, civil unions for same-sex couples are legally recognized relationships. Couples in civil unions, though not legally “married,” enjoy rights to pensions, health insurance, medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, and survivor benefits, just as married straight couples enjoy. At its core, the difference between the two is a semantic one, not a legal one.
Considering the political climate in this country, I’ve long considered civil unions a dramatic step forward on civil rights. Conservatives, predictably, have voiced strong opposition.
But with the new debate over actual gay marriages, civil unions have become a fall-back stance for moderates! If you think a constitutional amendment goes too far, but aren’t ready to embrace gay marriage, civil unions is — get this — a compromise!
Ideally, gay marriage wouldn’t be as controversial as it is. When two people want to commit themselves to a stable, long-term family, it’s a positive development that the nation’s law should encourage, not forbid.
My concern is that the drive for gay marriage may prompt a backlash that could help conservatives tarnish the Constitution with bigotry.
That’s why I find the current debate so encouraging. It’s like asking for too much money in a commercial transaction, knowing that you’d be happy with somewhat less.
I believe gay marriage should be legal, but I’ll gladly accept civil unions as the new “middle-ground.”