Divorce Attorneys
Why Civil Unions Are Not Enough
|
|
Forty years ago, eight well-intentioned white Alabama clergymen told the people of Birmingham that they “recognize[d] the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized.” At the same time, though, they urged that protests and demonstrations would only incite hate and were “unwise and untimely.” Martin Luther King Jr.’s well-known response “from Birmingham Jail” is as timely as it is powerful. King wrote that he had “almost reached the regrettable conclusion” that the “white moderate” was more problematic than the Ku Klux Klan. This, he wrote, was in part because the white moderate “paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom,” “lives by a mythical concept of time and . . . constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ ” Unfortunately, even today we are hearing the same kind of advice. This time, the subject is marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples, and the timetable offered contemplates civil unions now and marriage in some far-off future. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in Goodridge v. Dep’t of Health, made plain that it is blatant discrimination when the state restricts marriage rights from gays and lesbians. Nevertheless, some in Massachusetts - and, surprisingly, even some liberal law professors - still argue that, for now, civil unions are enough to satisfy the court’s ruling. But that is plainly wrong. The Massachusetts Ruling Plainly Gives Gay Couples to Right to Marry The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s historic opinion, written by Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, explained that the state’s Constitution “forbids the creation of second-class citizens.” But second-class status is exactly what allowing straight citizens to marry and relegating gay and lesbian citizens to civil unions would create. Fortunately, the Massachusetts opinion did no such thing. It “construe[d] civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.” And it extended the civil marriage law to same-sex couples. If you doubt it, all you need to do is look to the dissent in Goodridge, which complained about the majority’s “extending the marriage laws to same-sex couples.” Like the dissenting judges, the governor understood the decision’s message loud and clear - and saw that its message was about an equal right to marriage in particular. Republican Governor Mitt Romney, expressing deep disagreement with the decision, said he would work to pass a Massachusetts constitutional amendment “limiting marriage to the relationship between a man and a woman.” If he had anticipated civil unions, not gay marriage, then such an amendment would have been entirely unnecessary. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
N.J. Civil Unions to Take Effect Monday
Diane Marini used to joke that she was always the bridesmaid and never the bride because, as a lesbian, she thought it was unlikely New Jersey would ever approve same-sex marriage. Still, she and longtime partner Marilyn Maneely campaigned for gay marriage. They were among seven couples who sued the state in 2002 demanding the right to marry. While their suit didn't lead to a gay marriage law, it has led to New Jersey becoming the third state to offer civil unions to same-sex couples. The civil unions law takes effect Monday and some same-sex couples are planning ceremonies. For couples who
Oregon governor pushing for civil unions law
Gov. Ted Kulongoski says he will push for a civil unions bill in the 2005 Legislature to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights bestowed on married couples. Kulongoski pledge to back a civil unions law expands on his announcement in January that he would support legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians. The Democratic governor said today that he is working with a bipartisan group of senators on a bill that combines a proposed civil unions law with the anti-discrimination provisions. "As I stated in January, we face a great moral challenge to make sure opportunity
Gay unions common in the Netherlands
While the United States is engaged in debate on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Canadians are discussing a federal law to legalize it and many European countries are adopting civil unions for gay couples. (Gay couples march on Manhattan) But in the Netherlands, nobody talks about the issue anymore. "It's really become less of something that you need to explain," says Anne-Marie Thus, who in 2001 married Helene Faasen. "We're totally ordinary. We take our children to preschool every day. People know they don't have to be afraid of us." Around the world, countries are coming to terms with
Government to enforce ‘straight’ marriage
After concerns were expressed by the Cayman Islands Ministers’ Association on the legalization of civil unions in the UK, Leader of Government Business Hon Kurt Tibbetts chose to open the recent post-Cabinet press briefing at Government Information Services (GIS) on Friday, 6 July with a discussion on the present Marriage Law. Presently, there is no formal definition of marriage in Cayman Islands domestic legislation, but Mr Tibbetts relayed the Government’s position to the media. “It is presumed at this point in time that marriage means the union between a man and a woman, but that our Marriage Law does not
Australian Government blocks ‘gay marriage’ law
Gay couples have been blocked from tying the knot in the ACT, with the federal government disallowing the territory's same-sex union laws, says a report in the Sydney Morning Herald. The move has outraged the ACT Government and gay equality groups, which have labelled the decision homophobic. The territory's Civil Unions Act was formally disallowed when Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Territories Minister Jim Lloyd met Governor-General Michael Jeffery. The Act would have allowed homosexual couples in the territory to enter into civil unions, giving them the same legal recognition traditional marriages receive.