Was the wording of the New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage a deliberate attempt to create an industry of litigation, guaranteeing a steady stream of income--mostly in taxpayer dollars--for lawyers and state and federal courts over the next few years? It's an interesting, albeit conspiracy theory-ish question.
The mandate from Jersey's highest court was clear: call it what you will, but provide the same rights for same sex couples that are provided to married opposite sex couples. But the "call it what you will" notion, as simple as it seemed is clearly going to drive dozens if not hundreds of court cases in the months and years to come.
Language is a thorny matter and not as simple as we often pretend. Consider the recent media circus over Michael Richards. Even though the meaning is clear and it's obvious what's being said, in our minds there is clearly a vast world of difference in power and impact between "the N word" and "what it stands for and we're not supposed to say."
Paula Zahn can say "the N word" on CNN until her roots turn black, but she wouldn't dare says "the N word."
Now that we're faced with the result and reality of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision: a civil union law; the difference between calling it "marriage" and calling it a "civil union" is not less meaningful, no less impactful and even more complicated than the difference between using "the N word" and the actual word that we're not allowed to say.
At one end of the spectrum, gay men and women are demeaned and insulted by "civil union." Furthermore, American history teaches us the specious notion of "separate but equal" is simply ridiculous.
At the the other end of the spectrum "civil union" is neither morally, ethically or legally equal to marriage. "What you call it" matters greatly. Will federal and out-of-state employers, insurance companies and other institutions that automatically provide benefits and protections for married couples provide equal respect and recognition to civil unions? Maybe, maybe not. In social and business situations, will couples united in a civil union be afforded the same respect and accommodations afforded married couples? Who can tell? Of course, they can lie and claim to be married; but how sad is that? It hearkens back to the days when gay men and women would travel as best friends, check into hotels separately and then sneak into each other's rooms under cover of darkness.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
If it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it anything you like, but it still tastes awfully good when you fry it up and make the skinm all crispy.
dave
2 - handyguy
Richard, it's so damn easy to be self-righteous.
Just a few years ago, same-sex civil unions, let alone marriages, were not even part of the national conversation. I don't think anyone cried "Jim Crow" when the first civil-unions law passed in Vermont. This development in New Jersey is good news. It's also part of a process; a step along a path; not the destination or final word. Throwing a tantrum about it shows a silly form of tunnel vision. Patience, in this instance, is definitely a virtue.
The word 'marriage' has a religious connotation for many people. To just pooh-pooh their genuine misgivings is a really unfortunate and inflammatory reaction. Insisting on marriage, right here right now, is what caused the ridiculous backlash around the country in the form of regrettable ballot initiatives that will take decades to undo.
And invoking Jim Crow should be reserved for instances where it is genuinely relevant.
3 - Dave Nalle
That self-righteousness you mention is one of the main forces holding back the gay efforts towards equality.
Dave
4 - handyguy
I have mixed feelings about this, because righteous indignation definitely has its uses in politics - certainly if issues of war/peace and poverty/wealth are involved. And Richard has written eloquently on those and other subjects. But in this instance we gay folks run the risk of looking like crybabies.
This is a recurring conundrum with many special-interest issues and 'pressure groups,' as they are pejoratively referred to sometimes, on both the left and right. But it can be especially debilitating politically on the left.
James Carville, of all people, had wisdom to offer about this, referring to the Clinton presidency. "Liberal interest groups are just never ever satisfied. You try to satisfy them at your political peril." [I'm paraphrasing from memory, sorry.]
5 - zingzing
dave: "That self-righteousness you mention is one of the main forces holding back the gay efforts towards equality."
the other would be bigotry.
i say that "civil union" is better than nothing. it's not everything that it could be... but it is what it is.
both sides are stoopid for fighting over a word. in the interest of fairness, however, i side with the gays. yep!
6 - Dave Nalle
I don't disagree with a word you're saying here, Zing. The word means nothing outside of its religious context, and if they have equality under the law, that is a more than reasonable compromise given the vehemence of the forces arrayed against them.
What makes no sense to me is their willingness to take an all or nothing attitude and throw away the very thing they are campaigning for just because they don't get the superficial label they prefer.
The bigotry is a given, but why do they have to play into the hands of the bigots by being as extreme as they are - often falsely - accused of being?
Dave
7 - Jet in Columbus
As long as we get tax-breaks for couples, inheritance rights, and next-of-kin hospital rights, I'm all for anything that irks Jerry Falwell.
8 - Jerry
Jet,
I think that the requirements you hold put you in the minority. It is that "superficial label" (married couple) that the majority is insisting on.
If, or should I say when gay marriage is universally recognized, what will be the next milestone reached for?
I'm beginning to believe that gay activists will never be happy until everyone is somehow forced to complete acceptance, that would require the gov't to "legislate morality".
9 - zingzing
not everyone has to completely accept. just the government.
10 - Leslie Bohn
The poster is 100 percent correct. If "civil unions" and "marriage" are exactly the same thing legally, as supporters claim, then why are there two different words? Because they are NOT the same, obviously. It is sad that some (even some who absolutely support equality for everybody, like Mr. Nalle) portray a simple desire to be treated equally as "self-righteousness."
Maybe the courts will just decide that a gay marriage is three-fifths as real as a straight marriage.
11 - Leslie Bohn
I wish I wrote what Mr. Zing just wrote. This principle should be much more widely applied.
12 - Dave Nalle
Leslie, I don't consider the desire to be treated equally to be self-righteous, I consider the push to force acceptance on the population in general as self-righteous, and the insistence on the word 'marriage' as self-defeating. I'd rather see gays get the rights they deserve than waste their efforts and throw away their victories for a meaningless word.
Dave
13 - Leslie Bohn
As zz just wrote, Mr. Nalle, no one is forcing anything on any individual citizen. Just the government. And I repeat that if the distinction were truly meaningless, as you say, then why does the government need another word? Truth is, it's not meaningless.
14 - Dave Nalle
The government needs another word to placate the opponents of this policy. Placating the opponents by throwing them a meaningless bone makes it possible to pass civil unions legislation. It's a small price to pay.
As for forcing things on individuals, what some are concerned about is that there's a desire to legislate morality and somehow reeducate the ignorant and bigoted. But it's their right to be ignorant and bigoted as much as it is the right of gays to have full familial rights.
Dave
15 - Leslie Bohn
No, Mr. Nalle, respectfully, the right of citizens to equal rights under the law is enshrined in the constitution. People's rights to their own opinion on the matter aren't infringed in any way.
16 - STM
I think it's very interesting that in Australia, which has a gay community largely treated with acceptance and which is comfortable about its "difference", if you like, gays are not agitating for use of the term marriage in same-sex unions, as under common law same-sex couples now have exactly the same rights as any other couple (as they should), including claims on a partner's estate in the case of death or separation.
It seems to me that once everyone has the same rights, there's not really much to worry about ... so is this just another bit of political nonsense?
Perhaps the rights themselves are the things to be fighting for. Or would that not serve political ends?
17 - Clavos
STM asks:
It seems to me that once everyone has the same rights, there's not really much to worry about ... so is this just another bit of political nonsense?
Perhaps the rights themselves are the things to be fighting for. Or would that not serve political ends?
That's the nut...it's not about rights.
18 - Jerry
What is it about Clavos?
19 - Clavos
I dunno, Jerry.
I thought I was agreeing with STM, and even your #8.
I guess it didn't come off that way?
20 - Jerry
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound critical, but maybe somewhat rhetorical.
21 - Clavos
Jerry,
I apologize. I readit your question as:
What is it about Clavos?
And just now realized it was really:
What is it about, Clavos?
Don't know if that was clear or not, but suffice to say I read a totally different meaning to the question than you intended. :>)
Anyway, my answer is:
I don't know, but it seems that there's a greater goal than simply equal rights. Otherwise, civil unions with equal rights would do. I hate to pick on Jet, but there seems to be a hint of what it's about (beyond equal rights) in his #7, though I'll admit that that may just be a clumsy joke.
22 - Jerry
Thanks Clavos,
Sounds like a viable assessment.
23 - STM
The old missing comma again, eh?
"What's this thing called, luv?"
24 - Leslie Bohn
Hmmmmmm.. different, but equal. I just know I've heard that before.
Mr. Clavos et al: If "civil unions" and "marriage" are the same under the law (provide "equal rights" in your words, Mr.C), why do they have two different names under the law?
25 - STM
"Mr. Clavos et al: If "civil unions" and "marriage" are the same under the law (provide "equal rights" in your words, Mr.C), why do they have two different names under the law?"
Probably because the law actually defines marriage, at least in my country and I assume in the US since the roots of our common law come from the same place, as an official union between a man and woman.
In the US, lawmakers could almost certainly go back to English common law to assess this question (yes, it still applies as much of what is contained in US law pre-dates the Declaration of Independence), and if they find there is a case that it exists as a definition applying only to unions between men and women, could probably mount a genuine case to legislate to have it instituted permanently under law.
So instead of fighting to have the word marriage used, and banging your heads against a brick wall, why not fight for the right in ALL states of the US to have same-sex relationships properly recognised under common law, ie: full rights for partners, including access to estates in case of separation or death, and next-of-kin rights, equal to those in an officially performed and state-recognised marriage ceremony.
Really, I have to ask here: what's in a name?
My suspicion is that the answer to that lies in the desire for a bit of political points-scoring among a small and vocal minority of agitators within a gay community that in truth would prefer to quietly go about its business and be given the same rights as everyone else, without regard to what it's dressed up as or what label it's given.