Sign in or 
Location: A bit of Little Known GLBT History
Discussion: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 8 posts
|
lelandt |
Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 20 2009, 1:55 AM EST
After 31 defeats in 32 elections & 45 states banning marriage, our President, still, wants to grant us federal marriage equality. The White House web site proclaims the President believes we need to repeal DOMA and enact federal marriage rights to couples in “legally-recognized unions.” This presently covers eleven states & D.C. which have marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership. This also means anyone in the other 39 states could travel to Massachusetts and get married, Vermont for a civil union, or California for domestic partners and attain federal marital rights even if their home state does not grant state marital rights. Three of the 1,138 right this brings us are joint income tax returns, immigration rights and social security benefits.The two catches are: First, the federal government will not call these marital rights “marriage.” They will simply be recognizing any “legally-recognized union,” whatever the states calls them. Second, we need to work our butts off to help our President fulfill his promise by lobbying Congress to support the President’s pledge to us. Prior to the marriage lawsuits which brought a tsunami of reactionary electoral defeats, we had a working strategy. Working through legislative bodies, not the courts, we passed hundreds of domestic partnership/civil union policies which have only been reversed when they were included in anti-same-sex marriage laws Now President Obama has invited us to work for federal marriage equality in the US Congress. He wants us to help him fulfill his pledge to us and cannot do this without our help. Equality California has said they want to repeal Prop 8 on the 2010 ballot. But is this the best use of our time, money and energy when our new President has a mandate for change NOW? Our President has thrown the LGBT community a lifeline in our hour of need. I hope we have the good sense to grab for it. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
pngwnz |
1. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 20 2009, 2:41 AM EST
Good point. Are you aware that several briefs have been filed by Equality California, as well as other equality organizations, to repeal prop 8? We could help by putting our support behind that. Begins in just a few weeks - in March. That is a start. I believe the idea to repeal prop 8 on the 2010 ballot is to make sure we are prepared in case the court does not rule in favor of the briefs already filed.This is definitely something - and could be looked at as a start. Do you find this valuable? |
|
DebNmass |
2. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 20 2009, 9:51 AM EST
You make some good points. Obama believes that DOMA should be repealed, and that is HUGE, but the repeal will still be very very difficult. Senators and Representatives in some of the red states will have to vote in favor of repeal. This will take all of us lobbying our representatives in Congress and asking our families and friends (especially those from red states) to do the same. But I'm still bothered by Obama's position on the issue of same-sex marriage and how he presented the issue during the campaign. When asked about SSM, he always stated that he opposed it, favored civil unions and all rights, and justified this by talking about religion. The fact that Obama, a former professor of constitutional law and now our president, mixed the issue of civil marriage with religious marriage is now going to make the job of overturning DOMA harder. If he could have helped people to see these as two separate things, and would stand up now and explain the difference to people as we debate repealing DOMA, it would frame the issue more appropriately. The debate needs to be about equality and constitutional rights, not about religion.I do want to disagree with your opinion of the lawsuits that won marriage rights. The fact that Massachusetts has had almost 5 years of marriage equality with no adverse consequences (straight people continue to marry here) is just the kind of state-by-state experiment in equality that other states need to see. Before the Goodridge decision, civil unions were reactionary. Now they are the fall-back position. Without Goodridge, it probably would have taken an additional decade before any state achieve marriage equality. Yes, we've had backlash, but I'd fault constitutions that don't really protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Do you find this valuable? |
|
lelandt |
3. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 20 2009, 12:36 PM EST
Of course it will be difficult but we will be proposing a very conservative position: we are simply supporting the President's plan, no more, no less. That will be huge and give us much more important rights (1,138) than marriage in any state. Real progress, gaining real rights, is never easy. But we now have a president who supports us and that is where our attention should be.Massachusetts does NOT had marriage equality. They have a strange legal category labeled "marriage" which is not equal because it does not have all the rights of marriage. Britain has marriage equality, ALL of the rights of marriage, under the title civil partnership. "Marriage" does not equal marriage equality. Our community has been led astray with the propaganda that "marriage" equals marriage equality. It does not. We need to keep our eye on the prize, equal rights, not a legal category with the right label but devoid of equality. Many British Queer activists have a very different view than Americans. Many are delighted they have all the rights of marriage without the baggage that comes with marriage. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
pngwnz |
4. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 24 2009, 4:48 AM EST
I think the British Q activists you mention might see things a little differently because they have the rights, and are not necessarily bothered by the label "marriage" vs "civil union" - because the rights are there. I disagree that it has anything to do with "the baggage". They are considered married.That's probably why they don't understand those of us in the u s fighting for marriage. Maybe it's just not clear to them that our civil unions just don't come with equal rights. The briefs which will begin next week in california are not just lawsuits about equal rights. More to it than that. More a matter of how laws and constitutions can/cannot be changed. Many knowledgeable activists here are feeling pretty good about the chances of overturning prop 8. If, hopefully, that happens here in california - that can very likely offer positive help in other states as well. As more and more states grant our equal rights then it will be more likely that our federal government will be willing to look further into this. Possibly it will lead to an easier (more legal accomplishment on our side) repeal of DOMA. Do you find this valuable? |
|
lelandt |
5. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 24 2009, 10:07 AM EST
Dear pngwnz,California's "marriages" had not more rights than California's domestic partnerships. If the Court throws out Prop 8 it will be nice but it would only be window dressing. We lost the election and that is what counts. The difference is only the word. State "marriage" cannot be marriage equality. Marriage equality is having all of the rights of marriage, both state and federal, regardless of the label. That is what the British have and that is what you, also, seem to agree with. Do you find this valuable? |
|
pngwnz |
6. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 24 2009, 4:53 PM EST
No, lelandt I believe you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that I agreed with the british. I'm saying that the british q activists are not running from the commitment of marriage. There is an rss feed link you might want to take a good look at, and although ca domestic partnerships/civil unions have many rights - they do not have all the rights of heterosexual marriages. http://adelman-seide.com/blog/california-domestic-partnership-general-info/ California's marriages for lgbt had absolutely the same rights as the marriages for hetero couples. That's what drove the yes on 8 folks to be so scared of what they didn't understand. It was/is marriage plain and simple. The election was lost but an election cannot legally change the constitution and a supreme court ruling. That's what the legal briefs are about. I do agree with you that we do need our rights to be legal along federal laws, but each step granting more rights/equality (no matter how small) is a step in the right direction. Throwing out Prop 8 would once again legalize marriage. Why would giving us back our right of equality be just window dressing? Do you feel that marriage should not be legal in the state of california??? Do you find this valuable? |
|
lelandt |
7. RE: Federal Marriage Rights Should Be Our Focus, Not State Marriage
Feb 25 2009, 12:57 AM EST
I went to the web site you suggested and it does not say that there are any differences between CA marriage and CA domestic partnerships except the word. The domestic partner law (AB 205) says that "all laws, regulations and court decisions which apply to spouses in a marriage" equally applies to registered domestic partners. As far as a state can extend itself, absent the word, that is "marriage equality."Of course, it is not true marriage equality because it does not include the federal rights of marriage.As for your question:"Do you feel that marriage should not be legal in the state of california???"The answer is, of course I THINK it should be. However, I also think it does not matter given our comprehensive domestic partner law. HOWEVER (much bigger however), other than the court case, I believe it is a waste of our time, money and energy to be focusing on anything but achieving our federal marriage rights. The federal rights are much more important than a legal category in a state which is labeled "marriage." Such a label is an empty victory because it does not have all of the rights of marriage and, therefore, it is not marriage equality. President Obama's plan, as laid out on the White House web site, is where our focus should be. Our community has been chasing after a word without rights. That puts rhetoric before reality. Our focus should be on equal rights, regardless of label. The polls have been amazingly static since 2004. About 55-58% of Americans support marriage equality for same-sex couple. However, only about 30-35% are willing to call those rights "marriage." 31 of 32 election defeats with 2/3 of the popular vote against us we need a different strategy to achieve equality.Clearly, going to court has been an overwhelming failure. I believe the CA Supremes will throw out 8, but it does not matter all that much if they do. Do you find this valuable? |
