One of the least noticed aspects of the social right’s campaign against gay relationships is the sheer scope of the effort. The leaders have long insisted that they have nothing against gay people or gay couples, they just want to “protect” civil marriage as a heterosexual institution. And yet eight states, under the pretense of merely banning marriage rights for gay couples, have in fact put bans in place that remove all civil protections from gay relationships. Now check out the wording of the state constitutional amendment being proposed in California:
“The rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations of a marriage shall only be granted, bestowed, and conferred upon a man and a woman joined in a valid marriage, and may not be conferred upon any other union or partnership.”
This is also the position of writers like Maggie Gallagher and Stanley Kurtz. To her credit, Gallagher has written explicitly about this:
If asked, I would have recommended that state marriage amendments not try to bar civil unions either. (I’d vote for any of the versions I have seen, however).
So Gallagher is against state amendments that would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships, but would still vote for amendments that ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. Got that? Since the election, I emailed Maggie to ask her for clarification. She has the same view: “I don’t support civil unions, but also I do not think they should be ‘constitutionalized’: benefits for individuals or relationships that are not marriages should be left up to state legislatures. (So the FMA should not try to ban civil unions. I would prefer the same be true of state marriage amendments, but I would not have voted against the state marriage amendments.)” The FMA, of course, does ban court-prompted civil unions in its second sentence, potentially ending Vermont’s and Massachusetts’ protections. We should be clear here. One side favors marriage rights for gays. The other side favors the removal of any legal protections for gay couples, including civil unions, domestic partnerships, legally enforceable private contracts, and anything that might give legal standing and dignity to gay relationships. That’s the current choice.
VERKLEMMT EMAIL OF THE DAY: “Doubtless, if the reference was to a sentence spoken in German, you would be correct. Or as spoken by an Anglo American! From a yiddish speaker I think not. In my 60 year old memory of my grandmother and her yiddish speaking friends what I hear in my head is “Fahklempt”. With an “F”. Not a “V”. An “F” followed by an “ah”… “Fah” not “ver”.. And I definitely hear that “P” before the “T”. Fahklempt. What I so often feel having read the Dish for the day…. :)<." More feedback on the Letters Page.
The Dish 