Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions are Trojan Horses

As another state considers going this route, I understand why other marriage defenders are against civil unions on principle. They see it as something that devalues marriage, much as most of them see shacking up and societal acceptance of fornication as well as shacking up as devaluing marriage. Many of these people want to discourage homosexual behavior as detrimental. I, too, see homosexual behavior as detrimental and civil unions as devaluing marriage. However, I recognize that people are going to do what they're going to do behind closed doors, and with broad societal accommodation, most people with homosexual feelings are not going to consider enough incentive to refrain from homosexual behavior. So, I see civil unions as a compromise to give same-sex couples a shortcut to certain legal arrangements, even though those arrangements were attached to marriage because of marriage's procreative and uniting-of-the-sexes nature. I want to be a nice guy. I don't see civil unions as a right, but would be willing to support a law creating them... except that I can't due to tactical reasons. Instead of preserving marriage law (which is why - along with discouracing homosexual promiscuity - I'd be willing to support them even though I think they devalue marriage somewhat), civil unions are used as a Trojan Horse to neuter marriage licensing. Once they are in place, the battle cry of the marriage neutering crowd becomes "we can't have 'seperate but equal'". Of course, the courts should recognize that civil unions are for associations that are inherently different than marriage, but Judge Walker didn't in the California Propostion 8 case.

I would think it good if DOMA was replaced by a Constitutional amendment that made a distinction between marriage and civil unions, thus allowing the federal government to recognize neutered marriage licenses from the states that issue them, and civil unions from the states that issue those – for things like federal employees and such, while preventing states from being forced to neuter their marriage licenses. The problem is, what matters more to marriage neutering advocates, more than getting certain legal entitlements, is removing all distinctions made between marriage and this form of non-marriage, so such an amendment would not satisfy them. In their thinking, marriage must be killed and replaced by a counterfeit, or SSM.

This blog entry, originally at The Opine Editorials a while back, was prompted by coverage of the Trojan Horse in Hawaii. Reporting by Suzanne Roig, writing by Dan Whitcomb, editing by Greg McCune brought this Reuters article.

Governor Neil Abercrombie on Wednesday signed into law a bill allowing same-sex civil unions, making Hawaii the seventh U.S. state to grant essentially the same rights as marriage to gay couples.

So the law is like California's domestic partnerships, where both-sexes couples need not apply unless at least one of them is a senior citizen?

"This signing today of this measure says to all the world that they are welcome, that everyone is a brother or a sister in paradise."

Wait, did he just compare SSM to incest? That's outrageous! Hawaii has a history of recognizing brother-sister marriages as valid, unlike brideless or groomless pairings. So making the comparison is a bad thing to do.

"The legalization of civic unions in Hawaii represents in my mind, equal rights," Democrat Abercrombie said in signing the measure, his first as governor.

Yeah, and that's what marriage neutering proponents say for a while, until the Trojan Horse is in the door. Then, suddenly, the civil union law they said was so vital becomes an insult.

"Today marks a big step toward full equality for lesbian and gay people in the Aloha state," said Jennifer Pizer, national marriage project director for the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

Big step forward? What, pray tell, is left? I think we all know the answer to that.
Here's an Associated Press article by Mark Niesse.

For years, the Rev. Fay Hovey has held romantic ceremonies on the sand for gay partners who want to pledge their love in Hawaii.

How is that possible? Marriage neutering advocates, including the ones in the news media, have told us that such things were banned! Do they think we can't compare articles from the same news agencies?