START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Why Minnesota’s Offer of Civil Unions is Insulting

Why Minnesota’s Offer of Civil Unions is Insulting

Once, civil unions were a necessary compromise on the road to equality. Now, for most, the are a relic. Yet, the Minnesota Republican Party, caught off guard by the strength of support for gay marriage in states like Minnesota, is using civil unions to undermine the marriage equality struggle.

Introduced on Wednesday last week as an alternative to marriage equality in Minnesota, the state’s Republican Party is risking friction within its own ranks to push a civil unions bill that is as calculated as it is transparent.

“We have a choice right now. We can engage in a gay marriage debate where we’re going to have half of Minnesota fighting half of Minnesota on this issue,” Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, is quoted as saying of the civil unions bill. “If you look at the issue of civil unions, the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans support this.”

Does their concern over a divisive struggle make you pause? It sounds almost agreeable, doesn’t it? It’s a sham.

Remember 2012 when everyone from young party insiders to the President of the United States asked the Minnesota GOP to quit it with their slanderous and disgusting campaign to put a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality on the ballot because it was derisive. They didn’t care then and, taken as a whole, the Party doesn’t care now.

Minnesota’s Marriage Equality Fight

It’s certainly true the fight for marriage equality in Minnesota won’t be an easy one. In the state’s Senate, where the bill has already survived a procedural vote, the landscape of support is manageable.

In the state House, the odds are much tougher. Not a single Republican has pledged support for the marriage equality bill, and so Democratic legislators must tighten their bootstraps and do something Democratic legislators seem to find difficult on the marriage equality issue: have the courage to do what is right even though it might cost them re-election.

If it falls to the Democratic majority to pass the bill, only four members could vote against. A quick count says that around 17 House Democrats represent states where the public isn’t just leery, but where a majority voted in favor of the 2012 ban.

A word to those Democratic legislators like Rep. Kim Norton who signed on to the civil union bill: the excuse that a lawmaker must represent the majority view from their district and vote against marriage equality, either directly or by supporting the odious civil unions bill, is the sniveling of a career politician desperate for a shield against criticism. It also explains exactly why they should not win re-election, because it is clear evidence they lack the character and courage to do what a national identity based on fairness, equality and justice for all demands.

Fortunately, while the numbers are tight on marriage equality, there are more than enough pro-equality Democratic legislators to kill the civil unions bill. They should primarily because it is an insulting compromise, and secondly because it risks stifling progress for longer than just the life of this particular legislative session.

That’s because there’s a second smidgen of deviousness in the Republican push for civil unions that would be easy to miss, and it hinges on the idea of the civil unions being functionally the same as marriage.

Using Civil Unions to Prevent Court Intervention

A court case challenging the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage, and therein the status quo as maintained by the state supreme court decision in the 1971 case Baker v. Nelson where the court found it is not unconstitutional to limit marriage to opposite-sex partners, is making its way through the state’s courts after the state’s appeals court ruled last year that a decision by the lower court to dismiss plaintiffs’ challenge to that statutory ban was not properly decided.

Consider the following: a rehearing sees the lower court decide the ban infringes on plaintiffs’ rights. This is appealed and taken all the way to the state supreme court, a conservative court by most standards who would seem unlikely to deliver a broad ruling in favor of a right to marriage equality.

Were the Republican-backed civil unions bill to be in force at that time, the state’s supreme court would have further reason to dismiss the suit — or any suit like it — because while the social meaning of marriage might be denied same-sex couples, many of the state level legal benefits would already be there. In effect, the civil unions bill could stack the deck in the anti-marriage equality crowd’s favor before the case has even had time to be heard.

Civil Unions: The New Weapon in the Fight Against Gay Marriage?

What’s even more hypocritical about the Republican-backed civil unions bill is that civil unions were once greeted by the wider Republican Party with as much venom as marriage equality still provokes today, yet in several states it is now the go-to for Republicans who see the gay marriage fight spiraling out of their control.

In Utah, for instance, state Senator Orin Hatch is already floating the idea of a civil unions bill after local marriage equality groups decided now was the time to start the effort to institute marriage equality, and it looks as though this is a trend Republicans across the country may feed.

In no state where civil unions have passed — Hawaii and Rhode Island being prime examples — has the fight for equality ended. No one is saying, “Thanks for my right to be almost equal.” No, the battle goes on. Every year, ground is gained. Yet the Religious Right within the Republican Party continues to offer us, at best, patronizing concessions like a civil unions bill.

No one should be fooled, and let’s just refresh our memories as to the kind of comments that lost Republicans the 2012 constitutional amendment fight. While other Republican lawmakers were busy introducing the civil unions bill last week, Republican Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen took time out to tell us what he thinks of homosexuality and the state’s marriage equality bill:

“It’s an unhealthy, sexual addiction [...] When we talk about gay marriage, we are not talking about an immutable characteristic, like the color of your skin. There is no gay gene. The concept that there is a gay gene is an unscientific lie.”

Gruenhagen may not know much about the science of sexuality, but we can borrow his language here: the concept of being relegated to a civil union, and that it should be “enough” for same-sex couples, is an immoral lie.

 

Related Reading:

Minnesota Gay Marriage Lawsuit Can Proceed

General Mills Comes Out Against Minnesota Gay Marriage Ban

MN Gay Marriage Ban Statistical Underdog?

Read more: , , , , , ,

Image credit: Thinkstock.

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

34 comments

+ add your own
2:48PM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

Why would anybody safe in their own marriage be afraid of other people's partner choices?

Hint to the nervous: it is not gay lesbians who will take your hetero husband/wife away.

Ladies, you need have no fear that a man will attract your man. A lesbian might attract him - but she would not accept his advances. So welcome all the lesbians you can find into your circle of friends.

And husbands - the same thing in reverse applies to your wives. No matter how tempting she might find the gay man next door, he will not respond to her appeal. So be friendly to gay guys, they will never hurt you.

If, of course, you are afraid that being monosexual is contagious, then you can free yourself of fear by opening the closet door and discovering that life really DOES get better in the sunshine of honesty.

Whatever your problem with fear may be, you will not solve it by trying to make other people's lives miserable.

Thanks for listening and have a good day.

7:10AM PDT on Apr 16, 2013

Excuse me. Pardon me. Everyone should be equal here. WHO is anyone to judge?!?! You should be able to marry the one you love. What is SO difficult about that? Oh, me bad. Sorry but I forgot that certain people have their panties in a bunch about this "issue." I say it's time to get over it. We are ALL people. The same and created equal. Thanks for letting me ramble on. Love and Peace to Everyone!!

10:16AM PDT on Apr 15, 2013

thank you

2:29AM PDT on Apr 15, 2013

thanks for sharing

9:37AM PDT on Apr 14, 2013

It's very insulting and I hope the politicians in my state (MN) vote against the civil unions and grant equality to all.

8:20AM PDT on Apr 14, 2013

Why do people feel the right to dictate another's life choices, such as marrying who you love?

7:57AM PDT on Apr 12, 2013

Ridiculous.

6:19PM PDT on Apr 11, 2013

I am a Minnesotan and I say..............

Pro gay marriage montage

5:42PM PDT on Apr 11, 2013

Lloyd H and Joseph B, you two covered everything I was thinking. Thanks. Green stars on their way.

5:42PM PDT on Apr 11, 2013

it is insulting

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

If there were no market for fur. There would be no trapping. I don't support going as far as some…

Dam, did it again ... launched without proofreading, sorry. make that TOTAL commitment

There is no way I would let a cop force me to abandon one of my animals. This should never have happened,…

meet our writers

Steve Williams Steve Williams is a passionate supporter of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) rights, human... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.