Editorial
Editorial:
Not Just Semantics
For
the Vermont lesbian and gay community, gubernatorial candidate Peter Clavelle
has just whiffed on his first hard pitch. Last month during a community
access TV show taping in Franklin County, Burlington's bipartisan mayor
was asked whether he would sign a gay marriage bill if one arrived on
his desk as governor. His answer: "I don't know."
He said he didn't know why such a bill
would be necessary or what the difference would be between the current
civil unions and marriage. He said he needed to get more information and
that he was getting conflicting advice from within the gay and lesbian
community.
Of course, there he was, in Franklin County,
whose more conservative residents were infamous for shouting down speakers
at a forum on civil unions four years ago. It was difficult to tell whether
his waffle was political avoidance of an issue certain not to endear him
to the county's conservative ethnic Democrats, or whether it was sincere
personal confusion. A political calculation might weigh conservatives
against queers and find there are more conservatives than there are gays
and lesbians who vote.
A candidate might decide that he should
not alienate the group that brings the most votes and/or influence to
the table. That kind of equation trades off one group's long-term equal
rights for another group's immediate votes – the kind of math that
gives politics and politicians a dirty name.
If your confusion is personal and sincere,
Mayor Clavelle, here's how to get to the answer: give up social security
survivor benefits, filing joint federal taxes, spousal privilege in federal
courts, federal prison visitation rights, immigration priority for a nonresident
spouse, the right to name your spouse as your next of kin at an out-of-state
hospital, even the right to buy a family pass to national parks, and agree
to pay income taxes on the health insurance benefits that cover your spouse.
Do all that, then see if your answer is "what's the difference?"
According to a 1997 General Accounting
Office report commissioned in connection with the Defense of Marriage
Act, there are 1,049 federal laws affecting married partners, spouses,
widows, widowers, and survivors, covering everything from buying a first
home together to qualifying for food stamps. Vermonters and out-of-staters
with civil unions are invisible with regard to these provisions. If
you and your spouse Betsy Ferries are not willing to have only what we've
got, then what we've got is obviously not equal.
These issues are federal issues, and a
politician could argue that state marriage/civil union laws have no impact
on federal policy, a stand that is ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.
With a relationship labeled "civil union," Vermont's gay and
lesbian couples (and all the out-of-state couples who came here to be
civilly united) don't even get a seat at the federal table – or
perhaps more accurately, in the federal courtroom. Because it's only with
standing as married couples that we can challenge the federal Defense
of Marriage Act, President Clinton's signing of which was far more shameful
than anything he did with Monica Lewinsky.
The struggle now going on in Massachusetts
makes the difference between civil unions and marriage very clear. "Separate
is seldom, if ever, equal," wrote the state's high court. The folks
who worked hardest on Baker v. State and the legislation that grew out
of the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in that case had to stifle their disappointment
in order to celebrate the significant gains represented by civil unions.
They have always been clear that civil unions are a first course, not
the whole meal, a politically palatable compromise, not true equality.
San
Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom, a straight man and a Democrat, gets it.
He did for California gay men and lesbians what you say you will do for
Vermonters with high prescription drug
costs: he broke an unjust law to enact true justice. He directed his
county's clerks to issue marriage licenses, even though that act is
prohibited by California law. He didn't wait for permission, just as you
say you won't wait for permission to get low-cost Canadian prescription
drugs.
So, how is it, Mayor Clavelle, that a compassionate,
bright, pragmatic, socially aware liberal like yourself doesn't get it
that separate is not equal and that the issue is about civil marriage
and
legal rights, not religious doctrine? That what's at stake is not just
semantics, but equality?
Euan Bear
Editor
Production notes:
GreenLanders cartoonist Stuart Granoff is taking a break this month, but will return in the April issue. And both Spiritual Essence columnist Pippin and The Stars Are Out astrologer Glo Daley have completed their series this month. Spiritual Essence will continue as an occasional column by various writers, and next month we welcome a new advice columnist, Lavender Lizzie. Enjoy!