OR-SEN: Marriage equality: leveling UP with Novick, or leveling DOWN with Merkley

(cross-posted from Loaded Orygun, Oregon's progressive community)

 
I know it will shock all of you to learn this, but occasionally I peek at other blogs, and even more occasionally I find something inspirational or just plain useful there. So it was with the New York Times' Freakonomics blog a few days ago.The blog entry is called "Swimming Pools and Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The author is Yale professor Ian Ayres.  He's talking about the US military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy but the underlying principles are applicable to any form of de jure discrimination. Details below the jump.

Professor Ayres writes:

There are always two ways of ending de jure discrimination: you can level up, or level down. In the late 1950s, the estimable city of Greensboro, N.C., operated a whites-only swimming pool. When a group of African Americans petitioned the city council to end the segregation, the council relented –- by closing the pool to both whites and blacks.

In case you're not following him, he elucidates.

As such, there are also two ways to end the military’s de jure discrimination based on sexual orientation. We can either repeal DADT, or we could extend its application to heterosexuals as well. If extended, no soldier could talk about his or her orientation without risk of exclusion.

This, of course, would be leveling DOWN.

While we imagine the prospect of forbidding heterosexual members of the military from talking about their husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, and children -- and remember, these restrictions are the reality of daily life for gay servicemen and women -- he moves on to the next obvious application of this principle: marriage equality.

My own church, St. Thomas Episcopal in New Haven, tried a version of this strategy. In 2004, the church vestry adopted a resolution “calling for St. Thomas’s clergy to treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples equally in administering the sacrament of marriage,” as the church Web site describes it. The Bishop was not amused, and within 3 days he called an emergency meeting warning our rector, Father Michael Ray, that he risked being defrocked if he performed marriage ceremonies for any same-sex couples inside the church. Ray responded by honoring both the request of the vestry and the demands of the Bishop by announcing a moratorium on the celebration of all marriages.

Some argue, and have argued vigorously in Jeff Merkley's defense, that the correct solution to the "problem" of marriage equality is for the government to level down and deny "marriage" to everyone, reserving "marriage" as a religious sacrament only. Most churches would not respond the way St. Thomas Episcopal did, and would continue to perform marriages for members of their congregations. The result, then, would be that the unchurched could not be "married," however much such couples might desire or aspire to the marital state. While I confess to a moment of enjoyment of the prospect that a gay couple who are members of a liberal congregation might find themselves able to attain a marital status which was being denied to countless straight couples, such a result is untenable religious discrimination. In addition, such a "solution" would require the rewriting of more than a thousand Federal laws and regulations (and new Federal regulation of countless private contracts of insurance, annuities, etc.) to ensure the equal protection of all those unchurched couples.

It would be immeasurably worse than closing that swimming pool. It would be even worse than extending DADT to married servicepeople.

The only sensible course of action is to level UP. Open up the civic institution of marriage to all committed couples who wish to partake of it. Offer other commitment options if you wish, to protect the children and the property of couples who do not wish to be civilly married. But let's not use twisted logic to prevent committed same sex couples from accessing the basic benefits and privileges of marriage that the rest of us take for granted.

Steve Novick understands this.

Jeff Merkley does not.

It's just another reason to support Steve Novick.
 
 

•  tips for leveling UP?!

  by vard on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:41:02 PM PDT

•  Wash rinse repeat

  You are pushing the same already discredit line of argument about Merkley not being squarely for full and equal rights for non-heterosexuals.

  Mitch Gore

  Wanna win in '08...?

  Put your money where your mouth is.

  by Lestatdelc on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:45:01 PM PDT

  •  more than legal rights

    Call me a romantic, but I'm not impressed by the arguments that call for the legal rights without the marriage label.

    While I'm not a big fan of the "m word" personally, I like discrimination even less.  Given the economic and social history of marriage, which I think is inseparable from the current institution, I'd just as soon see it go away all together... but by people opting out.

    I don't see that happening anytime soon, so I'd much prefer that we "level up," than level people "down" to civil unions/domestic partnerships.  Marriage, to most people, is more than just legal rights.  Marriage is about social acceptance, about equality, about recognition of a relationship.

    Any difference between the offerings made available by our "civil society" based on sexual orientation is yet another unacceptable example of attempting to  create a "separate but equal" arrangement.

    There's a reason that Steve Novick, and not Jeff Merkley, was endorsed by Equality Giving.  They just don't write songs about civil unions.

    by maloney on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:13:27 PM PDT

    •  Same gender couples can have the

      ceremony of marriage right now. But it is the legal rights and protections which matter in the realm of public law and policy.

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:42:13 PM PDT

  •  Merkley doesn't support marriage equality

    It's just the plain truth.

    You may believe that what he does support is JUST AS GOOD, but if it's not marriage, then it's "separate but equal."

    by vard on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:48:21 PM PDT

    •  Already debunked in the link provided

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:04:13 AM PDT

      •  not debunked at all

        Please show me where Jeff Merkley has ever advocated issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

        Repealing DOMA is not the same thing - that takes us back to local option.

        by vard on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:09:40 AM PDT

•  The other half of taking gov't out of marriage

  Suggestions to take government out of the mariage business are usually coupled with proposals for government to empower along the lines of current marriage laws civil contracts between two individuals regarding tax liabilities, property ownership and bequests, visitation privileged, financial relationships, custody of minors, etc.

  Marriage by contrast would be left to religious groups to administer, and the definition of religious could certainly be rather loosely defined. For that matter, if government has no monopoly on marriage, it's not clear why government would be involved in regulating who could enter into marriage or who could perform marriage ceremonies. Thus I don't see religious discrimination necessarily entering into the equation.

  Personally I would not favor separating marriage from government sanction on other grounds, but in terms of the discrimination issue, I don't think the idea is inherently infeasible when properly structured.

  by civil truth on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM PDT

•  Horse puckies

  1. DADT isn't now nor has it ever been premised on a religious rite and thus isn't remotely analogous to marriage. It's a bastardized Clintonian monstrosity that should have been euthanized at birth.

  2. Because it's not analogous, arguing (correctly) that the government ought to get out of the business of sanctioning religious rites is not leveling down, it's leveling up.

  3. Getting the government out of the business of sanctioning religious rites in no way denies "marriage" to anyone. Indeed it would level the playing field. Several denominations stand ready TOMORROW to perform marriage rites for gays or straights.

  4. Additionally, getting the government out of the business of sanctioning religious rites would shore up a part of the Church/State wall that was breeched when the government first turned to "marriage" as a mechanism for distributing SSI benefits.

  5. This has all been explained to you ad-nauseum. It's like talking to a brick wall. Merkley could adopt every little fantasy you've ever had and you'd still be trying to find some way to destroy his candidacy because he's not Steve Novick. This is a Holy War for you. Jeff is the infidel and Steve is your personal Allah. And everyone knows that trying to talk sense into a religious fanatic is a waste of time.

  by Preemptive Karma on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:08:59 PM PDT

  •  it's all de jure discrimination

    DADT doesn't have to be based on religion to be apposite to the marriage equality issue. Just like the swimming pool, it represents a form of de jure discrimination.

    And like the professor says, there are generally two ways to fix a problem of de jure discrimination: you can level up (granting full rights to everyone) or you can level down (denying full rights to everyone).

    Most progressives would be on the "level up" side of that argument.

    by vard on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:52:34 PM PDT

  •  The governement is not in the business of

    sactioning religious rites.

    The government is issuing civil marriage licenses  - the only thing religious about it is that we allow preachers ( and ship captians ) to officiate.

    If you want to get religion seperated from government, don't allow preachers to perform marriages, the way they do in countiries like Mexico.

    by tiponeill on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:53:09 PM PDT

•  All total nonsense

  because it perpeutates the bigotry that what a church does matters in the least.

  It matters not if a church is willing to marry straights, or gays, or previously divorced, or mixed race couples, or copuples of different faiths - they all have their particulr doctrines on this, non of which have the force of law.

  What matters is what out government does.

  When the state healt department refuses to issue straight couples marriage licenses - THAT is leveling down.

  The rest is just squabbling among religious sects.

  by tiponeill on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:50:26 PM PDT

  •  Perfectly said, tip! Thanks! nt

    by ExStr8 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:16:05 AM PDT

•  Don't drag "marriage equality" into 2008 election

  Gay marriage an idea that is progressively gaining wider acceptance, in that a huge portion of the hetrosexual population has concluded that gay marriage is not something harmful to them or society, but something that may even be worth respecting in the libertarian spirit of "whatever floats your boat" and even pragmatic social stability.  But being willing to positively accept formally institutionalizing gay marriage and being invested toward actively supporting it are very different things.  Unfortunately, the opponents of gay marriage ARE actively invested toward defeating it, and they outnumber the gay community as a voting block, even though the number of passive supporters of the concept probably significantly outnumber the antis.

  There's no question that the timing of raising the gay marriage issue in 2004 motivated the critical extra number of conservative evangelical voters to turn out in e.g. Ohio...so that even though Kerry got enough raw votes to have won the state vs Bush in 2000, he lost due to the increased turnout in 2004.

  If the same dynamic enables the GOP to eke out a narrow win in 2008, the next nominee to the Supreme Court will be like Alito, Roberts, Scalia, or Thomas...and you'll see wholesale reversal of precedents that support constitutional rights of gay people (the privacy right is not just about abortion).  You'll be much more successful with a friendlier democratic administration that is at least passively supportive, instead of actively hostile and out to hamstring you at every step possible.

  by cmoreNC on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:42:23 AM PDT

•  How many times can you beat the same dead horse?

  1  Despite being only three years after M36 overwhelmingly passed, banned gay marriage in Oregon, Jeff Merkley shepherded Civil Unions and Nondiscrimination through a House with a 1 vote majority.  Merkley has absolutely been at the forefront of demanding that members of the LGBTQ community are given equal rights and is campaigning on the repeal of DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.  To represent Merkley otherwise as Vard has done all over the internet and again here is disingenuous.

  2  Merkley's stump speech specifically talks about getting equal rights for the LGBT community, something that Novick has not done.  Name one measurable impact Steve Novick has had on LGBTQ rights. You can't.  Plus Novick didn't have the courage to oppose the Southwick nomination with even a press release, where as Merkley went hard after Southwick and Gordon Smith's vote to confirm him.  I want someone who has and will continue to protect my families rights, not just talk about it to court the left.

  3  Since we all know that gay marriage is not even a remote political possibility, why not have a conversation about whether or not we should extend a patriarchal institution and force the LGBT community to conform to heterosexist norms or whether we should change the institution.  I know that when I was growing up a question I had to deal with was well who is the man and who is the woman.  That kind of heterosexist thinking will occur if we extend marriage to everyone.  Rather if we gave everyone civil unions (grandfathering in old marriages) it would make a dramatic statement about accepting families like mine.  Why Merkley is being punished by some for acknowledging that I don't know.

  by bdunn on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:49:46 AM PDT