The Oracle: Separate and Equal
Many berate me anytime I suggest that the successful “everything but marriage” campaign in the state of Washington may be a short-term blueprint for how our community should move forward on marriage equality. Of course, I try to explain that I believe in true marriage equality, but I also understand that “oatmeal is better than no meal.”
Given the current American voter climate of “throw the bums out,” it’s likely that the Democratic majority in Congress, and in state legislatures, will be significantly reduced or (god forbid) eliminated. As we continue our fight toward marriage equality, we should pursue interim steps that will ensure success in the new political environment.
Many marriage activists explain to me how separate but equal can never be equal. Separate but equal conjures up the vision of “colored” facilities that were hardly equal to those offered to whites. During segregation, separate but equal was a misnomer. However, because the concept was not effectively implemented does not mean that the concept is patently bad when applied to appropriate situations. Racial segregation was not an appropriate situation. Today, most of us experience separate but equal everyday in America and throughout the world. No, I am not talking about havens of prejudice or bigotry. Think about it, where do you experience separate but equal in your every day life?
Unless you work in a place like the one depicted on Ally McBeal, when you go to the bathroom at your workplace you experience separate but equal at its best. In fact, I postulate that most people agree with the concept of separate bathrooms. I sure do. So, there are situations where separate and equal makes sense. Is one of those situations our next logical step in our pursuit of marriage equality? Can we accept what has been achieved in the state of Washington, where gays and lesbians have all the rights of marriage but cannot use the term?
It is painful to accept that our enemies know that we will not win with the voter in the short term. So why not take an interim step and get all the rights? I understand the importance of “true” marriage equality, but I sure would like to have my partner inherit my social security, not pay taxes on the first dollar he inherits if I die, and make medical decisions for me without us having to draw up lengthy legal documents. I want this now, not in five to 20 years.
My friends in New Jersey remind me often that their civil union law does not give equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, even though that is the law’s purpose. There have been cases in New Jersey where a domestic partner has not been allowed into a hospital room or ambulance without proof of their domestic partnership. Clearly, no wife has been asked for proof to accompany her husband in an ambulance. This is a problem of implementation, not a problem with the law. When a minister refused to marry an interracial couple in the South just a few months ago, no one suggested that the law allowing interracial marriage was not effective.
While the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) still needs to be repealed before we can have recognition of our relationships on the federal level, our state-by-state battles need to pivot to the interim step of achieving all the rights but not the name. If it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. If we have to call it a chicken for several years to make it palatable to some voters, I say so be it.
