Lisa Simpson: A rose by any other name smells as sweet
Bart Simpson: Not if you call them 'Stench Blossoms'!
The great big elephant in the room with California Proposition 8--which both sides seemed determined to ignore—is that California has had a domestic partnership law on the books since 2005, and which remains unaffected by Prop 8’s passing.
How do domestic partnerships—also termed ‘civil unions’—differ from marriage other than name? Not by much.
In
Vermont, for example, every question of the form
“How is X handled under a civil union?” is answered, basically, by “the same as with a marriage”. Nothing is different but the name.
In California, there are a
few minor differences (you have to be 18 to form a domestic partnership, for example, and have to be living together, whereas marriages are less strict as far as age and residence). Nothing major, though—certainly nothing that would justify the oft-heard notion that the passage of Prop 8 “destroys gay families”. In reality, the rights of gay couples in California are just about the same today as they were the day before the election. (Domestic partnerships are actually easier to apply for, and easier to end, than marriages.)
The existence of domestic partnerships in California raises some key questions:
To those who opposed Prop 8: why was it so important that Prop 8 fail, since the status of gay couples regarding state government benefits and recognition under domestic partnerships is virtually the same in California as they would be under the name “marriage”? What’s the big deal?
To those who supported Prop 8: why was it so important that Prop 8 succeed, since the status of gay couples regarding state government benefits and recognition under domestic partnerships is virtually the same in California as they would be under the name “marriage”? Wouldn’t the same proposed fallout of gay marriage (loss of freedom of religion, teaching about gay partnerships in schools, etc…) still happen under government recognized civil unions? If not, why not? Again, what’s the big deal?
Rephrasing the question: how much of the gay marriage debate centers exclusively and entirely around the word ‘marriage’? How much of the battle is of a purely symbolic value, in other words--where actual benefits are not in question, only terminology?
Are Prop 8 supporters okay with some kind of benefits for gay couples, as long as the name ‘marriage’ is not attached? After all, the passing of the domestic partnership law in California in 2005 didn't cause nearly as much political response. We may find out, as a number of civil union initiatives, including Utah, are currently under preparation.
How should Church members respond to civil unions? If there are actual societal consequences that come from recognizing gay couples in an official manner (in regards to children, or religious freedom, etc...), wouldn’t those still happen under civil unions? Or is the name ‘marriage’ all that matters?
Imagine, if you will, a law that says that abortions are now illegal, but women have access to a new procedure called a ‘uteral cleasing’ which consists of ‘removing a fetus and any accompanying tissue from the confines of the uterus’. Would pro-lifers be satisfied with such a law? (Because, after all, it’s not an “abortion”--those are illegal now. I suspect not...)
As it develops, the issue of civil unions will probably serve a useful purpose in clarifying why people support or oppose gay marriage in the first place. If you support gay marriage, are civil unions not good enough? If not, why not? What’s so important about the word ‘marriage’? If you oppose gay marriage, is it because you believe official recognition of gay couples is bad for society in some way, or is it just because of the name? What’s so important about the word ‘marriage’?