The legislature of the state of Illinois has taken the first step in approving civil unions for the state's gay citizens -- and for its straight citizens. (California has a similar system: civil unions for everyone; marriage for straight couples only.) For gay couples, this is a welcome incremental step towards marriage equality. But in creating such two-tiered systems, states undermine the very "sanctity of marriage" they seek to protect.
By neither modifying the state's existing civil marriage institution nor allowing gays to enter into it, Illinois placates conservatives: it's clear that civil unions are not quite marriage. And by allowing straight couples as well as gay ones access to civil union protections, they placate some liberals who might otherwise have pointed out that distinct "straight version" and "gay version" institutions would have "separate but equal" written all over them.
The problem is that the availability of a "marriage lite" option for straight couples dilutes the social prestige surrounding marriage that we all want to protect. Want a tax break for living with your girlfriend, but the implied commitment and just plain old-fashioned sound of the word "marriage" is giving you the heebie jeebies? Why not try a refreshing civil union?
So what can states do to protect marriage? Encourage those who have made the commitments that marriage requires to get married, regardless of sexual orientation. Encourage those who haven't not to. And grant to all those committed married couples what the constitution guarantees them: equal protection under the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment