Ask Auntie Pinko
September 4, 2003

Dear Auntie Pinko,

What is the best way for Gay Americans to get the equal rights of partnership, but not be too offensive to the religious right?

Caleb,
St. Louis, MO

Dear Caleb,

Auntie Pinko thinks you must be a very well brought-up person to express such a concern, and I appreciate your consideration for others - even others who have expressed outright hostility to your goals. However, I think your goals are going to be difficult enough to achieve without spending energy on lost causes.

The very existence of gay people is pretty offensive to the most dogmatic fundamentalists, and even those who pay a certain amount of lip service to the right of gay people to exist (as long as they don't do anything gay) will never be comfortable with the notion of gay partnership. Frankly, Auntie Pinko wouldn't recommend you waste too much time on the extremists, unless it gives you some particular satisfaction.

But there are large numbers of Americans who, while they do not hold strict fundamentalist religious views, nevertheless feel some discomfort with the notion of gay "marriage." And in the case of this much larger (and, ultimately, more politically influential) group, those of us who would like gay people to enjoy the same partnership rights as straight people can definitely make a difference in how we frame our approach.

Religious belief is an entirely subjective thing, and it is also a matter that is (or should be) strictly outside the capacity of the law to address or compel in any way. In my opinion, we will make much better progress toward the goal of equal partnership rights if we recognize this and defer the issue of "marriage" in the religiously solemnized sense to a later fight (or fights - as it will probably have to be addressed in almost as many battles as there are faiths and sects of faiths!)

The religious concept of marriage overlaps in many significant ways with the state's concept of marriage. But there are important differences, and the key on is that the state's interest is (or should be) pragmatic rather than theological. Stable partnerships offer a number of benefits to the state that justify the state's protection of partnership status. Stable partnerships, which promote family bonding, ensure better social and financial support systems for the more vulnerable citizens - children and seniors. They produce more efficient economic units and provide more stimulation to the state's economy through the aggregation of long-term assets and durable goods.

Stable partnerships usually increase the happiness of their members, and this promotes economic productivity and social stability. The state's pragmatic focus on these benefits is one reason why states began recognizing and facilitating partnership dissolution when most religions still impose much more drastic sanctions and penalties on divorce.

It is the word 'marriage,' with all of its theological implications, that produces such anxiety for many Americans who otherwise are moderately well-disposed toward the notion of equal rights for gay people. It seems to me that the more we frame the issue in terms of the state's guarantee of partnership rights, the more chance we have to make progress.

One barrier we face is that many people have never actually sat down and considered the difference between the state's guarantee of partnership rights, and the church's recognition of a marriage. Too many people automatically assume that the state's recognition of "marriage" means the same thing as a church's recognition of a "marriage."

By taking every possible opportunity to carefully define exactly what state recognition means in terms of specific legal rights, we can both take the debate out of the religious context, and promote better understanding of exactly what most gay people really want.

Most of the gay people I know who want the state to recognize their partnership want things that have nothing whatsoever to do with any theological or moral acknowledgement. They want:

• To have the visiting rights of their partners respected when hospitalized, jailed, or incapacitated.

• To have certain assumptions made, in absence of a legal will, about how their property should be disposed in the event of their death.

• To have the custody of children be a joint matter with their partner, so that in the event of their death, their partner may continue to provide a stable, loving home for the children whose upbringing they have shared.

• To have their partner able to have access to survivor's benefits in the Social Security system, caretaker's benefits under insurance programs, etc., and the same employment-related benefits as the spouses of straight co-workers.

Too many Americans assume that the state's power to confer and enforce these rights is based on some official recognition of the theological nature of marriage. On the contrary, the state's interest is in forming stable economic units so that citizens may look after one another, impelled by the bonds of affection and shared family experience. Given this pragmatic principle, it is actually to the benefit of all Americans to promote access to legal partnership for gay people.

Now, there are undoubtedly many gay people who are themselves religious, and who experience considerable pain at the exclusion of their family bond by their churches. And Auntie Pinko wishes them well in their long struggle to bring wider understanding and change to these religious institutions. But I would also suggest that mingling that struggle with the fight for legal partnership rights serves neither end effectively. Confusing the two, in the minds of many Americans, has resulted in the growing negative perceptions of the gay partnership issue.

I hope this is of some help to you, Caleb, and thanks for asking Auntie Pinko!

View Auntie's Archive

Do you have a question for Auntie Pinko?

Do political discusions discombobulate you? Are you a liberal at a loss for words when those darned dittoheads babble their talking points at you? Or a conservative, who just can't understand those pesky liberals and their silliness? Auntie Pinko has an answer for everything.

Just send e-mail to: mail@democraticunderground.com, and make sure it says "A question for Auntie Pinko" in the subject line. Please include your name and hometown.