Civil Unions – a bait and switch scheme

Some call them “civil unions”; OutFront calls them “civil marriage equality;” no matter what they’re called, where civil unions have become law the debate remains unresolved. Even so, local gay activists, and even a few ill-advised traditional marriage supporters, view same-sex civil unions as a means to satisfy both sides in the marriage amendment discussion. Thanks to the stalemate in Connecticut, same-sex civil unions have been exposed as a bait-and-switch scheme designed to obtain same-sex marriage via an incremental approach, and forestall legitimate efforts to protect marriage as between one man and one woman.

In April, the Governor of Connecticut signed a civil union bill that granted same-sex couples all the benefits of marriage, and, as a nod to conservatives, protected marriage as between one man and one woman. However, rather than satisfy both sides, the bill has done just the opposite. Instead of closure, civil unions have put same-sex marriage supporters one step closer to achieving same-sex marriage – exactly what the legislators and the voters meant to avoid.

Immediately, Connecticut same-sex marriage supporters declared the bill was a “down payment on same-sex marriage” and announced their determination to fight on for full-fledged marriage rights. Anne Stanback, president of an advocacy group called Love Makes a Family, said the conversation isn’t over. “Today we celebrate this step forward. Tomorrow we begin again to work towards the day when there are not two lines at town hall…” Stanback’s statement seems prescient, as Connecticut applications for civil unions are practically non-existent and Town Clerks don’t expect demand to rise. Carrie Evans of the Human Rights Campaign believes many same-sex couples may be waiting for full marriage status.

Connecticut is an example of what gay activists call an incremental approach to obtaining same-sex marriage. In the “Independent Gay Forum” gay activist Dale Carpenter proposes homosexuals use the California Model, described as “Spousal Rights by Increments.” “Adopting civil unions will add a strong weapon to the arsenal of arguments for gay marriage,” he concludes.

“This seems to be the tactic in Minnesota,” says Tom Prichard of Minnesota Family Council. “The strategy is to block marriage amendment efforts by convincing legislators that there is a difference between civil and religious marriage. Then, secure legal incidents like civil unions. As time goes by, Minnesotans will perceive these unions as virtually indistinguishable from traditional marriage. That’s what happened in Scandinavia, and it’s happening elsewhere in Europe,” he concluded.

Not all gays and lesbians agree that civil unions are good for same-sex couples or even the institution of marriage. Dale Carpenter reports that University of Minnesota sociology professor Kathleen Hull believes “civil unions might further normalize the treatment of gays and lesbians as a separate class of citizens.” And, concludes Carpenter, “If civil unions could be expected to have this effect, they should be resisted while we wait for marriage.”

To their credit, some gay activists believe civil unions cheapen traditional marriage by reducing it to little more than a legal contract between two people. This marriage-lite is the real “slippery slope to the end of the family as we know it,” says Jonathan Rauch. Like his opponents, who warn homosexual marriage will open the door to polygamy, pederasty and group marriage, Rauch states, “To whatever extent gay marriage gives polygamists a foot in the front door, the alternatives [civil unions] give them a whole leg in the back door.”

In light of the failure, lack of consensus – and interest – for civil unions, why would OutFront continue to push for civil marriage in Minnesota? The answer is that “civil union” is just marriage by another name and a calculated, bait-and-switch scheme designed to advance the cause of same-sex marriage.

Politicians who view civil unions as a compromise should think again. A 2005 Star Tribune Minnesota poll reported opposition to same-sex legal unions increased 10 percentage points over the previous year. After the betrayal in Connecticut, any legislator that proposes civil unions is either misinformed, or guilty of bait-and-switch.