"CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL, MARRIAGE FOR NONE" BILL TO BE INTRODUCED IN NY ASSEMBLY: From the Gay City News

Civil marriage in New York would be abolished, and replaced by civil unions for all, whether gay or straight couples, under a bill to be introduced shortly by New York Assembymember Deborah Glick (D-Greenwich Village).

Some advocates working for marriage equality are troubled by the measure and call it "confusing." Others, however, see it as just one more option for protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered families.

"Marriage comes with a whole lot of baggage and has a negative history for women in particular," said Glick, the first out gay or lesbian person elected to the New York State Legislature (in 1991). ...

Glick said many of her friends "don't want to ape a heterosexual cultural model, but they want the rights and responsibilities." She also said she is concerned that "the line is being blurred between church and state" in the current debate over same-sex marriage. Religious agents would play no role in legalizing civil unions under her bill, but could continue to perform religious marriages for their congregants as they always have. At present, certified religious leaders are among those who can marry couples after they have obtained a license from the state. Some couples just have civil marriage ceremonies.

Glick's bill would go through the domestic relations law, striking the word "marriage," and substituting "civil union" in every instance. If passed, it would be the only option for same-sex and straight couples to unite.

"To some extent," she said, "it is a little bit more radical" than fighting for same-sex marriage, "telling the straight community that the state is going to get out of marriage and into civil unions."

Glick's proposal is not novel and has been floated by newspaper columnists and activists around the country. But she is the first legislator in the nation to introduce such a measure. ...

As radical as Glick's proposal may sound, those who obtain civil unions will be bound by all the rights and responsibilities currently in the marriage law. Is it just a change in the name?

"Lots of things start in one place," she said. "It eliminates the religious connotations in the law. Lots of things we do legally in legislation have other ramifications that take time to percolate."

Doesn't it continue to privilege couples over singles?

"Some suggest that," she said. "I'm approaching it from the point of view that same-sex couples are disadvantaged in a number of ways."

more
posted by Eve at 2:12 AM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home