A FAILURE OF WILL: Charles Karel Bouley II

Yesterday--November 2, 2004--11 states, almost one fifth of the electorate, voted on state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage. All received overwhelming approval. ...

And while that prevalent attitude is bad enough, what's worse is that eight of the 11 states passed amendments also intended to ban civil unions, thereby throwing up yet another roadblock to any kind of equality under the law. The battle for marriage may have lost us the war we should have been fighting for all along: equality under the law under any name. Sometimes separate and equal is fine, especially in matters of rights granted by law.

But in our gay leaders' infinite wisdom someone decided it was all or nothing, make marriage equality the issue without compromise. Civil unions? Not enough. Hogwash. We won't be second-class citizens. Well, how many of you feel first class today?

Almost four years ago now I lost my husband--yes, I considered him that without any paperwork--to what I believe to be medical malpractice. Today--November 3, 2004--my case sits on appeal in the Los Angeles Superior Court, awaiting judges to determine whether I have any legal standing at all. They're not deciding the medical merits of the case; it's taken almost four years just for someone to say whether I can sue after living with Andrew as a couple for 11 1/2 years, having filed a domestic partnership agreement, and having been as married as any two people could be.

Now, if California already had AB 205--the new domestic-partnership law that takes effect in January 2005 and gives same-sex partners more legal standing and more responsibilities--when Andrew died, this wouldn't be an issue. But the lawyers on the side of the hospital argue that the rights AB 205 grants to domestic partners in the state didn't start until after his death, although that issue is debatable, since there is an apparent retroactive clause. Why do I even need to know this? Why should this even be on my mind? Why couldn't I sue like any other spouse? Because so many wanted marriage instead of domestic partnership or civil unions that now we're ending up with neither. ...

...If we all wanted same-sex marriage or federally recognized civil unions, we’d have them. Because trust me, as a collective, we've got nothing but time and more resources at our disposal than our nongay counterparts, and if we connected ourselves to something more than online meeting places, we’d have quite an infrastructure.

But we simply don't want it. ...

The gay community seems to have George W. Bush syndrome: We cannot admit we were wrong, even in the face of more defeats than wins. When George W. Bush called for a Federal Marriage Amendment, we should have had the political clout to say, Fine, we won't push gay and lesbian marriage, but we'll only not make an issue out of it if you give us a national domestic-partner registry with all the legal rights of marriage. There was a compromise, but we didn't have the clout to push for it because we didn't want to push for it.

...Many of you may not even know what your workplace's or state's stance on domestic partnership is, what benefits may or may not be granted to you or your partner. Many more couples haven't even filled out the agreements. Not surprising, since 50% of you don’t have wills and 100% of you are going to die. ...

First, agree on an agenda. And, quite frankly, let's make it mine: National Domestic Partnership Recognition. Leave the word marriage alone, for God's sake. I mean that, for God's sake. The word is too tied to God, to religion, to heterosexual tradition. Leave the word alone. Create a new class of unions under the law, unions that carry the same benefits but have a different name.

more

posted by Eve at 6:27 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home