Jan 23, 2009  |  By: Lauren R. Dana  | COMMENTS     

IT’S FINALLY 2009. We are ending eight years of oppression and heading toward equality with President Barack Obama. Never before has a presidential candidate treated our community with so much respect. 

Obama publicly supports an expansion of hate crimes laws, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and even opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His campaign platform even calls for the extension of rights to same-sex couples. Why then is the dawn of this new era so bittersweet? Because while electing Obama was a great step forward, the LGBT community was stripped of full marriage equality in California, marking a huge setback. 

We are used to people voting against us. Right now, 44 states have constitutional amendments or laws in place restricting our right to marry. But it is so much worse to have been given those rights and then have them taken away by a simple majority vote.

Still, we have made tremendous strides in terms of public opinion. Same-sex marriage, while still a highly controversial and hotly debated issue, isn’t quite the pink elephant it was in 2004. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, our opponents predicted the complete dissolution of Western culture. It was the realization of the right wing’s worst nightmare — precisely what they’d been trying to prevent with the passage of DOMA in 1996. Even now, a lot of them are making the same arguments. But their scare tactics aren’t as effective as they used to be.

The majority of American people, to their credit, have noticed that Massachusetts hasn’t imploded into a barren wasteland of amoral liberals. As same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships have become more common, they’ve become less threatening. A December 2008 poll showed 75 percent of Americans now believe that we at least deserve relationship rights. 

CONSEQUENTLY, MANY OF today’s moderate politicians support civil unions.  But their support skirts the most important issue: what these rights are called.  Even most Democrats aren’t willing to fight for full marriage equality.  Supporting same-sex marriage is outside of their comfort zone. It’s political suicide. (Witness Obama’s backpedaling since his Illinois Senate run in 1996.)  That’s why “civil unions” are today’s new buzzwords. After all, getting the rights solves the problem, doesn’t it? Who cares what it’s called?

The point is, we should care. What’s in a name? Everything. That was the point of the “Yes on 8” campaign. Californians already had registered domestic partnerships. “Yes on 8” capitalized on that fact to make the campaign not about rights, but about marriage. The word. The institution. And that’s precisely what the argument should be about. 

THE RIGHTS INHERENT in marriage are only half the story. We also want the respect that goes along with that relationship. That’s what scares the right wing — the legitimization of our lives.
Marriage as a word is so deeply embedded in our syntax that nothing will ever take its place. Saying “my partner” will never carry the weight of saying “my wife” or “my husband.” Separate rights are not equal rights.

The alternatives of civil unions and domestic partnerships are well-intended and welcome steps in the right direction. I have no doubt more states will pass legislation guaranteeing rights to committed same-sex couples during the Obama administration. But we cannot be complacent and stop there.

Marriage is what the Constitution grants to all citizens of this country. The LGBT community isn’t seeking special rights, or different rights. We are only asking to be granted the same rights as anyone else. Ultimately, that’s what we’ll get.