Pope Comes Out for Civil Unions

Whoa.  In a breathtaking departure from Catholic teaching up till now, Pope Francis has unofficially stated his approval of civil unions for gay couples.  The Catholic News Agency reports:

In a documentary that premiered Wednesday in Rome, Pope Francis called for the passage of civil union laws for same-sex couples, departing from the position of the Vatican’s doctrinal office and the pope’s predecessors on the issue.

The remarks came amid a portion of the documentary that reflected on pastoral care for those who identify as LGBT. 

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it,” Pope Francis said in the film, of his approach to pastoral care.

After those remarks, and in comments likely to spark controversy among Catholics, Pope Francis weighed in directly on the issue of civil unions for same-sex couples.

“What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered,” the pope said. “I stood up for that.”

The remarks come in “Francesco,” a documentary on the life and ministry of Pope Francis which premiered Oct. 21 as part of the Rome Film Festival, and is set to make its North American premiere on Sunday.

Well, I'm stunned, and I'm not even Catholic.  However, it does seem in line with Pope Francis's kindly personality and humane approach to pastoral issues.  For us Americans, this change of tune comes a bit late; but then no doubt in some other, less-evolved societies, people may feel it comes too soon.  Be that as it may, we'll take it, and I for one will count Pope Francis as a "gay ally" from here on out.

Don't reject goodwill or friendship just because it doesn't arrive on your timetable.  Despite the incessant gay-hooray of American media, the fact remains that we are a tiny minority of the population both here and all around the world.  (You can look it up for yourself.)  And who knows what the legal and judicial atmosphere will be after this election.  

We need all the friends we can get, fellas.  And we don't have to be Catholic to realize that Francis has done a beautiful thing:  he has affirmed that we gays are human beings, after all, and children of God - just like everybody else.  Our essential humanity, our right to exist, does not, of course, depend on his say-so; but coming from the Pope, this will open some hearts that have been hitherto closed against us.  

Thank you, Your Holiness.

-----ooOoo-----

Update:  See my post from 3/13/21, Pope Francis Nixes Gay Unions.

----

Marriage Equality Comes to Rhode Island

Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee signs the marriage equality bill on the
steps of the statehouse this afternoon in a special ceremony.  At left with curly hair is openly gay House Speaker Gordon Fox.

Rhode Island today became the tenth state to enact marriage equality when Governor Lincoln Chaffee signed a bill that passed the state senate last week by 24-12, and passed the state house of representatives today by 56-15. Read the Governor's remarks at the signing ceremony here. Marriages will begin there on August 1, making all of New England a land of equal marriage rights. It also boosts to 16%, or about 1 out of 6 Americans, who live in states where same-sex marrige is permitted.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, Thomas Tobin, responded by issuing a pastoral letter to his flock, telling them that homos are "immoral," same-sex marriages are "objectively sinful," and attending a gay wedding would "harm their relationship with God and cause significant scandal to others." So if you dance at your gay cousin's wedding, you will burn in hell, fucker - just keep that in mind.

Also in the news: yesterday, Colorado civil unions began taking place.

Updated marriage map from the Human Rights Campaign (click to enlarge):
Orange = marriage; gold = broad civil unions/domestic partnerships;
yellow = limited domestic partnership.

Newsbites, 2/11/13

A scattering of good news from around the world today.

Rome:  Pope Benedict Resigns.



Washington:  Panetta Extends Military Benefits to Gay Spouses.

Denver:  Colorado Senate Passes Civil Unions Bill.

Texas:  The Pork Boys Do Mardi Gras.

This past weekend, with soupe a l'oignon, Porkchops Jambalaya, fried biscuits, King Cake, and quite a few other delectable delights. Now that M.P. has had his computer overhauled and added several terrabites of memory, I hope he'll be able to send me a pic or two of the beautifully set Mardi Gras table he laid, and I'll post those along with a complete menu later in the week.

For those of you unlucky enough, alas, to have no Cajun friends who know how to party: How to make perfect Shrove Tuesday pancakes.

New Year Brings Progress towards Marriage Equality

A 2010 map of relationship recognition laws in the fifty states:
For an updated map, visit HRC's map page.

This year of grace 2012 began with a handful of couples in two states, Delaware and Hawaii, entering civil unions just after the stroke of midnight last night.  So progress comes in with the New Year, little by little and step by step.  It seems agonizingly slow to us old codgers - who were all of us at one time unconvicted felons, you might say, in the decades before the sodomy laws were struck down in 2003 - but I suppose every little advance is worth the wait. 

A hundred years from now, if the world holds together that long, no doubt future generations of gays and lesbians will take marriage equality as a given, and wonder what all the fuss was about.  Well, that's what we are looking forward to, even if us old geezers don't live to see it.  All good wishes to the happy couples joined today and hereafter.

Tired of the Hypocrisy

Awesome. Illinois State Senator Ricky Hendon tells it like it is, speaking on the civil unions bill now being considered by that legislature:

Where the Road Goes from Here

From Friday's NYT editorial, "In Defense of Marriage":

On Wednesday, unless there is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, gay and lesbian couples in California once again will be able to marry. Like other couples around the world, they will be able to pledge to support each other, buy some dishes, raise families, argue about the bills, maybe sit on a park bench years from now and chuckle at the hysterical old claims that their lives together would destroy the institution of marriage. . . .

Because of Judge Walker’s firmly reasoned and occasionally soaring decision earlier this month, there was no reason to continue the prohibition. After a full-blown trial that gave opponents every opportunity to prove the harm caused by same-sex marriage, the court found that it caused no harm whatsoever to the state or society. But substantial harm was caused to gay and lesbian couples by depriving them of their constitutional rights.

There already are 18,000 same-sex couples in the state who were married before Proposition 8 was passed, and their presence does not seem to have damaged relationships between men and women. The State of California filed a brief with the court urging that marriages be allowed to resume immediately, making it clear that it would impose no burden and would, in fact, serve the public interest. . . .

But even if Judge Walker’s ruling stands in California, it would be a shame if the case stopped there. Only through appeals, first at the Ninth Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, is there a chance that the principles set down by Judge Walker will apply to the entire country. Yes, there is the possibility that the judgment could be struck down, but it is sometimes necessary to take big risks to get important results, as the lawyers behind this lawsuit have demonstrated. If same-sex couples in California have the constitutional right to be part of the mainstream of society, then so should every couple in America.

Well, there you go.  The New York Times says gays should be able to marry anywhere in the country.  Another breathtaking development for this old coot, who remembers that for many years, this very paper refused to use the word "gay" in its pages, clinging to "homosexual" instead, well into the 1990's, I think.

It does seem more and more that educated straight people on both coasts - where the national mindset is ultimately rooted - are swinging solidly in support of equal marriage.  A big, big change.  Which is as yet completely invisible here in small-town Texas, except that I do hear, or hear of, the younger generation - under 25 - being on the whole much more accepting of gays and lesbians in their midst than I ever thought possible.

However, I realize that not everyone up there in the blue-state wonderland supports equal marriage.  Contrast the NYT's stand with this excerpt from a recent Chicago Tribune editorial:

Judge Vaughn Walker did a thorough job of making the case that same-sex marriage would advance the same purposes the state has in sanctioning heterosexual marriage, such as "creating stable households," "legitimizing children" and "assigning individuals to care for one another." He cited plenty of evidence to indicate that fears of unwanted effects, such as undermining heterosexual marriage, are unfounded.

What he didn't do was refute the argument of a California Supreme Court justice, who in 2008 said no court has "the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice."

This federal judge insists that "the withholding of the designation 'marriage' significantly disadvantages" same-sex couples. In fact, the disadvantage is symbolic — and the nation has not had enough experience with civil unions to establish whether they will someday acquire the same cultural status as marriage.

This ruling, of course, will stand only if it is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be a drastic and highly controversial step. But the justices might seize on the same middle option used by several states — civil unions. The court could rule that equal protection requires giving gay couples the same prerogatives granted heterosexual couples, but not by the same name.

That course offers a compromise that, while satisfying neither side entirely, accommodates each in its central concern. It would show a respect for democracy and a humility about the role of the judiciary.

It would accord with prevailing opinion: In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, two out of every three Americans favored providing civil unions for same-sex couples. It also would preserve the right of states to enact same-sex marriage if they choose.

So the Trib says A) judges should not strike down any laws that discriminate against a class of people, because they are judges, not legislators - and B) every state has the right to discriminate against any group in its territory if the majority feels like it - and C) give the homos "civil unions" to shut them up, but don't you dare use the M-word.  (But if it's merely a symbolic difference, why the hell not, exactly?  Answer:  because homos are different from straights, meaning not as good as.)

Well, boys, you can see as well as I can there are several problems with this line of argument.  It's the whole separate-but-equal talk I remember so well from my childhood in the legally segregated South, with its separate schools, restrooms, water fountains, etc.  (And fellas, trust me because I was there:  all those things reserved for blacks were definitely not equal to the accomodations provided for whites.)  But let me remark on just one point here:  will civil unions someday acquire the "same cultural status as marriage"?

Continued after the jump . . .

Let's Make a Deal: Federal Civil Unions?

Britain's most famous civil partners, David Furnish and Sir Elton John

There's a number of state legislatures currently considering various gay-rights bills, including civil unions and even equal marriage. Mostly it's a lot of talking and hem-hawing that I don't feel a need to report here; you guys can read up on these things in some of the other news blogs that I link to. I'll wait till something major happens to write about.

But over the weekend, the New York Times published a joint op-ed piece , "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage," written by Jonathan Rauch, award-winning political journalist and author, and David Blankenhorn, a self-described liberal Democrat and founder of the Institute for American Values. Rauch is gay, Blankenhorn is straight. Here's an excerpt, but you really should go read the whole thing:

In politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill. . . .

Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides, and it also ought to appeal to President Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has endorsed federal civil unions. A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example. If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together.

In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief.

But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.

Well, what do you think, guys? Leaving aside the legal questions and enormous political wranglings, let's imagine for a moment that Congress did enact a Federal Civil Unions Act - and let's imagine further that this meant you and your partner could enter into a civil union anywhere you live in the U.S.A.; and that you would then be recognized by the federal government (but not every state government) and have all the federal-level rights and benefits of married couples.

Would you settle for that, instead of holding out for full, complete marriage equality everywhere, in every state as well as on the federal level?

In the United Kingdom, Parliament enacted a Civil Partnerships Act in 2005, which by all accounts seems to be working just dandy for our Brit cousins. I've done some reading and , and as far as I can tell, the only differences between CP and marriage are these little details:

1. Civil partnership ceremonies cannot be held in a church; they have to be held in a marriage license office, or in some non-religious place (like a hotel or banquet hall) that is licensed for weddings.
2. Civil partnership ceremonies cannot include any religious readings, prayers, or hymns.
3. Civil partnerships are technically not marriages but . . . civil partnerships. Your passport is marked CP, not married, if you have a partner, and so are other legal documents.

However, in every other respect, as far as I can make out, the laws recognize civil partners in exactly the same way that they do married couples; the effect is being married in every way, but without the name. I wonder if some Blue Truck readers from Britain could comment on how well this is working over there; so far, I've not come across any complaints except from the far rightwing religious types, of which they have a lot fewer than we do.

But the U.K. is a much smaller country, and not a huge federal republic of 50 states with wildly differing laws on this subject. So I'm thinking it's much easier to implement the CP thing there than it would be here.

Anyway, what do you think, fellas? As Rauch and Blankenhorn point out, if both sides in this debate won't budge an inch, we have a Mexican standoff. Would you be willing to compromise on the word "marriage" if you got all the rights and responsibilities under another name?

Or should we hold out for the real thing, no ifs, ands, or buts - even though that might take another generation or two to accomplish? Before you answer, you might want to watch this conversation between Rauch and Blankenhorn on the topic:

P.S. - I just realized there's one more little difference between U.K. civil partnerships and marriage: civil partners who tie the knot with a male peer do not get courtesy titles like female spouses do. Which means if you get hitched to Lord Broadbottom, you absolutely do not get to call yourself Lady Broadbottom, no matter how big of a screaming queen you are. You're still just plain Miss Thing.

Today's Quote: Andrew Sullivan

Voulez-vous pacser avec moi, cherie?

An excerpt from Sullivan's remarks on the fact that 92 percent of the civil unions (PACS) in France are now between heterosexual couples:

In this, the gay movement, in its support for civil marriage equality, is a force right now for social conservatism; and the Christianist movement is the one fomenting the real attack on the institution of marriage. Christianist doctrine - unrelated to the social facts of our time - is, in fact, a social solvent. It helps destroy the family (ask the Haggards); it undermines civil marriage's uniqueness; and it discourages social responsibility. That's because it is about maintaining the stigma toward homosexuality rather than about supporting the important social role of marriage in keeping society together.

As I have said many times, Christianism is not, properly understood, a force for social conservatism; it is a force for denial, religious neurosis and social decay. Which is why those parts of America that are most imbued with Christianist cant often have such higher levels of divorce, abortion, illegitimacy and family breakdown.

For more on that last remark, see the next post, from Alaska.