Christine Bachmann, the co-president of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance, joined Dems last night for our first major attempt in awhile to tackle the topic of Gay Marriage. The issue is highly relevant right now given that Vermont and New Hampshire are vying to be the first state to legislate in favor of equal rights for gay marriages (though Governor Douglas does not appear to be in favor of this message). While most people in the room came in with the mindset that we’re all going to agree on the overall topic, Christine completely turned the subject on its head by saying she believed that legislating gay marriage is a step-backward for equal rights primarily because it attempts to fit the queer movement into a mainstream idea and because it addresses the desires for equal rights and equal treatments for a small portion of the population. She argued for aiming higher and looking to parse out the rights currently packaged with marriage and attach them to a border category of people, such as anything that falls under a domestic partnership.
The ensuing discussion primarily became about how do we emphasize that there are two very different meanings of marriage–religious and legal–and that the legal definition should promote equality for all. Basically this came down to providing civil unions for all and making religious or public demonstrations of commitment and love optional and less emphasized.
Where people primarily disagreed was what message the government should be responsible for sending with civil unions. In other words, what is a nuclear family? Is it important? Is it necessary to help population growth? Is it important for the health of children?
In all, we delved into a very complex and intense issue that hinged on legal terminology and practicality. Personally, I tend to take a very broad or tolerant approach to how people want to live their lives, together or separate, and I think that legally we have become too specific in what we define to be marriage and a family. I agree that completely reversing the message on gay marriage and convincing the entire country that we need nation wide civil unions sounds impractical and probably like political suicide. But I don’t see the harm in aiming high. In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that a skillful archer aims higher than his mark knowing that it won’t actually hit above it but rather hit the point intended. Perhaps by doing this, we can leap-frog so many of the long transition phases that have happened with past civil rights movements and come about a broader change more quickly (historically speaking).
That said, I think the marriage bill in Vermont is still something to support and I don’t think it should be ignored in other states. I think there is just as much a role for activists judges in this process as there is for the democratic process in legislatures. I also think there is just as much a role for heterosexual people and couples to start changing the dialouge on the issue.
