If Not Marriage, Then...

The defense that the opposition to gay marriage brings to the table is tradition; that calling same-sex marriage by the name marriage would deter from thousands of years of tradition and cause an earthshaking effect on culture and society.

So what if we, for now, don't call it marriage, what if we ease same-sex partnership rights into the public eye little by little until it become obvious that denying them the term marriage is stupidity.

Society can't change overnight, it takes time, it has to progress. Democracy didn't come over the course of one afternoon. It stems from the Ancient Greeks and was only perfected by the Americans thousands of years later. Capital Punishment was first banned for a short time in China in the 8th century, but it took until the 19th century to see large jurisdictions end executions.

Gay marriage is a relatively new issue, gaining prominence within the last ten years. (At least since the Defense of Marriage Act.) Supporters of gay marriage claim its opponents are bigots and homophobes, but the support gap between gay rights (where a clear majority support,) and gay marriage (a slim minority in support,) indicate that the word 'marriage' may be the issue here.

So progressives have decided to temporarily abandon their "marriage or nothing" fight and take baby steps toward equal marriage rights.

Leading the way on each coast are the blue progressive states of Rhode Island and Washington;

Advocates in Rhode Island have introduced bills to legalize gay marriage every year since 1997, but they've gone nowhere. So this year, in addition to filing marriage legislation, they hope to have some success with six new bills that focus on incremental rights rather than the label of marriage. One would allow same-sex parents to take family leave if their partner or partner's children fall ill. Another bill would give gay men and women the right to plan their partners' funerals. In Washington, similar rights would be granted under a domestic partnership bill. Gay leaders like [State Senator Edward] Murray (D-Seattle) adopted the approach after losing a court case they hoped would lead to gay marriage.

Inch by inch is how progress comes in America. We did not end slavery overnight, and even after slavery ended, it took a century before African-American even got their government to treat them equally, and it's still not where it should be.

Legislation is the best way to achieve equal marriage rights. The right wing always fights the idea that "the uneelected courts are forcing this upon us." If elected bodies pass these laws, then there is no argument except "they support this, they should be voted out." Thus was the case in Connecticut where the state legislator and the Republican governor teamed up to legalize civil unions in the state, without being forced to by the courts (which was the case in Vermont and New Jersey.)

Those who oppose equal rights for gays will no longer be able to use the "tradition of marriage" excuse anymore and bring to their side people who are not bigots, but are not ready to accept a new definition of marriage than the one they've grown used to. Those are still opposed would only be able to defend themselves by saying they are homophobic or admitting to bigotry. Some will do that, but many will not.