One step forward and a half step back. That's what some folks are saying about Rhode Island's up and coming civil unions law. I say up and coming because it passed both houses but has yet to be signed by the governor. Yes, I know, he's said he'll sign it, but I'm getting older, and less in the habit of counting things won before they're done.
Funny enough, not everybody's happy about it. And I don't just mean the delightful folks who like to make our lives miserable at every turn. Organizations that line up to fight for and make their money from marriage rights released a letter asking the governor to veto the bill.
The reason? The religious exemption section is far too broad. Here's a quote:
" By allowing individuals and institutions a free-floating license to discriminate against a whole class of people, in defiance of a general law, this bill represents a huge step backward...This amendment could allow individuals who are legally required to recognize everyone else's legal commitment, to opt out of doing so only for gay and lesbian people."
And here's something I rarely hear about when the marriage machine is trying to score political points: they actually talked about POOR LGBTQ people! Look, we exist! Again, from the letter:
" This language creates an even more vulnerable position for those who most critically need the protections that the civil union bill attempts to provide--those couples with less financial means, who have the least control over where to access health care and who are most likely to need to avail themselves of religiously-affiliated social services."
If you want to download the letter and see for yourself, there's a link at this Joe.My.God post:
The governor is also troubled by how broad the language is. ( http://bit.ly/is2JXG about halfway down the page). He still intends to sign the bill.
You know, while that language is troubling, I found something else I don't like. Follow along with me.
1) The new civil unions bill is written just like Rhode Island's marriage laws. They use the same language, heck, most of it is lifted verbatim.
2) This is commonly done. Why reinvent the wheel? You use up extra time, and it's a sign of equality, right? All the words are the same, except for the necessary ones.
3) And that's okay, because hey, aren't we all the same deep down anyway?
Except there's this institutional discrimination called homophobia. And it doesn't affect straight people. (Well, it does, but we won't get into that here.) Generally speaking, it does not impede the everyday lives of straight people.
Which is why this language in Rhode Island's marriage law ( http://bit.ly/kyl8uD ) doesn't really matter so much today:
"§ 15-3-9 Statement of objections to marriage. – If any person has any lawful objection to the marriage of any two (2) persons, he or she may state the objection in writing, under his or her hand, to the minister, elder, justice, or warden about to solemnize the marriage, at which time the minister, elder, justice, or warden shall proceed no further in the marriage until the lawful objection has been removed."
Now, when it comes to straight people getting married, no one really blinks. Folks might shake their heads at a law that's a reminder of antiquated times, but who's really going to object? Who wants to do all that work, even if they really do think the marriage is a bad idea?
But, as they say in Bible study, context is everything. That very same language IS in the civil union bill that Rhode Island's governor said he will sign. Here you go:
"(5) If any person has any lawful objection to the civil union of any two (2) persons, he or she may state the objection in writing, under his or her hand, to the minister, justice or other authorized person about to certify the civil union, at which time the minister, justice or other authorized person shall proceed no further in the civil union until the lawful objection has been removed."
Sounds a little more sinister now, doesn't it?This is one of those times where treating a group of people the same does not mean you're treating them equally.
"Hey, Lincoln, there's no reason to worry," you might be inclined to say. "It says right there in the language they have to have a lawful reason to object. If the civil unions bill is law, then there's no legal room to object."
And you're right. Linguistically, realistically, and in every way that makes sense in the daily workings of the world, you would be 100% correct.
But we're not talking about logical people. We're talking about groups infused with the self-righteousness of idolatry based homophobia. The years have proven that they have no problem tying us up in court for years over trifling mess! My feeling is that this bit in the law opens up the possibility of bigoted opponents twisting this new law to tie up future unions.
I hope I'm wrong. For the sake of all our communities, I'm willing to be laughed at later.
I hope I'm wrong. For the sake of all our communities, I'm willing to be laughed at later.
No comments:
Post a Comment