Tweet
The Rhode Island House Committee on Judiciary is scheduled to vote on the marriage equality bill (H 5015) Tuesday afternoon. Expectations are high that the committee will pass the bill and send it to the full House for a vote.
In anticipation of that vote, Chris Plant of National Organization for Marriage in Rhode Island claimed:
This is not about equality or rights because both those rights and equality were granted in the civil unions bill in 2011 where same-sex couples were granted all the rights and benefits of married couples in Rhode Island.
But if civil unions were equal to marriage, they wouldn’t be called civil unions. The use of a different name makes civil unions intrinsically unequal to marriage. And if same-sex couples had all the rights and benefits of married couples, as Mr. Plante claims, then they’d be granted marriage licenses by the state, not civil union certificates.
Rhode Islanders United for Marriage further explains why civil unions aren’t enough:
* Only marriage guarantees that all couples can be there for each other in times of greatest need and be able to make emergency decisions for their loved ones.* Civil unions just don’t work. They don’t receive the same respect and dignity as marriage.
* Civil unions create a second-class institution that is fundamentally unequal in terms of the respect, dignity, rights and benefits guaranteed by marriage.
Legislators in nine states and the District of Columbia have recognized and then rejected arguments like Mr. Plante’s for what they are: thin, nonsensical cover for anti-gay animus. So too will legislators of good conscience in Rhode Island.
3 Comments
Plante’s problem is that “Separate, but equal” has not been a persuasive message for quite some time.
Thank you Laurel! I have heard the arguments around this talking point so many times, but never have I heard it put so succinctly! ” If it’s equal, why isn’t it called the same?” Amazing. Brilliant. I can’t wait to use this one! It’s freakin’ deadly!
Let’s take our time machine back to 2004, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found, among other things, that the word “marriage” carries a specific and unique cultural and social meaning that does not translate to any other name.
Sorry, Mr. Plante, but it’s not just a matter of “rights and privileges,” but a matter of equal status — which, of course, is something that he and his allies will never willingly grant because they are not in favor of marriage, they are against gays.
Thanks for making that point, Laurel — now let’s all remember that we have to keep making it, because the opposition is selectively deaf. (Not that we’re going to change their minds, but the audience needs to hear it.)