The AP revealed today that New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch is onboard to support Civil Unions in New Hampshire if the state Senate approves the bill.
http://www.wmur.com/news/12506280/detail.html
I'm not sure if this is step forward or a step back at this point. But at least it is a step.
5 comments:
it pains me to say so, but i honestly believe it's a step backward. read about what's been going on in new jersey since they enacted their civil unions law last year.
Civil Unions are clearly discriminatory and inadequate. But enacting them in NH means that GLBT people in desperate need of benefits like a partner's health coverage or hospital visitation rights will be able to recieve them. I say, take those benefits now because it will help people now. It's a positive step, especially for New Hampshire. But it's definitely nowhere nearly enough, so the struggle must continue (well beyond marriage as well). Positive social change can come in sudden massive upheavals or tiny baby steps. This is a tiny baby step, but it is a step nonetheless. Doesn't make me thrilled, but I'm glad people will be getting the benefits they need to make their lives easier, and meanwhile we can continue struggling for broader social change.
adam,
your point is well taken, but it assumes that there will be benefits. i've been reading about how couples who've entered into civil unions in new jersey are being denied benefits like health insurance and hospital visitation rights. their lives haven't become easier, though i don't know whether they are the exception or the rule.
i also know that lots of glbt legal experts (and others) have criticized the creation of a completely separate, parallel (but not equal) social institution (i.e. civil unions) and the muddy situation that results. i guess i tend to agree with them. i also have the luxury of speaking from a position of relative comfort in which both my partner and i have health insurance and have recreated some of the rights of marriage (through health care proxies, for example) without being married or partners in a civil union. if i were without health insurance and offered a civil union, i might take it and keep my fingers crossed that my employer would recognize it.
If Rosa Parks had said, its ok that I'm allowed to sit in the back of the bus, at least I get to sit on the bus to go to work, at least its better than slavery, where would we be today?
Allowing for civil unions instead of marriage is like letting them deconstruct our stonewall piece by piece so they can build a glass house to throw rocks at.
what?!?
false equation of experience...
Post a Comment