CARNAL NATION

This month's column is written by Ricci Levy, the Executive Director of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation and one of its founders.

BACKGROUND

A hearing took place over the last two Mondays in Washington, DC on a piece of legislation proposed by Councilman David Catania. Bill 18-482, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, that will finally grant same-gender partners the right to marry in the District of Columbia.

Unfortunately, the way the bill is currently written it will also end the Domestic Partner registry in DC. This registry is so well-written it has been the model for others across the country. In ending the ability to register as domestic partners, the bill will give one group of individuals their long-denied rights to marry while taking away the rights of another group of individuals—those who choose, for whatever reason, to NOT marry.

The Woodhull Freedom Foundation joined with several hundred witnesses—apparently the largest turnout in the history of the council—who testified at this hearing. We joined with our allies and constituents in endorsing same-gender equality in the District of Columbia and gave voice to a strong concern about the domestic partner registry. Woodhull challenged the council to achieve same-gender marriage without stripping another group of individuals of their equal rights.

There are nearly 100 million unmarried adults in America: about 15% live with intimate partners and about one-third live alone; that leaves the majority of unmarried people living with other people in a web of important relationships. In 2007, nearly 6.5 million households in the U.S.—including nearly 20,000 in D.C.—comprised only unmarried adults related by blood.

According to the testimony of one of our allies, the Alternatives to Marriage Project,

"These lives are intertwined; many take responsibility for each other as family yet few are eligible for the legal protections or obligations of marriage. By being open to people not eligible to marry for reasons other than gender, the District's domestic partnership registry created an important national model of how to encourage and recognize personal responsibility."

The number of unmarried people reporting themselves to the Census as domestic partners is rising quickly; it passed 13 million in 2007. Nationally, only about 12% of unmarried partner households are same-gender couples. The Census estimates about 13,000 unmarried partner households in the District, over 70% of whom are different-sex couples.

Quoting Alternatives to Marriage's testimony again,

"The entirely civil and inclusive nature of domestic partnership draws other people who do not want to participate in the many cultural meanings of marriage."

MARRIAGE IS NOT THE ONLY LONG-TERM CARING OPTION!

Pro-equality is more broad than "just" same-gender marriage. The bill, as currently written, will eliminate the domestic partner registry. We are deeply concerned about the elimination of this registry and we are asking that the council consider the entire relationship issue as an equal rights issue and not just a same-gender marriage initiative. We are asking that the Council grant same-gender marriage equality and that they do so without stripping away those same equal rights from those who choose not to marry but, instead to live in a partnered relationship of their choice.

The issue is more than an either/or same-gender marriage or domestic partnership matter. Freedom—true freedom—is both the freedom to and the freedom not to—in this case, to have the freedom to choose to marry and not to marry and to still have equal rights. The domestic partner registry provides important rights and protections for people who are not eligible to marry, and for many people who are eligible to marry who are better served by registering as domestic partners.

No purpose is served by taking away the right to register from an entire class of potential partners. As discussed above, marriage is not the only long-term caring relationship option!

In the event that the District of Columbia does pass the legislation granting same-gender marriage equality but eliminating equal rights for other committed relationships it will break the common bond of concern about access to civil rights that is currently shared among people who create functional families and recognize and advocate for equality in all committed relationships.

EQUALITY

We have spent such a long time highlighting the injustices that occur when marital status is used to define the haves and the have-nots, the cans and the can-nots. Giving same-gender couples the right to marry while taking away the rights of others who do not choose marriage doesn't solve the inequality—it just shifts it from "us" to "them."

President Barack Obama himself said, in his speech delivered on October 10, 2009 at the Human Rights Campaign dinner,

"I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples."

In that same speech, President Obama called for

"...a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit."

Full equality is never achieved by removing the equal rights of one group to secure those of another. And so, at the end of my testimony, I stated:

 "…let there be no question in anyone's mind that equality requires that we ratify-same sex marriage and that we maintain the rights already granted to those in committed relationships who choose not to marry."

We must be thoughtful in our drive to secure our fundamental human right to sexual freedom and ensure that we do not do so at the expense of the rights of others.