get hitched

Push for Marriage, or Compromise on Civil Unions?


We are, of course, big fans of Marriage News Watch (formerly, if for no other reason than because the show is produced by Queerty’s new managing editor, Matt Baume.

But that’s not the only reason to watch! It’s the best way to get all caught up on the week’s marriage news.

For example, did you know about all the hubbub in Rhode Island, the progress being made in Taiwan, or Target’s role in passing a marriage ban in Minnesota? Well! At last it can be told. In video form, which is apparently very popular with the kids and the internet tubes and the memes these days.

We’ll be posting these videos every Monday from now on, but if you’d like to stay connected to marriage headlines throughout the week, you can head on over to Twitter or Facebook of See you at the altar!

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #civilunions #marriage #marriagenewswatch stories and more


  • Ryan

    Unfortunately, by all accounts, it doesn’t look as though the State Senate in RI can pass the bill. That either means we do what we can this year, and continue to push momentum in our direction, or we do nothing. I think it’s pretty clear from New Hampshire and Vermont that if we can get Civil Unions passed, there’s a road towards passing marriage in the state legislature. Why not take it?

  • Thomas Alex

    All Civil Unions are is Marriage Segregation. Separate is Not Equal.

  • declanto

    I live in Norway, where the road went through the scenic “decriminalization” to “Non-discrimination” to “Partnership” (Civil Unions) to “Marriage”. The process began in 1948 and culminated two years ago. It’s been uphill all the way, the official State Church still will not force their clergy to perform marriage rites in a church. However, the strategy works. The conversion from civil partnership status to married was hardly noticed by the general public. My husband and I converted our partnership on a Sunday afternoon by logging onto the tax authority’s website and clicking a box. Poof, we’re married!

  • PerplexedStudent

    I used to support civil unions, thinking the rights were important, and not the name–but the reality is, you frame the debate by what you ask for (see: Republicans get everything they want by initially making astoundingly absurd demands, and so their actual goals seem “reasonable” and the country keeps shifting to the right).

    However, reactionary religious groups oppose every measure of equality–they fought tooth and nail to stop civil unions in Washington state, decrying them as “marriage in all but name.” (THAT’S THE POINT!)

    There’s no reason to not argue for full marriage equality, especially since the theocratic groups will oppose *any* pro-gay effort.

  • Devington

    Do both. Take what you can get right now, but keep pushing for the real thing down the road.

    The reason the right-wing is always so successful in this country is because they’re willing to start small and incrementally build on what they already have. Look at abortion: they know they can’t just outright ban it, but they can still pass smaller restrictions on it that eventually add up and essentially have the same effect as banning it completely.

    The problem with most activists on the left is that they want everything and they want it RIGHT. NOW. And they’ll kick, scream, and hold their breath until they pass out unless you give it to them.

    Think of liberals and conservatives as children…Both kids want this super-expensive, special edition Barbie doll. But their mom can’t afford it so she brings home the cheaper, lower quality, store brand doll instead. The difference is that conservatives would gladly take the crappier doll and play with it anyway, while the liberals would start crying and pouting because it’s not the exact doll they wanted, so the mom takes the doll back to the store just to spite them.

    The question is would you rather have a cheaper doll to play with, or would you rather sit in your room with no toys at all, crying and pouting because you didn’t get exactly the right thing?

  • The Spirit of Harry Hay

    Hey, remember when African-Americans argued that they shouldn’t be hung from trees, they should only be dragged behind trucks? They called it “baby steps”, I think.

    No, I don’t either.

    The fact is this whole “ending bigotry with permission of the bigots and on the bigots’ time line” is a load of shit. It’s NOT working. The cold hard truth is that this is the strategy shoved down our throats by the DEMOCRATS, not the Republicans. You are either fighting for equality or you are not. The sad fact is that even if 100% of the country supported equality (and we’re well on our way to that end), the politicians of BOTH parties would still find a way to stop it.

    It’s time to stop and ask ourselves: who benefits from this approach? Who rallies queers behind them every four years? Who gets the votes of queers without ever having to deliver the goods? Hmmm…

  • The Spirit of Harry Hay

    Who else benefits from this approach? Has anyone noticed the entire industry that developed in the last 25 years around gay people commenting on the movement (see Marriage News Watch)?

    I’m not really all that interested in those who “comment” on the movement, especially when damn near EVERY commentary ignores the Democrats’ very real opposition to MY equality and tries to blame it all on Republicans. I want to hear from queers around the country and around the world who are FIGHTING for our rights regardless of which corporate party is in power. We need less “watches” and more “activists.” We’ve replaced the goal of “equality” with “the process” of rights.

    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”

  • declanto

    @The Spirit of Harry Hay: The “baby-steps” work. Your confrontational approach alienates the anxiously ignorant. Admit it, you like the adrenaline rush.

Comments are closed.