Wherein I talk about the Pope and Civil Unions

So Pope Francis, in a new interview, said that he would be open, in certain circumstances, to civil unions.

The way it was worded, I actually don’t know if he was specifically talking about same-sex couples.  But even if he was, he framed it in such a way that was insulting to begin with:

“Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate cohabitations, mainly to resolve issues involving their finances, such as health assistance. We need to look at different cases and evaluate them.”

The question was posed about civil unions, not same-sex marriage, so it really may or may not be about same-sex couples, I think it’s hard to tell either way.

But if it was about same-sex couples, Pope Francis is not recognizing that same-sex couples can be in love.  He is stating he only sees our relationships as means to tax breaks and joint health insurance.  Like our relationships aren’t real or don’t matter.

And that’s hurtful.  And bullshit.

We’re not that different, it’s not a hard concept to understand two men or two women in love with each other.

Is it progress?  I suppose it is, though.  Just as soon as January, the Vatican denied the Pope would ever be in favor of same-sex civil unions.  So again, yes, it is some progress, but we shouldn’t have to beg and scrape for the crumbs that get thrown our way.

And of course, arch-homophobe Cardinal Dolan said in an interview that we’re twisting the Pope’s words (and many people may be, like I said, I’m still not convinced he wasn’t talking about civil unions for heterosexual couples) and Francis is really not in favor or any recognition, and it would make him feel uncomfortable.

Note to self: don’t invite Cardinal Dolan to my future wedding, wouldn’t want him to feel icky.

And of course, Dan Savage hits it on the head.  It’s a long quote, but it’s worth it:

Would gay people be willing to accept civil unions in place of marriage? Would we be willing to compromise with conservative Christians? Would gay people be willing to settle for all the same rights, responsibilities, and protections of marriage right now in exchange for leaving marriage for opposite-sex couples? I told my friend we would.

In 1985.

When gay men were dying by the tens of thousands at the height of the AIDS crisis—when gay men were being dragged out of the hospital rooms of their dying partners by homophobic family members, when gay men were being barred from the funerals of their deceased partners, when gay men were being evicted from their homes after the deaths of their partners (many evicted gay men were sick and dying themselves)—conservative Christians could’ve stepped in then and said, “This is wrong. Whatever we believe about homosexual acts, brutalizing people like this is shockingly immoral and deeply un-Christian. Clearly there needs to be some sort of legal framework to protect people in loving, committed, stable same-sex relationships from these appalling cruelties.”

Conservative Christians did no such thing. They celebrated AIDS, they welcomed the plague, they said it was God’s judgement and they insisted that gay people deserved this pain and suffering—those of us who were sick and dying; those who were being dragged, barred, and evicted; those of us who were watching our friends and lovers die—and that it was only a taste of the pain and suffering that we would face in hell after our deaths.

The way gay people were treated at the height of the AIDS crisis made the importance of marriage rights—the importance of being able to declare your own next-of-kin—scaldingly apparent. Some of the most impassioned fighters for marriage equality, like Andrew Sullivan, cite what they witnessed in AIDS wards as their primary motivation. If Christians had looked at the suffering of gay men in AIDS wards in 1985 said, “The lives, loves, and rights of these couples must be protected,” and if conservative Christians had proposed civil unions then and gotten a civil unions statute signed into law by the conservative Christian president they helped elect, that might’ve halted the push for marriage equality before it could even get off the ground.

But now that we’re winning marriage—now that victory is assured—the pope is willing to maybe think about supporting some type of civil union scheme. I’ll say to the pope what I said to my evangelical Christian pal: that fucking ship has fucking sailed. What the pope is saying to gay people in 2014 is this: “Okay, now that you’re winning marriage, here’s an idea: give marriage back and we will give you civil unions… which we once opposed with the same intensity and in the same apocalyptic terms that we oppose marriage today. Is it a deal?”

No deal, Francis.

All my best,

Mike