I can't say that I'm happy about the passage of Proposition 8 one month ago. In fact, I think it is bigoted and totally un-American. Why can't gays be allowed to marry whomever they want? Does anyone seriously still believe that being gay is a choice? According to one study, one in four gay men have been the targets of violent or property-based hate crimes. What masochist would want that?
But I know that I am preaching to the choir - I was thrilled to learn that 40 students participated in a "No on 8" phonebank. So I am not trying to convince anyone of the virtues of marriage equality. Instead, I would like to direct readers' attention to local efforts.
How can Rhode Island become the frontier in the newest battle over civil rights in our country? Simple: by legalizing gay divorce. Currently, Rhode Island law recognizes gay marriages performed out of state, but gay couples cannot marry in Rhode Island.
The 2008 elections showed that Americans - even those living in the bluest of blue states - have not yet come around to the idea of gay marriage. Barack Obama is now the president-elect, Democrats increased their majorities in both chambers of Congress and ballot measures that would have restricted a woman's right to choose were defeated. Despite these progressive measures, the country also moved backwards on gay rights.
I commend Zack Beauchamp '10 for discussing the best ways to promote marriage equality in Rhode Island. I just don't share his optimism about the prospects for passage of a legislative constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage in Rhode Island (although I pray that I am wrong).
I'm concerned that it would be rejected, a move that would quickly stifle the pro-equality movement. Although there is no formidable anti-equality organization in Rhode Island, a proposition might engender one. While Providence is far away from Utah, residents there will have an easy time sending money to local conservative groups.
Perhaps there are more realistic options. Equality advocates might start by compromising with their opponents to achieve an objective that both sides share. Gay marriage advocates want equal rights, and opponents want fewer gay people to be married. This is where gay divorce comes in.
Rhode Island made national headlines in December of 2007, when a lesbian couple tried, innocently enough, to get a divorce.
How did this happen? Well, as you have probably noticed, Massachusetts and Rhode Island share a border. In 2004, these women got married in the Bay State and, at first, they were happy. But two years later, enough was enough. Like so many heterosexual couples in the United States, they decided to get a divorce.
In a 3-2 vote, the justices on Rhode Island's Supreme Court ruled that the couple could not divorce. To make things worse, to get a divorce in Massachusetts, you must be a resident there for at least one year. As Orniston - one partner in the couple - said, "They've given us no choice but to be married forever."
Rhode Island needs a better policy. It is unjust to prevent someone from divorcing under any circumstance, especially in cases of abuse. Members of gay couples can, of course, get a restraining order against their partners, but a divorce is somehow out of the question.
If gay divorce legislation came before the Rhode Island government it may or may not pass. Either way it's worth pursuing. It's possible that the legislature and Governor Donald Carcieri '65 might support this legislation. Unlikely, but humor me. As the first statewide policy that enforces equality between gay and straight couples, this would mean a major victory for gay rights advocates. It may be divorce, but it's still a precedent. After that, gay marriage can't be far away.
But that probably won't happen - Carcieri has opposed gay divorce before. But even a failed effort would benefit the gay community. Anti-equality politicians will have to face up to voting for a policy that would force two unhappy people to stay married forever. Maybe, just maybe, that will push more voters to support gay marriage.
I do not think that we should stop agitating for gay marriage, and I plan to work for any advocate of gay marriage running for governor in 2010. But divorce legislation is a more immediate avenue that may net a few votes for equality down the line.
The world may never know if the chicken came before the egg, but gay divorce may yet pave the way for gay marriage in Rhode Island. That would really make national headlines.
Jeremy Feigenbaum '11 knows the chicken came before the egg.
