In Praise of "Separate But Equal"

The phrase "separate but equal" has a bad taste to it. It was established by the U.S. Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision in the 1890's, and stood as the guiding principle for racial segregation for over half a century. It was finally struck down in Brown v. Board of Education just shy of half a century ago, on the grounds that "separate but equal" was a contradiction in terms.

I'd like to bring the phrase back into use.

Not for racial policy. While it was a half-assed step forward in the 19th century, it was clearly harmful by the early 20th century, and has no place whatsoever in the racial politics of the 21st.

I'd like to apply it to the issue of marriage, and use it to segregate heterosexuals from homosexuals.

Personally, I don't see a micron of difference between a male/female couple that wants to love, honor, and cherish each other, and a male/male or female/female couple that have the same wish. You can try to point out statistical or anecdotal differences between the groups' marital intentions: maybe (as some have claimed) male/male couples are less faithful, or maybe homosexuals are (as a group) more interested in the financial benefits of marriage, and obviously lesbian or gay couples are less likely to have children. So fucking what? We let faithless, benefits-seeking, and willfully childless heterosexuals marry. Give the dykes and fags the benefit of the doubt and let them make the same mistakes.

But my attitude isn't typical; the majority of Americans don't see it that way. I'm like an integrationist (or a black man) in the 1890's: ready for an idea that the majority of society just can't accept... yet. Most white people 100 years ago couldn't stomach the idea of sharing restaurants and schools and drinking fountains with black people. But they were grudgingly willing to accept the notion that the negroes should at least get more or less "equal" treatment. Of course in practise, "equal" was nowhere near that, but the rule established by Plessy v. Ferguson did marginally improve the lot of black people in America. If the Supreme Court of 1892 had handed down an integrationist decision along the lines of Brown (not that they wanted to), the public reaction would have been disastrous. Society will only move so far, so quickly.

Which brings us to the present debate about gay marriage. A firm majority of Americans are opposed to granting homosexual couples the right to marry. And they're all set to pass whatever legislation and constitutional amendments, and elect whatever anti-gay governors and presidents are necessary to prevent it.

But in a recent poll, only 21% were opposed to "civil unions". Once you assure the breeders that they won't have to share their holy white institution of marriage with those rainbow-colored people, you can appeal to their sense of "fairness" and ask that gay folks get their own "separate but equal" institution. No backlash, and gay couples get most of what they want: formal recognition and legal rights.

Like Plessy, this approach wouldn't last. Eventually there would be another Brown case which would establish that a separate institution simply isn't equal treatment. But by then society should be accustomed enough to the idea of gay couples - as white Americans had become more accustomed to interacting with people of color by the 1950's - that segregation could be struck down by the courts without a (successful) legislative backlash.

"Separate but equal"... isn't. But as a racial policy, it gave black people half a loaf at at time when the majority would have rather given them none, and helped move society on the road toward (someday) guaranteeing them a whole loaf. As a marriage policy, I think it could do much the same.