Golden Coat Hanger

No, I am not going to talk about the Jane Austen novel but I will talk about the difference between Civil Unions and Marriage. But first, I want to talk about something that troubled me on the Lambda Legal website and why this troubles me. You see, on the front page of it’s NJ Marriage mini-site, it has this to say about the confusion generated by the term “Civil Union” and why it should be abolished.

Only the word married conveys the universally understood meaning applicable to the lifetime commitment many couples make. Regardless of whether civil union and marriage offer the same benefits and obligations on paper, when the government relegates same-sex couples to civil union rather than marriage, it forces them to explain the difference at work, at school, in hospitals and elsewhere. Those couples lose the respect and dignity that they deserve for their commitment to be responsible for each other.

You see, I have an analogous experience to touch on here, the DO v. MD debate. You see, in the United States and a few other countries, there are two degrees which allow someone to be a full physician. There is the standard Doctor of Medicine (or MD) that is issued by allopathic (i.e. traditional) medical schools throughout the country and then there is the Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (or DO) that is issued by osteopathic medical schools throughout the country. There have always been a few DOs dissatisfied with the DO degree, as they prefer the instant recognition of the type, depth and breadth of training that a MD designation automatically confers in people’s minds. This has been historically proven when the California Medical Association decided to give Osteopathic Physicians second-class MDs in order to convince the State of California to stop issuing licenses to DOs. Here’s the details of that incident in the words of the American Osteopathic Association:

The drive to end discrimination accelerated at mid-century. Although each state had some form of legislative recognition of DOs, the goal became full-practice rights. This goal was reached for all states in 1973. By that time, the osteopathic profession had temporarily lost a state. In 1962, as a culmination of several events, the California Osteopathic Association merged with the California Medical Association, and the College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons became an allopathic medical school. A high proportion of California’s 2500 DOs accepted MD degrees awarded after attendance at a brief seminar and payment of a $65 fee. As a result of a public referendum, licensing of any new DOs in that state was prohibited.

At that point of crisis, many were predicting a speedy demise for the osteopathic profession. Loss of the largest state group, of one of the six colleges, of many training hospitals, and of public identity through a referendum made the future look bleak.

A long court fight was begun in California by the DOs who remained loyal to their profession; this was resolved in 1974 by the California Supreme Court, which ruled that new licenses could indeed be issued. A new college was chartered in California, and the profession once again flourished there.

But yeah, the American Osteopathic Association is very loyal to the degree designation of DO, even going so far as to try to educate people on the differences between DOs and MDs and the similarities. Advocates of switching to a MD designation have since taken the position of switching to a MD DO designation, like Dr. A. T. Still, the founder of Osteopathy, had. Even though the climate towards Osteopaths is much more friendly now than it was back in the early 20th century where there was a consistent move by the American Medical Association to deny Osteopaths the right to practice in as many states as possible, there was a harsh treatment of Osteopaths by Allopathic Doctors throughout history. So, with that said, why would Osteopathic Physicians retain the title DO?

Simply put, it’s a cultural difference. DOs are scrappier than MDs and tend to be the kind of applicants that the allopathic schools would not look at. Some GPA allowances are a bit more forgiving (yet still tough) and Osteopathic schools have a long history of accepting women and minorities into the profession. DOs tend to look at the whole person when it comes to medical treatment and this culture also tends to seep through to the admissions and education process. This is why I am more interested in becoming a DO than a MD, to the point where I won’t even fill an AMCAS application – just AACOMAS.  I would be proud to hold a DO, to represent the legacy of A. T. Still and all of the Osteopathic Physicians that came after him…

On the other hand, there is little to nothing to be proud of with Civil Unions. On the one hand, yes – it is an attempt to try to bring about equality for LGBT people. But it is a half-assed attempt and does more harm than good when you consider that it does so through “separate but equal”-esque measures. It lends an undeserved legitimacy to the claims of religious bigots that marriage should only be for heterosexual couples, and this is why attempts at civil union legislation is wrong. It enshrines “second-class citizen status” in the law of the land and for a land that should, in theory, be a land of the free – this is not acceptable. Whereas, I can be proud of having a DO once I graduate from whatever Osteopathic Medical School I wind up in (I’m hoping it’ll be ATSU-KCOM, in case anyone’s interested) – I don’t think I could settle for a civil union. There is pride in marriage, there is pride in having a DO. But I see no pride in a civil union, only acquiescence to religiously-motivated prejudice. Pride or Prejudice… I don’t know about you but I know which one I’d rather have.