No less a conservative than Attorney General John Ashcroft
appears to be leaving open the prospect of a system of civil unions
for same-sex couples as an alternative to same-sex marriage. As the
right-leaning Washington
Times reports:
Mr. Ashcroft said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that he supported President Bush's call to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But he declined to comment on the Bush administration's stance on civil unions, which would grant same-sex couples many of the same rights enjoyed by married couples.
"That's a very complex question that I'm not going to make a recommendation on. We're doing research on that now," Mr. Ashcroft told the television program.
This is an interesting development, as a clear distinction could emerge between conservatives who oppose any legal recognition of same-sex relationships and those who would accept civil unions in which states grant couples the same (state) benefits as under marriage, though other states needn't recognize such arrangements, and no federal benefits are conferred.
The public also seems more open to a "marriage lite" approach:
A poll released Friday by the Human Rights Campaign conducted by the Democratic polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates and Republican firm American Viewpoint showed that 63% of respondents who are registered voters support or would accept gay and lesbians receiving the same rights and protections as heterosexual Americans.
The Hart/American Viewpoint poll also showed that 50% of respondents support or accept granting civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples with the same rights, responsibilities and protections given to other married couples, as long as religious institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages. 47% of respondents opposed.
Other polls, however, find much higher numbers opposing "gay marriage." Lesbigay activists will have to weigh whether they should settle for anything less than full marriage -- and the risk that such a strategy could trigger passage of the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would obliterate any hope for gay marriage in our lifetimes.
Personally, I"m becoming more inclined to go for civil unions. As Americans become more familiar with legally recognized gay relationships, I think their resistance will weaken. The go-slow state by state approach also would mitigate the worst reactions from the most conservative regions, which fear being forced to recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts or Canada.
Others argue that if we demand marriage, we will be more likely to at least get civil unions in the near term as a compromise. They may be right; or we could find ourselves trapped by a Federal Marriage Amendment juggernaut. It's a tough call, but I increasing hope the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court goes with the Vermont civil union approach in its upcoming ruling.
Let the Schism Begin.
The AP reports that Election of Gay Bishop Prompts Walkout. And here's the British take, from The Guardian.
And, from the NY Times, Anglican Leaders Warn of Global Schism Over Gay Bishop, which reveals the depth of homo-hatred by the good Anglican Church leaders of Africa, as well as Asia and South America. But why would giving in to their bigotry by good for Christianity?
addendum: As to Bishop-elect Robinson's alleged ties to porn links on a youth website -- allegations publicized by conservative pundit Fred Barnes on the Weekly Standard website -- here's the lowdown from Tony Adragna's blog "Shouting 'Cross the Potomac."
By the way, wasn't Barnes among those conservatives who
criticized the last-minute sex charges leveled at then Supreme
Court nominee Clarence Thomas? What hypocrites these ideologues of
the right (and left) can be!