As I noted
earlier,
New York Times columnist David Brooks supports gay marriage but
takes liberals to task for too-often framing their argument in
terms of opening up access to "a really good employee benefits
plan." The problem with that approach is demonstrated by social
conservative Maggie Gallagher, a strong opponent of same-sex
matrimony, who argues in the Weekly Standard ("Massachusetts
vs. Marriage"):
For many same-sex-marriage advocates, marriage is basically a legal ceremony that confers legal benefits, a rite that gives rise to rights.
But, she counters, the governmental benefits bestowed by marriage (e.g., tax breaks, social security inheritance, etc.) are being overstated by gay advocates. Moreover, she thinks that civil unions may be a compromise worth accepting, precisely because marriage confers dignity upon a relationship and civil unions don't:
What some dismiss as protecting "merely" the word marriage is actually 90 percent of the loaf. -- Capturing the word is the key to deconstructing the institution. "
Do not mistake me: In the long run, I believe that creating legal alternatives to marriage is counterproductive and wrong. But civil unions are one unwise step down a path away from a marriage culture. Gay marriage is the end of the road. "
To lose the word "marriage" is to lose the core idea any civilization needs to perpetuate itself and to protect its children. It means exposing our children to a state-endorsed and state-promoted new vision of unisex marriage. It means losing the culture of marriage. And there would be nothing noble about that at all.
IGF contributing author Andrew Sullivan, on the other hand, does
"get" that dignity for gay people is what's at stake, not just
legal benefits -- and that's precisely why the religious right is
so intent on denying us the "m" word. His
column in the current New Republic makes this clear:
If the social right wanted to shore up marriage, they could propose an amendment tightening divorce laws. They could unveil any number of proposals for ensuring that children have stable two-family homes, that marriage-lite versions of marriage are prevented or discouraged. But they haven't.
[The Federal Marriage Amendment] is simply -- and baldly -- an attempt to ostracize a minority of Americans for good. ... It is one of the most divisive amendments ever proposed -- an attempt to bring the culture war into the fabric of the very founding document, to create division where we need unity, exclusion where we need inclusion, rigidity where we need flexibility. And you only have to read it to see why.
I have expressed the view that civil unions may be an appropriate short-term goal on the way to full marriage for gays and lesbians -- a means of allowing fair-minded straight Americans to get comfortable with the idea of state-recognition for same-sex relationships. And, in fact, this is exactly what happened in The Netherlands -- separate-track civil unions were eventually followed by full marriage for gay couples. But reading Gallagher, in particular, I can see why Sullivan and others insist that any arrangement short of marriage is not acceptable.
If you have thoughts you'd like to share with other readers about civil unions or rev'd up domestic parternships versus marriage as a short- or long-term objective, feel free to drop us a letter at the IGF Mailbag.
The Next Generation.
Jamie Kirchick, a Yale undergrad, campus columnist, and IGF
contributing author, has a
new blog. Check it out.