In his column in The Advocate titled Civil Unions: The Radical Choice, writer Richard Goldstein explains why, from his "progressive" viewpoint, civil unions are superior to marriage for straight couples as well as gay. In short:
My fellow and sororal leftists are right to regard gay marriage as a conservative idea. It would bolster an institution that can be very encumbering and that deprives single people of the government benefits they deserve.
Moreover, civil unions are good because they'll weaken marriage, he writes:
Civil unions won't replace marriage, but they could make it rarer. Same-sex marriage has no such potential. It won't expand the matrimonial options, and courts are unlikely to apply the principle of equal protection to straight couples who don't want to wed even though they can. In fact, there's a real possibility that employers will cancel domestic-partner benefits once gays can marry. If that happens, all couples will be faced with the same rigid choice: Tie the knot, or you"re on your own.
As Jonathan Rauch, David Boaz, and others have argued, those on the right who oppose same-sex marriage are by necessity opening the door to all manner of "marriage lites" that will, in fact, make marriage rarer. That may be fine with those on the lesbigay left, like Goldstein, but social conservatives say they care about preserving and strengthening the institution of wedlock. Yet by opposing same-sex marriage, they're destroying the very thing they claim they're trying to save.
Radical Step by the Right.
From Monday's lead editorial in the Washington Post:
Mr. Bush wants to keep the Republican base at bay with verbal Pablum about the "sanctity of marriage" and a promise to support an amendment if this gay-marriage thing gets out of hand. But at the same time, he wants to avoid energizing Democrats and alienating centrists by actually calling for one now.
We suppose we should be grateful that the president didn't go further and actually call on Congress to send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. We're not. Even in an election year, it shouldn't be asking too much to expect the president to firmly reject a step as radical as rewriting the Constitution to stop states from adopting laws that recognize gay relationships.
It's hard to argue with that.