In Europe, it seems, both the gay left and the social right are supporting "marriage lite" in the form of civil unions or, in French, pacte civil de solidarit", for heterosexuals -- the left seeing this as an end-run around an oppressive institution, and the right seeing it as a way to avoid specifically sanctioning gay relationships.
As the New York Times reports:
A government proposal still being considered in Britain, for instance, would allow gay couples to register in civil partnerships that would give them inheritance and pension benefits, and next-of-kin rights in hospitals. But when the government announced its plan last summer, gay groups protested, saying that it discriminated against heterosexuals. "
The civil solidarity pacts in France, in fact, began as a way for gays to formalize their partnerships, but were broadened, when religious and conservative groups objected, to include heterosexuals.
Isn't it nice that the gay left and religious right can find something to agree on!
The Needs of the Party Trump Those of the Individual (Again).
From Tuesday's Wall Street Journal article, "Usually Fractious,
Democrats Cut Kerry Some Slack" (sorry, no free link):
Gay and lesbian activists are preparing [to swing behind John Kerry] even though Mr. Kerry opposes gay marriage and hasn't taken a stand on a constitutional amendment to prohibit it in his home state. ...
"What the Democrats are saying is, we're not going to sweat the small stuff," explains Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the Black Caucus chairman. ...
Dean backer Elizabeth Birch, former executive director of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, [sic] predicts that Mr. Kerry would "receive tremendous support" from gays and lesbians despite his opposition to gay marriage. ...
Actually, as previously noted herein, Kerry has said he could back a state constitutional amendment if the right language can be found (that is, banning marriage but allowing lesser civil unions or domestic partnerships), while leaving it to his gay liaison to convey his opposition to a federal amendment. But why let such small stuff stand in the way of party unity?
Of course, gay Republicans who support Bush if/when he endorses a constitutional amendment would be in the same boat.
Am I guilty of holding Democrats to a somewhat higher standard
than the GOP, in that both Bush and Kerry oppose gay marriage? Yes,
in that Democrats campaign as the champions of gay rights. This
gets them many, many gay votes that, based on issues such as the
economy, social security reform, national security, etc. would
otherwise go to the GOP, all things being equal. So I don't
apologize for calling Democrats on the carpet for false
advertising.