Not what you expected a gay marriage opponent to proclaim? Me, either. In the gay marriage debate, David Blankenhorn's statement that "I believe in the equal dignity of homosexual love" represents something of a breakthrough. I heard him say it to a conservative Washington audience in the spring (they seemed taken aback), and now it's online right here, in this Bloggingheads debate.
Blankenhorn goes on, here, to come out in favor of civil unions that would be just like marriage-including federal recognition-except that they would neither add to nor subtract from the existing parenting rights of same-sex couples. This, in Blankenhorn's view, would do 90 percent of what gay couples want without affecting child-rearing laws throughout the country.
Legal equality it ain't. From my point of view, of course, marriage is a clear first choice. On the other hand, Blankenhorn's civil unions would be vastly better than what we have now in 49 states, particularly if federally recognized, and battles over parenting rights could be fought another day.
Not least, Blankenhorn's embrace of civil unions issues an implicit moral challenge to the many, many SSM opponents who take a "Let them eat cake" toward the welfare of gay couples by being against SSM but not for anything else. He's implicitly saying, "Even from a pro-traditional-family perspective, we can protect the interests of children and still do a whole lot for gay couples-and we should." However one feels about this idea, it deserves a wide and respectful hearing, especially from conservatives.
Let's see if any conservatives rise to the challenge.
30 Comments for ““The Equal Dignity of Homosexual Love””
posted by Rhywun on
I want the right the marry my boyfriend of four years, who had to move back to Malaysia when his visa ran out, and bring him back to the US. Anything short of that is meaningless to me. I don’t know of any “civil union” legislation that grants that right. And frankly, I’m getting a little tired of hearing all the rhetoric about what’s best “for the children”. I don’t have kids–I don’t want kids. Without the basic rights enjoyed by a heterosexual couple without regard to whatever children they may have in the future, all this talk about “the children” just seems to me to be an excuse to avoid more fundamental issues.
posted by Xeno on
It still doesn’t cut, but I’m glad Blankenhorn, like the late Pete Knight (who is suffering in the afterlife I’m sure), took a back step to civil unions as it shows that his side is losing badly on the issue of gay rights. They should not be forgotten for the suffering they’ve brought to gay and lesbian Americans for all those years.
Marriage, not civil unions. We should not backtrack for the loser’s sake.
posted by unimpressed on
Your claim that this is “vastly better than what we have now in 49 states” is clearly wrong.
First of all, Massachusetts marriages are valid in Rhode Island (so says the A.G.), as Canadian marriages are in New York. Civil unions are available in Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire (as of Jan. 1), and DP’s are a lot like civil unions are available in California and Oregon (as of Jan. 1). All of these laws, properly construed, provide parenting rights. That’s nothing to sneeze at.
Further, even if the political choice is between parenting rights and federal benefits, who are you to decide that parenting benefits are somehow more important the federal recognition? The consequences of federal recognition are some tax savings, federally-run benefits, and–maybe–immigration rights. When gay parents lose their rights, kids end up in state custody, and a parent-child bond is broken forever. Tell me why this is such an easy choice?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Jonathan, great article and good discussion –we need exactly this kind of engagement to draw credibility to our side of the policy debate… instead of the usual “you’re a bigoted homophobe” rant many on the GayLeft overuse.
I’ll encourage my conservative friends to watch and see how people can bring some “light” to a subject mostly consumed by “heat”.
posted by Bobby on
Parenting is separate from gay marriage, you don’t need to be married to adopt or be a foster parent. And there’s plenty of foreign countries where you can go and get an unwated kid.
posted by Amicus on
Wow. Reports of the death of reason and debate in America has been much exaggerated. Congratulations, Jon.
I’d like to think that the parenting restrictions aren’t a cynical spoiler.
Whatever the case, Blankenhorn has an uphill battle, as best I recall, with his notions of how to handle artificial insemination for non-gays, despite having a ‘consistent’ view on it, if you will. If those ideas do not prevail, as is most likely, then the restrictions on gay couples would seem just that much more tenuous.
Since it is not possible to regulate who has children, it seems only practical to have laws that are humane in the face of events over which the State has no real control.
posted by Brian Miller on
What this proves is that the grassroots insistence on pursuing marriage equality is working — notwithstanding the “you’re ruining the party!” complaints of the right and left alike.
Thanks to the visibility and continued debating of people arguing for their Constitutional rights, even the most vocal gay marriage opponents are now finding themselves bereft of arguments and forced to fall back to a “sorta marriage but not total equality” bulwark as “defensible ground.”
It is, of course, crucial that the gay grassroots continue to push forward, and I believe they will. Of course, we should be happy to accept any transitional “civil unions” or other areas that are an incremental advancement towards equality — but should keep our eye on the promise of the Constitution, which is equal protection under the law, and equal treatment by the law.
posted by Jaap Weel on
I would like to add that in The Netherlands, where I’m from, the marriage equality we have now came after a series of progressively more comprehensive forms of civil unions, and a general move toward flexibility in family law. As a consequence, these days, all couples, gay or straight, with or without children, can choose marriage, civil union, or informal cohabitation. Part of this increased flexibility came about when it was argued that if equality demanded that gays should get to marry, by the same token, straights should be able to enter into civil unions.
I’m just saying this because I think that besides equality under the law, there’s another important abstract principle that should guide gay activism, which is that recognizing intimate relationships as more or less valid is not the state’s business to begin with, whether or not you personally think that some relationships are indeed more valid than others. It’s a simple matter of personal liberty. From that perspective, any development that will gracefully lead the state away from its role as national relationship approval agency is a step in the right direction.
posted by JJason on
Jaap Weel,
Good points. It always seems odd to me to make the claim that marriage is sacred in light of how it is currently legislated and treated.
My straight brother could fly to Vegas tonight, meet some chick in a bar, and be husband and wife with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities by tomorrow night a little weird. Especially in light of the fact that two men can live together, share a mortgage, raise kids, love, honor, and cherish each other for decades and be denied the same rights as my brother and Ms. Vegas.
I fail to see what’s so sanctified, and holy about a relationship who’s only requirement is that Tab A fits into Slot B.
posted by Brian Miller on
recognizing intimate relationships as more or less valid is not the state’s business to begin with, whether or not you personally think that some relationships are indeed more valid than others. It’s a simple matter of personal liberty. From that perspective, any development that will gracefully lead the state away from its role as national relationship approval agency is a step in the right direction.
Hurrah! Very well stated.
posted by Chairm on
Rise to what challenge, precisely?
posted by Chairm on
>> “Parenting is separate from gay marriage, you don’t need to be married to adopt or be a foster parent. And there’s plenty of foreign countries where you can go and get an unwated kid.”
1. Fostercare does not bestow parental status.
2. Adoption depends on parental relinquish (or loss).
3. Marriage includes the marriage presumption — the mother’s husband is the father of the child born during their marriage. This depends on the both-sexed nature of human generativity and does not fit any one-sexed scenario.
Item 3 depends on the nature of marriage while items 2 and 3 do not.
In fact, marital status is a legitimate basis to prioritize both the placement of children in either foster or adoptive homes.
posted by Chairm on
>> “Thanks to the visibility and continued debating of people arguing for their Constitutional rights, even the most vocal gay marriage opponents are now finding themselves bereft of arguments and forced to fall back to a “sorta marriage but not total equality” bulwark as “defensible ground.”
There is no constitutional right at issue with gay union.
The choice for form a nonmarital alternative is a liberty exercised, not a right denied.
The SSM campaign is about replacement of the recognition of marriage with recognition of some other thing.
Blankenhorn is mistaken about civil union. Rauch is mistaken about SSM. Two mistaken persons amiably discussing their mistakes does not represent progress.
SSMers will continue to mistake disagreement for bigotry. For SSMers it is not really about marriage. It is about pressing gay identity politics onto marriage recognition so as to appropriate marriage for nonmarriage goals and purposes.
So it makes no difference that Rauch has sought to soft pedal the slur that other SSMers throw against allcomers, whether or not those with whom they dissagree are as principled as Blankenhorn.
The arguments against this merger of SSM with marriage are strong; if the thing is wrong when it is mislabelled gay “marriage”, then it is wrong when it is called “civil union”.
Designated benficiaries already exists and is well-ultilized. That probably explains why all forms of same-sex union registeration with the government (wherever available) is met with such low participation rates. This special relationship status is unneeded and unpopular and is simply a form of pandering to gay identity politics.
posted by Chairm on
>> “It’s a simple matter of personal liberty. From that perspective, any development that will gracefully lead the state away from its role as national relationship approval agency is a step in the right direction.”
SSM arugmentation, at its base, is about deinstituionalization of marriage. So the enactment of SSM or Civil Union, whatever you’d call it, would be such a development as you desire.
However, marriage pre-dates the government It is not a government creation.
Civil union and all the other so-called intimate relaitonship statuses are entirely government created.
As such, marriage stands against government over-reach; it is a foundational social institution apart from the government’s sayso. But SSM argumentation says otherwise, laying the groundwork for the state to dictate more and to intervene more and to use its heavy hand to coerce compliance.
That is the opposite of the sort of ideal future that you may think is coming in the future, at the behest of what you think is best for gay activism.
It maybe good gay activism, but that does not tranlate into what is good for society.
posted by Craig2 on
Hmmm. Blankenhorn has just provided significant support for those of us LGBT pragmatists who always argued that parallel civil unions, with all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, are significant and worthwhile for members of our communities.
Now watch him get frozen out of extremist social conservative discourse and political networks as a result of his candour…
posted by Chairm on
Thusfar, he, like so-called “LGBT pragmatists,” has failed to explain the purpose, much less the necessity, of a relationship status of this kind for the one-sexed arrangement.
Perhaps someone here can describe what they think is meant by 1) “homosexual love” and 2) the equal dignity of whatever that is and 3) the state’s interest in creating a special relationship status for it.
Be pragmatic and explain yourself.
posted by Terry Hamilton on
The focus should be more toward establishing a legal framework for promoting lasting, loving relationships betweeen two adults. The more we talk about rights, the less the majority (moral or otherwise) will hear.
posted by dalea on
Chairm says: There is no constitutional right at issue with gay union.
The issue is can gay people enter into contracts on an equal basis as heterosexuals do. Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults. Why should the government exclude gay couples? On what grounds? Courts in several states have found that there is a constitutional issue here.
posted by Brian Miller on
marriage pre-dates the government It is not a government creation
Technically you are correct. Legally, you are incorrect. Once the government imposed its power upon marriage, it set itself as the sole definer of what it is and isn’t.
There is no constitutional right at issue with gay union.
Sure there is. The equal protection clause states that government may not exclude any segment of the population from the protection of the law without a rational basis.
Excluding same-sex couples from marriage arrangements is a violation of that basic constitutional principle. There is no rational basis for doing so (and neither “tradition” nor “religious belief” are rational bases under case law).
posted by Fitz on
“many SSM opponents who take a “Let them eat cake” toward the welfare of gay couples by being against SSM but not for anything else. He’s implicitly saying, “Even from a pro-traditional-family perspective, we can protect the interests of children and still do a whole lot for gay couples?and we should.” However one feels about this idea, it deserves a wide and respectful hearing, especially from conservatives.”
Strange thing to latch onto. Here Mr. Blakenhorn writes extensively on the clusters of beliefs that congregate around family breakdown and child well being.
Dosent that deserve ” a wide and respectful hearing” ?
Instead the challenge is to conservatives to come up with something to offer as we are being forced to cut some kind of deal. (A deal the author and advocates expressly reject)
Well, I?m not to apposed to Hawaii reciprocal beneficiary package. The truth is theirs a lot of different (more) familial arrangements that would want/could use any number of legal privileges. Siblings & roommates living together, children caring for elder parents, and on & on.
I think our point is that such ?unions? (of whatever type including homosexual;) pale in the face of the social goods provided intact marriages were mothers & fathers raise their children.
posted by Brian Miller on
Mr. Blakenhorn writes extensively on the clusters of beliefs that congregate around family breakdown and child well being.
Dosent that deserve ” a wide and respectful hearing” ?
Not any more of a wide and respectful hearing than the theories of his predecessors who warned of family breakdown and child well-being vanishing if whites could marry blacks, or if women could own property, or if slaves were allowed to be citizens.
Absurd “concerns” based on bigotry aren’t automatically valid simply because of the “deeply held beliefs” of the bigot.
posted by Brian Miller on
I think our point is that such ?unions? (of whatever type including homosexual;) pale in the face of the social goods provided intact marriages were mothers & fathers raise their children.
If that was the case, all your constitutional amendments, political capital, and legislative initiatives would be aimed at forcing married heterosexuals to model their lives after your theories.
Any statist who believes in new laws and constitutional amendments to create Norman Rockwell families would focus on gays WAAAAY below the well-known heterosexual-exclusive causes of divorce — infidelity, dishonesty, no-fault divorce, single-parent families, etc.
However, this hasn’t been the case.
There have been no constitutional amendments banning divorce until children are adults, mandating the creation of “traditional families” as a requirement to maintain a licensed marriage, ending no-fault divorce, etc.
The totality of the legislation (and accompanying animus) has been aimed at gay people.
So the excuses about “concerns” and “values” and using legislation to “preserve” those are just fig leaves for an anti-gay agenda based on bigotry.
Sorry to jolt you like that, but to the casual observer, that’s the truth.
posted by Fitz on
If Mr. Blakenhorn is such a vile & obvious Bigot, why does Jonathan Rauch pay him the privilege and legitimacy of respectfully debating him.
No were in the debate does Mr. Ross call him or his arguments bigoted or refer to them as analogous to racism. On the contrary, this post praises Mr. Blakenhorns call to ?equal dignity? and encourages conservative opponents of same-sex marriage to use that a a possible bridge to resolution.
Perhaps some proponents are not as wounded and radical as others. Mr Rauch apparently can see his opposition without horns & a tail while still presenting his position.
posted by Brian Miller on
If Mr. Blakenhorn is such a vile & obvious Bigot, why does Jonathan Rauch pay him the privilege and legitimacy of respectfully debating him.
For the same reason that African American people debated George Wallace in 1963.
Perhaps some proponents are not as wounded and radical as others.
I’m neither wounded nor radical. I just don’t see your circular arguments as justifying your continued suspension of our Constitution’s equal protection and full faith and credit clauses.
The fact that you also offered yourself a complete mulligan on my points regarding your group’s unwillingness to actually address the concerns it expresses about “family breakdown,” rather focusing exclusively on attacking gay people, only further underscores my original point.
Come back when you have something substantive to offer.
posted by Fitz on
(I asked)
If Mr. Blakenhorn is such a vile & obvious Bigot, why does Jonathan Rauch pay him the privilege and legitimacy of respectfully debating him.
Brian answered
“For the same reason that African American people debated George Wallace in 1963.”
Yet Mr. Rauch does not characterize his opposition as such. He does not use even remotely analogous language to typify his opposition, nor does he present his arguments in such stark terms.
“Come back when you have something substantive to offer.”
I would engage you in greater dialogue except (unlike Mr. Rauch) you don?t seem capable of casting this debate in anything other than the most strained and radical light.
posted by ETJB on
Politics (for adults) does involve having a diologue with people that you disagree with.
Their was a great debate a few years back between two notable persons about the Iraq War (I can not recall their names).
Both of them were partly right and wrong.
The fact that heterosexual people (left, right and center) are showing any support for legal equity for gay couples is a positive step.
posted by Chairm on
>> Brian Miller said: “Once the government imposed its power upon marriage, it set itself as the sole definer of what it is and isn’t.”
SSM argumentation depends on the power of the government to impose SSM on all of society.
Yet you disparage as “statists” those who would use constitutional means to affirm the man-woman criterion of marriage.
The marriage law is merely the shadow of the social institution which casts that shadow.
You can claim absolute authority for the state on all of civil society, if you so desire, however, that places your argument in an entirely different category than pro-marriage.
Give SSM argumentation enough rope and it will hang itself. Thanks for contributing more rope, Bill Miller.
posted by Chairm on
>> Dalea said: “The [constitutional] issue is can gay people enter into contracts on an equal basis as heterosexuals do. Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults.” << People enter the social institution of marriage, as couples, and as such they qualify as combinations. Not all both-sexed combinations are eligible to enter. None of the one-sexed combinations are eligible. Since marriage is a social institution, and much more than merely a contract, your point about consent is secondary to marriage recognition. Society also consents via the preferential treatment of the social institution. If for you the contractual aspect is central, then, as I said earlier, provision for designated beneficiaries already exists and is well-utlized across the country. There is no good reason to merge nonmarriage with marriage recognition. But perhaps there is good reason to enact a relationship status (call it civil union as per Blankenhorn and Rauch) and this should be discussed in full. So, to start, what is the core, the essence, the nature of the type of relationship that civil union would grant a relationship status at law? Are there definitive requirements? Are these to be enforced absolutely? Are any combinations ineligible; if yes, which combinations and why? This is the basics of legislating such things. Marriage 1) integrates the sexes, 2) provides contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) does this as a coherent whole. That is extrinsic to all one-sexed combinations -- and is not met with many both-sexed combinations. So it is evident that for proponents of civil union the core of marriage is not the core of civil union. So, what is civil union and why should it be accorded a special legal status?
posted by Chairm on
>> Dalea said: “The [constitutional] issue is can gay people enter into contracts on an equal basis as heterosexuals do. Marriage is a civil contract between two consenting adults.” << People enter the social institution of marriage, as couples, and as such they qualify as combinations. Not all both-sexed combinations are eligible to enter. None of the one-sexed combinations are eligible. Since marriage is a social institution, and much more than merely a contract, your point about consent is secondary to marriage recognition. Society also consents via the preferential treatment of the social institution. If for you the contractual aspect is central, then, as I said earlier, provision for designated beneficiaries already exists and is well-utlized across the country. There is no good reason to merge nonmarriage with marriage recognition. But perhaps there is good reason to enact a relationship status (call it civil union as per Blankenhorn and Rauch) and this should be discussed in full. So, to start, what is the core, the essence, the nature of the type of relationship that civil union would grant a relationship status at law? Are there definitive requirements? Are these to be enforced absolutely? Are any combinations ineligible; if yes, which combinations and why? This is the basics of legislating such things. Marriage 1) integrates the sexes, 2) provides contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) does this as a coherent whole. That is extrinsic to all one-sexed combinations -- and is not met with many both-sexed combinations. So it is evident that for proponents of civil union the core of marriage is not the core of civil union. So, what is civil union and why should it be accorded a special legal status?
posted by Chairm on
For some reason my comment has been clipped short.
I’ll try again with the next paragprah:
People enter the social institution of marriage, as couples, and as such they qualify as combinations.
Not all both-sexed combinations are eligible to enter. None of the one-sexed combinations are eligible.
Since marriage is a social institution, and much more than merely a contract, your point about consent is secondary to marriage recognition.
Society also consents via the preferential treatment of the social institution.
If for you the contractual aspect is central, then, as I said earlier, provision for designated beneficiaries already exists and is well-utlized across the country.
There is no good reason to merge nonmarriage with marriage recognition.
But perhaps there is good reason to enact a relationship status (call it civil union as per Blankenhorn and Rauch) and this should be discussed in full.
So, to start, what is the core, the essence, the nature of the type of relationship that civil union would grant a relationship status at law?
Are there definitive requirements? Are these to be enforced absolutely? Are any combinations ineligible; if yes, which combinations and why?
This is the basics of legislating such things.
Marriage 1) integrates the sexes, 2) provides contingency for responsible procreation, and 3) does this as a coherent whole.
That is extrinsic to all one-sexed combinations — and is not met with many both-sexed combinations. So it is evident that for proponents of civil union the core of marriage is not the core of civil union.
So, what is civil union and why should it be accorded a special legal status?