The Sunday New York Times brings a new op-ed by Jonathan Rauch, writing in collaboration with same-sex marriage opponent David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values. In A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage they write:
We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.
Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
More. Dale Carpenter responds:
My initial and very tentative reaction, as a same-sex marriage supporter, is that the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise probably gives little away since SSM was never really a threat to religious liberty anyway. As a practical matter, gay families gain a lot in very important federal benefits in exchange for what appears to be barring lawsuits that either weren't -- or shouldn't -- be available. The devil is in the details -- what exactly do "robust religious-conscience exceptions" cover? -- but the op-ed starts a conversation about federal legislation that might be politically achievable in the near future.
3 Comments for “Beyond ‘Marriage Lite’: A Grand Compromise (for now)?”
posted by TS on
What a worthless compromise. This Blankenhorn is obviously not representative of our opponents: apparently to him this is just a semantic game whereas to a real anti-marriage traditionalist the idea that gays can get benefits for fornicating is preposterous.
posted by esurience on
Sounds good to me. But I think it’s kind of sad that we have to legislate something that’s obviously in the Constitution anyway. 1st amendment, religious freedom, hello? It shouldn’t be necessary to state that in a law, but if it gives the religious right types a cozy feeling, why not?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The compromise is a false start, in my view, for two reasons;
(1) The compromise, like the Missouri Compromise, will satisfy no one. The marriage movement among gays and lesbians has always been a ground-up rather than a top-down movement, resistant to the idea that on civil unions are worth the effort. The compromise will not stop, or even slow down, the marriage movement. The anti-marriage movement among religious conservatives is even more resistant, if that is possible. The anti-marriage movement has a clear history of fight any and all LGBT-supportive legislation, at all levels and on all issues. (Witness Wisconsin, where Governor Doyle has proposed a very modest form of domestic partnership, not even close to equality, and the Wisconsin Family Council, Alliance Defense Fund and others are already announcing plans to hold up the law, if enacted, in court until the bitter end, claiming that the law violates our “no marriage, no civil unions” amendment.)
(2) The compromise, like the Missouri Compromise, does nothing more than paper over an irreconcilable constitutional divide with semantics, but does nothing to resolve the core issue — why is it that our state governments should endorse civil remarriage for divorced straights — simple adultery, according to Christian religious texts — on the grounds that civil remarriage is necessary for the “common good”, while staunchly resisting the idea of civil marriage for same-sex couples, which meets the “common good” test every bit as much as civil remarriage for straights?
The compromise, in my view, is nothing more than more of the same, a lame attempt to take the issue off the table, seeking peace with the Religious Right, when we should, instead, be fighting for the legal equality that is our constitutional heritage.
I support compromise when compromise is necessary. For example, I am working to get the Wisconsin domestic partnership laws in place as soon as possible, since our state constitutional forbids, for the present anyway, civil marriage and legally equivalent civil unions. In that context, where the door has been closed for ten or twenty years, it makes sense to get what you can in terms of protection.
But what good does it do, in the long run, to settle for federal civil unions? It seems to me that President Obama has the right idea — get rid of DOMA, and let the course of history in the states go forward. If we are going to compromise, let’s compromise on DOMA — get rid of the second sentence, so that the federal government recognizes civil marriage in the states where we’ve obtained it, and in the states where we will obtain it in the future?
I’ll grant you that I’m dug in on this issue. It is a constitutional issue, and I don’t believe that constitutional principles are something that we should be bargaining away, no matter how tempting it may be in the short run.