There is something very satisfying about ideological purity and the righteous indignation that often accompanies it. It can be fun to paint one's opponents as crazy and stupid (and sometimes they make it all too easy to do so).
Less fun, yet potentially more productive, are attempts at common ground. As much as I enjoy a good zinger, I'm a conciliator by nature. And so I was intrigued by a recent proposal by Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn seeking compromise on same-sex marriage.
Rauch is one of gay marriage's sharpest defenders; Blankenhorn, one of its ablest critics. The two have clashed on multiple occasions. If I had to recommend only two books on this subject, one from each side, they would be Rauch's and Blankenhorn's.
In last Sunday's New York Times, the pair co-authored a surprising proposal. The crux is this:
"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."
Currently, various states offer some sort of legal recognition to same-sex couples. The idea would be to provide federal recognition to these arrangements while allaying opponents' fears that doing so would erode their religious liberty.
So under the proposal, no church would have to rent out its parish hall for a lesbian wedding; no religious college would have to provide married student housing to a gay couple, and so on. Any state that insisted on such requirements would be ineligible for federal civil union recognition.
Let's be clear on what the proposal would NOT do. It would not create legal statuses for same-sex couples in states that did not already have them.
It would not prevent gay-rights advocates from continuing to press for full marriage rights, or gay-rights opponents from continuing to make the case against them.
Nor would it "downgrade" Massachusetts and Connecticut same-sex marriages to civil unions. States would continue to recognize same-sex relationships in whatever ways they choose-as long as they don't require religious organizations to do so. But the federal government, which currently recognizes NONE of these statuses, would recognize them all under the common name "civil unions."
What the proposal would do is allow the federal government to say, "If your state recognizes you as a couple, so do we." It thus takes federalism seriously, with the federal government deferring to the states on the issue of who's legally united-as it usually does.
The proposal has already generated a good bit of discussion in the blogosphere. Some of it simply misunderstands the proposal; much of it-not surprisingly-is critical.
Certainly, the proposal deserves a rigorous discussion from all sides. In order for that discussion to be more productive, I'd like humbly to suggest some guidelines:
Rule #1: Do not criticize the proposal by saying, "The other side is not going to like it becauseâ¦" Let the other side speak for the other side.
Rule #2: Do not respond to an admirable attempt at peaceful negotiation by immediately ratcheting up the rhetoric. For example, at the National Review Online Maggie Gallagher writes, "From where I stand, it looks like the progressive/democrat position states: If you believe marriage means a husband and wife, you are not just wrong, you are downright wicked and deserve to have your home address put up on the internet so strangers can harass you."
Oy. That violates Rule #1 and Rule #2-in one sentence!
Nobody doubts that there has been excessive rhetoric on both sides. There are advocates who claim that anyone who opposes marriage equality is a hateful bigot; there are opponents who hold that gays by their very existence offend God.
But thankfully, there are also those like Blankenhorn and Rauch who are interested in moving us past such conversation-stoppers. Let's take the cue.
Rule #3: If you don't like the proposal, suggest a better idea.
Note: "Give us full marriage equality!" is not what I mean by a better idea. Sure, that's what would happen in my ideal world. Rauch's too. And no one is saying that we should stop making the case for it.
But in the meantime, there's a proposal on the table that would provide federal rights and benefits to those in state-issued same-sex unions. Moreover, it's a proposal that one major same-sex marriage opponent has endorsed.
I don't doubt that the proposal prompts some legitimate concerns on both sides. But if we can discuss those concerns with the same spirit of cooperation that Blankenhorn and Rauch have demonstrated, we might actually make some progress.
16 Comments for “Common Ground?”
posted by mgh on
I hate to say this, but the title of your post is utterly telling of your political ignorance. As we saw in Utah, with the summary dismissal of the “Common Ground” initiative (which consisted of simple rights like hospital visitation and disposition of remains) and with the recent demise of the comprehensive DP bill in New Mexico, our opponents appear to oppose those measures with as much vehemence as the “real thing.” This isn’t me putting words in the mouths of the opposition — this is the reality that has played out after conciliatory compromises have been offered.
And what’s been the result? (a) Our opponents are still able to convince legislators that what we really want is marriage — and that’s true, because even Rauch still wants full equality, and (b)
A better idea is, sticking your ground and watching the slow, painful progress of civil rights take its course. A better idea is not continuing to further the rhetoric that allows people to think that (a) sexual orientation places a particular burden on religious expression and that (b) there ought to be a “gay exception” with regard to religious exemptions anti-discrimination laws.
No one said the road to full equality would be easy or painless. Truth be told, we haven’t been at this for very long. So why are we compromising at all, when ultimately we’re convinced that the long arc of justice will be swinging our way? I get that these solutions provide concrete benefits to people on the ground, but I think they’ll ultimately cost us more in the long run.
posted by mgh on
with apologies (b) above should be:
(b) we’ve lowered the bar for what legislators should be giving us, and we’re not closer to achieving our ultimate ends, because the opposition has been handed a victory on something so much less than marriage.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I’d offer the same compromise without the word “robust.” What does that mean? It is vague enough to mean whatever the religious right wants it to mean, which is likely to go considerably beyond existing First Amendment protections. Indeed, if the religious right have their way, they will be the only ones whose religious freedom is protected–meaning that they will be entitled to trample the religious freedom of others. The “religious exemption” language, which is fine with me as long as it doesn’t go beyond restating existing First Amendment protections, is nonetheless a blatant red herring. Gay rights advocates have neither the interest nor the ability to take away anyone’s religious rights. But what the religious right means by religious freedom is that nothing disapproved by their religion should be permitted under the civil law. And that is something we cannot go along with.
Maggie Gallagher is one of the leading exemplars of bad faith. If four dozen marriage equality advocates bowed and scraped and crawled to her but one spoke harshly to her, she would trumpet the one who spoke harshly. Jon once told me he liked Maggie; I would love to have him explain to us what good it has done anyone to pretend that she is a decent person. Yes, she is superficially polite. She is also a proven fanatic with a long record of acting and arguing in bad faith. There may be better and worse ways of pointing this out, and I certainly don’t condone harassment–which helps create the false impression of moral equivalency between the two sides of the marriage debate–but when the other side argues dishonestly (as when Maggie cites other countries’ infringements of free speech to stoke fears of similar infringements here, as if the First Amendment did not exist), we need to point it out. And speaking of the lack of moral equivalency: Opponents of marriage equality seek to deny gay people a fundamental right. Gay people do NOT seek to deny any such right to them. The right wing’s endless claims of victimhood are manufactured, and we need to point this out regularly rather than bending down to kiss their behinds.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I must second the objection to John Corvino’s admonition not to put words in the anti-SSM-zealots’ mouths. They have a long record at this point showing resolute dishonesty on their part, so it’s not a matter of our putting words in their mouths. For example, as I discussed in my August 2007 IGF article Marriage Aftershocks in Ohio:
posted by BobN on
I would be more open to this compromise if someone could point out any similar compromise made for any other minority. I can’t think of one.
I would also like to know why the compromise everyone already had in mind — fully equal civil unions — is now insufficient.
And, for the sake of the value of the discussion, could examples like “parish halls” be avoided unless they’re more specific? The parish hall of my youth was open only to Catholics for Catholic ceremonies. Some are open to the public for non-religious ceremonies. Some are open to the public for religious ceremonies. If a Methodist gazebo can host Buddhist weddings (leading necessarily to fornication from a Christian theological perspective), then it can host my wedding. (not that I’d get married in any gazebo)
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
BobN, my thoughts exactly. We are gradually winning. It makes no sense at this point to dignify the radical right’s red-herring claim of religious discrimination by going along with a compromise that goes one inch beyond the usual boilerplate religious exemption that gay activists have been accepting in gay-rights bills for thirty years. And if that is insufficiently “robust” — and anti-gay zealots have made it clear that the only compromise that will satisfy them is complete surrender — then so be it.
posted by steve tabarez on
Although I may be willing to embrace your simple 3-step solution to come to a solution of a problem, I see an element missing which would address the tone in which ideas are presented. Like the tone of your piece, here. It’s not just the words, or the clinging to idealogical assetions, or the stubborness of ones position. It’s also the manner in which it is delivered. From your tone, I take it you think that you above all think we should already know what it is you are espousing. Arrogance gets one nowhere.
posted by TS on
It is with sadness that I speak out against rule #1. I don’t want anybody to get it through their head that this highly reasonable (federal! yay, that makes me happy!) compromise is going to be helpful in any way.
Ok, so technically we should be letting the other side speak for itself. Only they’re not going to. This proposal isn’t even on their radar. They won’t be getting the memo. Or if they get the memo, they’re going to skim it, laugh, and throw it in the trash. I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response because our opponents aren’t going to lend legitimacy to a thoughtful, rather complicated and intricate, federalistic compromise seen on the pages of the New York Times by engaging with it.
posted by BobN on
Thanks, Richard. I don’t actually think that all objections on the part of the opposition are “red herrings”. It’s just that banquet rules have already been set, and herring — red and otherwise — is already on the menu, and there are existing rules on how pickled fish is to be presented, served, and eaten.
There’s nothing about adapting to same-sex marriage that isn’t already involved in adapting to a religiously pluralistic society. I would allow religious organizations to set new rules for their facilities, such as restricting their gazebos to use by their own denomination for religious purposes even if, in the past, they allowed others to use them. (exception for gazebos which receive tax waivers)
posted by John Howard on
John, I agree with your three rules. I reject B/R because it makes churches into outlaws and contradicts most religions teaching to respect civil authority (“render unto Caesar what is Caeser’s”), and also because it fails to address the real issues that are facing us in the reproductive technology realm, and also fails to provide a distinction between marriage and civil unions that passes Constitutional muster as not being arbitrarily discriminatory and therefore harmful.
What do you think of my Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise:
1) Stop genetic engineering by limiting conception of children to the union of a man and a woman’s sperm and egg.
2) Federally recognize state civil unions that are exactly like marriages but do not grant conception rights.
3) Affirm in federal law the right of all marriages to conceive children together using their own gametes.
Please address it, I think it has a much higher chance of success than B/R’s does, even though their’s gets Maggie’s attention as being a valid proposal, and she ignores mine. Remember, don’t point out that Maggie doesn’t like it (rule 1) or ratchet up the rhetoric (it’s not anti-biotechnology and won’t affect medical research). Please explain your position on each of the three parts. We really could get this done in a week if just a few people announce they support it.
posted by Clay on
One of the reasons why gay marriage has succeeded in Canada is that the original legislation deliberately included an exemption for religious denominations. This did virtually nothing to satisfy to satisfy anti-gay denominations or zealots. But it wasn’t intended to and it didn’t have to. It satisfied the middle ground of the Canadian public and consequently the religious opponents were neutered in their efforts to fire up the voters. The compromise helped deny them traction. The Rauch-Blankenhorn compromise, on which I’m still neutral, offers a similar opportunity. We will NEVER convince or satisfy hardliners like Maggie Gallagher. But Maggie Gallagher and Co aren’t the point. The fight is for the middle of the road, not the fringes. Convince John and Jane Doe that their way of life is completely safe, and the scare tactics of the Irreconcilables won’t stick. This kind of proposal must be taken seriously. The anti-gay hardliners will still attack it, but this may actually serve to isolate them from the mass of centrists who will make the final decisions on these issues. It’s past time to stop thinking about this issue ideologically, and start thinking tactically and strategically.
posted by TS on
John Howard, WHY do you think that that your single-minded obsession, an idea which seems such an innocuous matter of vague future possibilities to most everyone else in the world, will be a major breakthrough that will solve the problem right away? I’ve never met ANYONE (except you) who was terrified of the possibility of making zygotes out of same sex gametes!
posted by John Howard on
I think it is a major breakthrough because it creates a principled distinction between marriage and civil union that preserves the unique legal and social status of marriage while giving all the incidental benefits and protections that everyone has been saying same-sex couples should have. Not one gay marriage crusader has mentioned the need for gay couples to have the right to conceive children together, they only mention all the other rights and protections. So since they’d get all those, and only be giving up something that they have never mentioned a need for, I take them at their word that they’d be happy with this compromise. And since traditional marriage defenders would be preserving marriage in a permanent and principled way, and they don’t object to CU’s as long as they aren’t “marriage in all but name”, I take them at their word that they’d be happy with the compromise. That it would also prohibit cloning and genetic engineering is a bonus for the few people who realize how important it is to preserving human dignity and equality and stopping the Brave New World from choking our freedoms and rights and making a huge government big brother that controls everyone’s reproduction and makes people creations of the state genetics board instead of children of their mother and father.
posted by Jorge on
The reason I think Rule #1 is relevant is because people use “people on the other side are not going to accept it because” to shield themselves from looking at their own objections or their own side’s objections. It is an attempt to cast all blame on others for a compromise’s eventual demise, blame that should rightfully be reserved for one own’s side.
Now, I have no problem with people saying “The other side *has* said…”.
Rule #2 is similarly directed at attempts to sabotage a compromise. Maggie Gallagher, who apparently opposes this idea, will do anything to stop it. She wants her side to be so angry that they will refuse a compromise.
Rule #3… hmm no. That shouldn’t be a rule. It is sole the responsibility of the compromise’s components to discredit the reasoning and motivation of those who reject it.
posted by Jorge on
That should read “the compromise’s proponents.”
posted by Amicus on
The problem with proposing compromises may be two fold. One, if you don’t ask for what you want, that’s a problem. Second, both sides may not feel like they have ‘fought it out’ enough to rally behind a ‘compromise’.
Still, I’ve seen a nugget in this compromise. It really has a way of exposing the rightwing rejectionits like Maggie, in full bloom. Her response is the kind of stuff that strategic ad campaigns are made out of, right?
Sorry to be so mercenary, but …