Can gay-marriage proponents and religious conservatives strike a bargain? David Blankenhorn and I proposed federal civil unions with a religious opt-out last month in a New York Times article, and recently we got a chance to try it out at a Brookings Institution panel.
Representatives of the Human Rights Campaign and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations didn't sign on the dotted line (not that they were expected to). But neither did they slam the door. And the give-and-take over the meaning of civil rights and the limits of compromise was fascinating. Listen to an audio podcast or read a transcript here.
11 Comments for “A Great Debate”
posted by BobN on
“But neither did they slam the door.”
Pity.
posted by ludwig on
Civil Unions are inherently unequal to marriage and therefore unconstitutional. No matter how you try to dress up Civil Unions they are not and can never the the same legally as ‘marriage”. The Legal principal here is Brown vs Board of Education in which it was ruled that Separate is not equal.
The Conservatives need to get over themselves and cease unlawfully interjecting their religion and religious values into the Law. Church and State are separate and while we may have the right to worship as we please WITHIN THE LAW. WE ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF RELIGION AND ITS INFLUENCE. Some people are asleep at the wheel as many Jews say that God was asleep during the Holocaust. IF the laws regarding religious influence and forcing ones religious beliefs on others were enforced these ‘conservatives'(read euphemism for’bigots”) would not have a leg to stand on and their house of cards would collapse freeing everyone to enjoy the freedoms and ideals of the Federal Constitution provides us.
So why are you trying to sell out the LGBT community to the conservatives by being an Uncle Tom and yesah–taking less or only what these bigots are only willing to give you and our community. We must demand these rights in a stance of civil rights or civil war.
That has been the problem with all civil rights issues–women, racial, and sexual orientation. We already have these rights but these folks have taken them away from us—just as the post reconstructionists took away the civil rights of black people thanks to President Hayes.
There can be no conservative bargain–except tolerance and respecting our privacy rights and rights to be free of religion and right to be religious in our own manner. It is none of their business who marries who or who beds who and they have no right taking away the right of privacy from the LGBT community. What the ‘conservatives’ are up to is the same ole same ole game that they played during segregation—if a white man and a black woman were seen in public together in a friendly manner –someone would be about the be murdered. THe same was even more true if a white woman and black man were seen in public together. People from the KKK would see to that. IF you recall it in the past was illegal for any mixed relations to take place in many states other than master (white) servant(black) relationship.
The LGBT community are not the niggers of the ‘conservatives’ and your proposals equate us with this. You are too young to know what it was like back in the days of segregation for blacks or what the hellish period of 1950-1970 was like for gays and I assume that is the reason for your willingness to succumb to being a nigger of the “conservatives”. Even today, these conservatives are trying to make it difficult on the LBGT community in the South–particularly North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama and Missippi where the cops ignore Lawrence vs Texas.
It makes me very angry when my generation has fought so hard for your generation to see that you and people of your generation apparently do not appreciate the hell and battles that we have gone through so that you can be openly gay in many parts of the Country without fear of persecution and see that you have it much easier than we did. It use to be that you could be arrested for being gay and that was very serious business because in many states such as Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina as well as Virginia that would also entail the death penalty. The least of your worries would be that you got fired or lost your apartment or house or was refused a loan because you were either gay or suspected of being gay. Showing any program on television with gay charecters or in the movies was absolutely taboo and if they were part of the play–they had to come to a bad end. See the movie: The Sargent– the story of a many who falls in love with another soldier. IN the end he commits suicide or is killed simply because he is gay.
We are still fighting and we do not need people as you to defeat our efforts by being uncle toms selling out to the wolves who will eat your and our rights alive. I agree that one can gather more flies with honey than vinegar but at the same time we do not have to give away all the gains we have made just to get these folks to strike a bargain.
They were the ones who declared a jihad on us. We did not attack them. All we have done was to ask for right that were ours to begin with.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ludwig’s rant should be published far and wide because it lays wide open the antireligious hate, bigotry, and hypocrisy that is at the core of the gay liberal and gay “marriage” movement.
Notice, just as a prime example, how Ludwig whines about “jihad” and “unfair treatment”, but then goes on to namecall Rauch, deem him an “Uncle Tom”, say that he’s a “nigger”, and use all sorts of hateful names. Can there be any doubt that Ludwig is a hypocrite? Can it be made any more obvious that gays like Ludwig will do anything to maintain their “victim” stance and enforce with verbal beatings and hatred those gays who would dare to offer a different opinion? Furthermore, when one considers that this is what Ludwig does to fellow gay people who disagree with him, that he will do far worse to those who are NOT gay who disagree with him?
Sexual orientation is not just that to Ludwig. Since he and his fellow gay liberals insist that any gay person who disagrees with them or has a different opinion is not really gay, then society should judge being gay by what Ludwig insists it is — an irresistible compulsion to be leftist, antireligious, hate-filled, insulting towards others, and to verbally abuse anyone who dares disagree with you as a “nigger” and an “Uncle Tom”.
posted by esurience on
Ludwig wrote, “We are still fighting and we do not need people as you to defeat our efforts by being uncle toms selling out to the wolves who will eat your and our rights alive.”
Firstly, have some respect for Jonathan Rauch. It’s pretty clear you don’t know the first damn thing about the effort he’s put forth for our cause. So why don’t you just calm the hell down.
Secondly, what exactly do you think we’re giving up with this “compromise” that he has proposed? We’d get civil unions, and we’d still be able to fight for full marriage equality (but unlike civil unions, which have majority support in the country right now, full marriage has less than 1/3rd support, so that’s a ways off).
The “compromise” seems like all win and no loss to me. If it allays the Christianists mostly unfounded, or at least overblown, concerns about impingement on religious freedom, that’s nothing for us to be upset over.
posted by BobN on
I think you missed some of the terms of this compromise, esurience. There’s no fighting for same-sex marriage after accepting this deal. And, if you manage to get your state to pass it, you lose portability and federal recognition.
posted by esurience on
BobN,
It would be nice if you cited parts of the article to support that. But you won’t be able to, because they don’t exist.
posted by BobN on
You don’t seem to grasp that this “compromise” is a final compromise. It’s not a step — at least not from the point of view of the proponents. It’s THE DEAL.
If my state of California doesn’t ROLE BACK my rights by granting MORE religious exemptions, the feds wouldn’t recognize California DPs. That’s coercion.
If I’ve misunderstood the proposal, please show me where. Frankly, I’d be happy to have misunderstood it.
I’ve downloaded the transcript to read later. To tell the truth, I started reading it but stopped on page 2 when Rauch said hetero couples in the U.S. haven’t been much interested in CUs. I know of no state where CUs are even offered to hetero couples (except the elderly on SS). I’m leery of arguments that start with dishonesty.
Again, happy to be shown to be wrong.
posted by John D on
From the transcript:
“this leaves the locus of decision-making to the states. We don?t set up a separate federal program, and I think that?s important to letting this debate continue.” Rauch
The “compromise” means that we stop fighting for marriage equality and the right hands us exactly nothing. We still have to fight for these new-fangled civil union things with various legislators blocking progress. I just don’t see the senators from Utah voting in favor of a Federal model civil unions bill.
Sorry, Jonathan. I’m sticking on my side (pro-marriage equality) of this scorched-earth debate.
posted by hank on
l
posted by Hank on
WITHIN THE LAW. WE ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF RELIGION AND ITS INFLUENCE
Religion is not needed to judge what’s wrong or right here, Homosexual sex is wrong to any observer of people involved in this practice, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the game here.The gay agenda is hell bent on manipulating the constitution to their advantage.
No gay marriage, no civil marriage, too much recognition or law justification for a sex act that damages the people involved.
Gay promiscuity has been around forever and will remain. Give consenting homosexuals a legal tender for health benefits, last will and testament and send them on their way.
posted by Hank on
“That has been the problem with all civil rights issues–women, racial, and sexual orientation.”
Homosexual sex acts as practiced by homosexuals should not be recognized as a civil rights issue. Civil rights should not be recognized for people who want to practice perversion. To deny homosexual sex is not perversion is to circumvent the truth. The biased liberal judges have disregarded the truth of homosexual sex and thus OK’d the legal binding of homosexuals. These judges are not really judges but advocates and enablers of the gay agenda.
Civil rights is not to be for immoral behavior, but for people of varying and different backgrounds.