No less a conservative than Attorney General John Ashcroft
appears to be leaving open the prospect of a system of civil unions
for same-sex couples as an alternative to same-sex marriage. As the
right-leaning Washington
Times reports:
Mr. Ashcroft said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that he
supported President Bush's call to define marriage as the union of
a man and a woman. But he declined to comment on the Bush
administration's stance on civil unions, which would grant same-sex
couples many of the same rights enjoyed by married couples.
"That's a very complex question that I'm not going to make a
recommendation on. We're doing research on that now," Mr. Ashcroft
told the television program.
This is an interesting development, as a clear distinction could
emerge between conservatives who oppose any legal recognition of
same-sex relationships and those who would accept civil unions in
which states grant couples the same (state) benefits as under
marriage, though other states needn't recognize such arrangements,
and no federal benefits are conferred.
The public also seems
more open to a "marriage lite" approach:
A poll released Friday by the Human Rights Campaign conducted by
the Democratic polling firm of Peter D. Hart Research Associates
and Republican firm American Viewpoint showed that 63% of
respondents who are registered voters support or would accept gay
and lesbians receiving the same rights and protections as
heterosexual Americans.
The Hart/American Viewpoint poll also showed that 50% of
respondents support or accept granting civil marriage licenses to
gay and lesbian couples with the same rights, responsibilities and
protections given to other married couples, as long as religious
institutions do not have to recognize or perform these marriages.
47% of respondents opposed.
Other polls, however, find much higher numbers opposing "gay
marriage." Lesbigay activists will have to weigh whether they
should settle for anything less than full marriage -- and the risk
that such a strategy could trigger passage of the anti-gay Federal
Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would obliterate
any hope for gay marriage in our lifetimes.
Personally, I"m becoming more inclined to go for civil unions.
As Americans become more familiar with legally recognized gay
relationships, I think their resistance will weaken. The go-slow
state by state approach also would mitigate the worst reactions
from the most conservative regions, which fear being forced to
recognize gay marriages performed in Massachusetts or Canada.
Others argue that if we demand marriage, we will be more likely
to at least get civil unions in the near term as a compromise. They
may be right; or we could find ourselves trapped by a Federal
Marriage Amendment juggernaut. It's a tough call, but I increasing
hope the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court goes with the Vermont
civil union approach in its upcoming ruling.
Let the Schism Begin.
The AP reports that
Election of Gay Bishop Prompts Walkout. And here's the British
take, from
The Guardian.
And, from the NY Times,
Anglican Leaders Warn of Global Schism Over Gay Bishop, which
reveals the depth of homo-hatred by the good Anglican Church
leaders of Africa, as well as Asia and South America. But why would
giving in to their bigotry by good for Christianity?
addendum: As to Bishop-elect Robinson's alleged
ties to porn links on a youth website -- allegations publicized by
conservative pundit Fred Barnes on the
Weekly Standard website -- here's
the lowdown from Tony Adragna's blog "Shouting 'Cross the
Potomac."
By the way, wasn't Barnes among those conservatives who
criticized the last-minute sex charges leveled at then Supreme
Court nominee Clarence Thomas? What hypocrites these ideologues of
the right (and left) can be!