The Gay Marriage Compromise
Kathleen McKinley proposes a compromise on the issue of marriage redefinition in her article “The Gay Marriage Compromise.”
I can promise you that if Prop 8 were voted on tomorrow, and the exact same language was used, but instead the word “marriage” was replaced with the words “civil unions,” it would pass. And most everyone would be fine with it. As some other guy, not as well known as Kinky once said, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
As long as Churches are not forced to perform marriages or unions they believe are invalid or wrong (be they gay, divorced, or otherwise) , I don’t think you would have much dispute. And since there are plenty of Churches that would gladly “marry” gays, there really is no problem at all. It’s all in the name. Simply call gay marriage a civil union. Those that see marriage as sacred would feel better, and gays who simply want the same rights as married heterosexuals, would have them.
Every person I talk to, liberal or conservative, seem to have no problem with this compromise. Call gay marriage a civil union. Yet there is no move toward this compromise. Why? Because leaders and activists on both sides simply want what they want, and will not budge. While most of us out here in the real world, both gay and straight, are just fine with the compromise.
What an original idea!!
For us at the Ruth Institute, all we can say is “Been there, done that. Have the blog posts and podcasts to prove it.” Dr. J. is on record many times saying that all of the practical problems that gay people experience can be solved without redefining marriage. We are willing to compromise.
It’s therefore, puzzling to me that McKinley wrote what she did in the emphasized portion of the above quote.
I guess that our views about marriage redefinition (I guess we should now call the issue “marriage restoration”) have been somewhat stereotyped.
Oh well.
Of course, the main trouble is not that those supporting marriage restoration will not compromise. The problem is that the Left’s “long march through the institutions” (to quote Antonio Gramsci) has now claimed marriage as a victim. Those who have advocated the destruction of marriage for the last two hundred years will not relinquish their awful prize.
Why not have the state take the word “marriage” out altogether? Why not have ALL couples who seek state recognition of their romantic relationships receive civil union certificates? Then, there would be true equality under the law, and people’s respective churches/temples/mosques could provide couples with the “marriage” label. Giving same-sex couples a separate legal status than that of heterosexual couples only furthers state-sanctioned inequality. And it seems to me that what the LGBT community is seeking is equality under the law, nothing more and nothing less. Not to mention that it seems rather foolish to create a separate system with separate rules when the easier thing to do would just be to apply the current laws to same-sex couples. One wonders what all the fuss is about in just treating all citizens equally. Sheesh.
Jenn,
So, what you’re saying is that you want total marriage elimination rather than just the de facto marriage elimination imposed on us by Judge Vaughn (ימח שמו).
Hm. While years ago during my more religious homosexuality-is-a-sin phase, I wondered why they didn’t just give civil unions the same legal oomph as marriage and be done with it. Language is tricky, meanings change over time. That said, if a civil union is the same legally as a marriage, then what is all the fuss about? Is it any different for a heterosexual couple to be married then it is for a heterosexual couple to have a civil union?
I apologize if this, uh questioning doesn’t make sense.
@Jenn
Hi, Jenn. Of course, the reality is that all civil marriages already are civil unions. The only religious remnant is that individuals who have even the most tenuous sectarian credentials (Universal Life Church, anyone?) can act as officiants. As long as they say the legally required words, “Do you take X as your spouse?”, and done the paperwork, they’ve done the requisite civil duty. All the rest as pageantry (though the ceremonial aspects can certainly serve an important social purpose).
The only thing that your shift would accomplish would to be to make this fact explicit for the edification of the ill-informed.
I was about to warn you that our sectarian opponents would oppose your eminently sensible suggestion, because 1) they prefer that people remain ignorant of the separate civic and sectarian spheres of marriage, and 2) they want to “reclaim” marriage and make it hew to their sectarian belief systems.
But Arlemagne1 has done part of that for me.
Jenn and Marvin,
Your position really makes no sense. Let’s say the only difference between marriage and civil unions is the word. Fine. But why fight a battle making homosexuality and homosexuals seem like a bunch of whining, histrionic morons bent on destroying a foundational institution of civilization. Over. A. Word.
But if the difference is greater than a word, your comments are just plain wrong.
Which is it?
Personally, I would surmise that society would be best off if we have an ideal of sexual conduct– normal marriage. It is the only institution in which sexual behavior can be channeled for the betterment of society.
Were it the case that civil unions became the default currency for committed couplehood, you might have a point.
But as that’s not likely to happen (not yet, and not easily, and perhaps never — though your opposition to the inclusion of same-sex couples, ironically, makes it more likely that that’s the direction we might be heading), marriage is at this point the word that people understand.
When people talk of their spouses as husbands or wives, there’s no confusion, no need for explanation, no potential for misunderstanding.
Once again, it’s really very simple: it’s about commonality.
What purpose does it serve to establish a system that separates people based on an irrelevant attribute? — Say, a separate set of water fountains for Caucasians and Blacks? The same water flows from each set of fountains, right? We’d rightly consider such a system to be demeaning, having been established specifically to maintain superiority for one set of citizens over the other. (Or in the case of marriage to maintain ritual purity.)
Can government ever be allowed to set up such a system when we place such a high value on equality under the law?
Second, it does make a difference whether one can say that he or she is married.
In my state, my partner and I are registered as domestic partners, giving us all of the state-conferred rights and responsibilities of marriage, except for the name. (We’re in our 40th year together.)
Yet were one of us to have a medical emergency, we’re faced with the prospect of producing a registration card listing our d.p. status. An urban hospital might well understand that our status extends to us the same visitation and decision-making rights as spouses, but a more rural hospital might well not understand that (or might feign such a lack of understanding), thus delaying access at such a critical time, as clarification was sought.
The ability to wield the word “husband” would instantly make our legal status instantly clear, and would put the onus on the hospital staff, should they wish to delay access. (There are those here who will say, “Just draw up the necessary papers.” How many of them carry their “papers” with them when traveling? Or would be willing to suffer the consequences for having failed to do so?)
This is to say nothing of federal rules that hinge entirely on marital status. (In one recent case, a married California same-sex couple was able to obtain a private IRS ruling enabling them to file as a couple. Having full married status makes such rulings more likely, and will ultimately make it possible for same-sex couples to have full equality, once DOMA is repealed.)
Dude. I’m on your side.
I just find this article to be a bit, disarming? It’s odd coming from a site that defends traditional marriage as the best and should be the only way. I mean, legally, what is the difference between a civil union and marriage? Especially if civil unions are changed, as the original article suggests to be exactly like marriage except name only. If thats the case, whats the difference? Would there be a difference between two hetero couples if one got married and the other a civil union? Is religion what makes a marriage a marriage? In which case, does this mean atheist couples are in fact, not married? Does the whole separate but equal isn’t really equal come in to play? DOES IT MEAN THAT THIS WHOLE DISAGREEMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY POINTLESS AND EVERYONE ON BOTH SIDES WAS JUST WASTING THEIR TIME, OVER A CONNOTATIONAL TECHNICALITY?
So yeah. It’s a bit odd to me. Amazing the power we give words. Frightening when you think of the potential mistranslations over cultural, language and time barriers.
The Supreme Court of California upheld Proposition 8 essentially because it was about a word, not anything else, family law being what it is in California. The state has granted gays everything but the word marriage. The Court rejected Attorney General Brown’s arguments that this outcome violated any “inalienable” right.
This is really the compromise, granting everything but the word, that the petitioners found intolerable. No compromise was possible for the plaintiffs. A go-along, get-along solution was not what they have in mind. Dr. J, as usual, is right that it is the plaintiffs and their supporters who reject all compromise as irrational bigotry that cannot possibly be allowed to stand.
In Baker v. Nelson the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a similar appeal “for want of a substantial federal question,” even though plaintiffs had appealed on the basis of the first, eighth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. Given how favorable California family law is to same sex couples, one wonders how the U.S. Supreme Court can now find an “inalienable right” that the California Supreme Court could not find and which the U.S. Supreme Court itself never found before.
Merging marriage with nonmarriage is wrong — no matter what you call it.
Talk of ‘same-sex couples’ is code for The Homosexualized Relationship. If there is a good argument for societal support for such a type of relationship, then, that argument should be made to stand on its own two feet without piggybacking on the social institution of marriage.
SSMers can’t make an argument for The Homosexualized Relationship that actually would distinguish SSM/Civil Union from the rest of the large nonmarriage category. I say that they can’t because they haven’t even after every opportunity to make such an argument. They can’t make a case for special status that lives-up to their own stated standards of argumentation.
Marital status is a special status. Attaching SSM/Civil Union to the hip of marital status is to accord a special status to The Homosexualized Relationship. Since such a merger cannot be justified by SSMers, why should society even bother to attempt to appease the SSM campaign with “compromises” that essentially make marriage mean less and less?
Appeasement only increases the appetite for yet more appeasement and the self-defeating hope that the marriage defenders will surrender all that marriage is to all that SSM/Civil Union is not.
On the other hand, provisions for designated beneficiaries has long-existed and does not necessite the redefinition of marriage — not in the law nor in the culture nor in social policy.
I do not think that such provisions need to be packaged into something called, civil union. It would be dangerous to do such bundling because wherever that has been imposed or enacted the SSM campaign has used it as a stepping stone — a stone they pickup to further assault marriage defenders. California is the most recent and prominent example of that.
Make the SSM idea stand on its own two feet with its own independant claim for special status based on homosexual feelings, homosexual romance, homosexual behavior, or whatever. Do not let SSMers refer to ‘same-sex couples’ without their plainly stating what they mean by that particular euphemism. If they truly believe that protections from society must be given based on same-sex sexualized attractions, then, let them sayso and justify what they believe. They need to make the case that there is such societal significance to the type of relationship they have in mind that society must 1) license it, 2) accord it a special status, and 3) limit it based on the sexualization of the nonmarriage category.
None of that is necessary for the long-existing provisions for designated beneficiaries. That’s not a new and seperate institution for it treats all equally with protection equality that does not depend on sexual orientation, sexual identity politics, nor even such fanciful “legal’ notions of romance.
There is nothing more for society to offer, I think, than what already exists in these terms. And since the solution is for provisions that are actuated by simple affidavit, this meets the civil-union-is-a-contract reasoning of SSMers. It meets the many policy please for protections. It meets all the demands of the SSM campaign — minus the demand that society accord special status without justification made by the SSM campaign. It also leaves open the possiblity, as remote as it might be, that the SSM campaign might actually come up with justificaiton in a legislative campaign.
But since SSMers have rejected the existing solution, the solution that fits the problems they’ve emphasized, then, it is evident that they do not wish to “compromise” nor to open up the institution of marriage. Rather, they seek to dismantly marriag,e to make it mean less and less, and to elevant the power of gay identity politics on all of society.
Note that there is no justification for a civil union compromise — except for the faint and dieing hope for some sort of cessation of hositilities. But such a compromise cannot deliver even that. SSMer use it as ruse — even Jon Rauch sees it that, as a pause before complete outright merger.
“…if a civil union is the same legally as a marriage, then what is all the fuss about? Is it any different for a heterosexual couple to be married then it is for a heterosexual couple to have a civil union?
I apologize if this, uh questioning doesn’t make sense.”
Your line of questioning makes perfect sense, nerdy. And I think it addresses the crucial factor of this issue.
The reason why two different institutions are needed for natural marriages and same-sex unions is that they are two very different kinds of relationships. And it does indeed come down to the fact that one relationship can produce children – without the involvement of a third party – and the other cannot.
But before anyone even says it: Even though many heterosexual unions do not produce children, the mere possibility of procreation makes it necessary to provide an avenue of responsible procreation available to heterosexual couples. But since same-sex couples cannot reproduce with each other they require a completely different set of reproductive and legal methods of becoming parents.
When a man and woman have a child together it is nature that makes them parents and, when a birth certificate is issued, the state only registers the fact that they are the parents of the child. When same-sex couples want to be the parents of a child together the state must assign them as the parents of the child (after first legally separating the child from his biological parent or parents, of course) the way one would do in the case of an adoption. So a civil union would not be (and is not) legally the same as a marriage.
On another thread I pointed out that if same-sex ‘marriage’ is legally recognized we cannot affirm that men and women have certain prerogatives and responsibilities toward their own (biological) offspring, but same-sex couples do not. (Especially since it is the equal protection clause of the Constitution that is being invoked in the attempt to equate same-sex ‘marriage’ to natural marriage…) And indeed, in every jurisdiction where same-sex ‘marriage’ has been recognized eventually the concept of natural parenthood has been eliminated from the law and the government has presumed the right to assign parenthood in all cases. (And that makes all children virtual wards of the state…) That’s how things are in Canada now.
That is exactly why some of us are fighting tooth and nail to prevent same-sex ‘marriage’ and natural marriage from being merged into the same institution. And it it also why ‘gay-friendly’ jurisdictions (such as California and France, for example) have had the wisdom to establish separate institutions for same-sex unions and natural (man-woman) marriages.
And by the way, that is where we draw the line. It is absolutely the best deal that same-sex couples are going to get…
Please note that no SSMer has justified merging nonmarriage with marriage. When they refer to civil union, they mean such a merger in all but name. And they mean to detract from marriage whatever could not fit the SSM idea.
The end result of this merger in all but name is that the special status of marriage is deeply undermined both in the law, in policy (both governmental and beyond), and culturally. Even in the UK where they have civil union the newsmedia and pop culture refer to it as gay marriage; and in the laws the merger works to eliminate differnces between marriage and civil union such that more and more is subtracted to make marriage mean less and less. That is the trajectory that the US SSM campaign brags about every single day.
Believe them because that is what they mean by civil union/SSM.