Is Compromise Possible After NY High Court's Gay Marriage Ruling?
Today, the highest court of New York ruled that the state constitution des not require the state to allow gay marriage. Its decision is just the latest in a series of judicial and legislative pronouncements on the gay marriage question. In the wake of the ruling, one thing seems abundantly clear: America will remain sharply divided on the issue.
At the core of the dispute are two competing ideas. Opponents of gay marriage appear to believe (in large part) that "marriage" is a sacred connection between a man and a woman. Proponents of gay marriage appear to believe (in large part) that homosexual relationships are of equal value as heterosexual relationships and deserving of the same legal protections.
Thus far, states have mostly treated the issue as black and white. Some (namely Massachusetts) have elected to legalize gay marriage. Numerous others (such as Indiana, Kansas, and Michigan) have passed laws or constitutional amendments precluding gay marriage. Only one--the State of Vermont--has attempted to forge a compromise solution. And Vermont's law likely does not satisfy the gay contingency. While it provides gay couples with the same legal protections as married couples, it still labels gay unions as something different: "civil unions."
This begs the question: is there a better compromise available?
What if the government only provided civil unions--whether the couple was heterosexual or homosexual--and left it to the religious institutions to decide which unions to sanctify as "marriages"? This stance would seem to appease both parties to the dispute. It would give the pro-gay marriage block the satisfaction of knowing that gay relationships are recognized under the law and treated with equal respect as heterosexual relationships. It would give the anti-gay marriage block the satisfaction of knowing that religious communities, as opposed to government institutions, will be the ones to determine the parameters of "marriage."
Is such a compromise realistic? Probably not. But it's worth a thought.
Gay, Marriage, Civil
At the core of the dispute are two competing ideas. Opponents of gay marriage appear to believe (in large part) that "marriage" is a sacred connection between a man and a woman. Proponents of gay marriage appear to believe (in large part) that homosexual relationships are of equal value as heterosexual relationships and deserving of the same legal protections.
Thus far, states have mostly treated the issue as black and white. Some (namely Massachusetts) have elected to legalize gay marriage. Numerous others (such as Indiana, Kansas, and Michigan) have passed laws or constitutional amendments precluding gay marriage. Only one--the State of Vermont--has attempted to forge a compromise solution. And Vermont's law likely does not satisfy the gay contingency. While it provides gay couples with the same legal protections as married couples, it still labels gay unions as something different: "civil unions."
This begs the question: is there a better compromise available?
What if the government only provided civil unions--whether the couple was heterosexual or homosexual--and left it to the religious institutions to decide which unions to sanctify as "marriages"? This stance would seem to appease both parties to the dispute. It would give the pro-gay marriage block the satisfaction of knowing that gay relationships are recognized under the law and treated with equal respect as heterosexual relationships. It would give the anti-gay marriage block the satisfaction of knowing that religious communities, as opposed to government institutions, will be the ones to determine the parameters of "marriage."
Is such a compromise realistic? Probably not. But it's worth a thought.
Gay, Marriage, Civil
posted by HN at 7:06 PM
1 Comments:
There surely is room for middle ground. I'm writing from the UK, and here (like Germany and France and Vermont) such civil unions are the equivalent of marriage in terms of rights.
On the positive side for gay couples: Your family gets the security and protections that marriage affords.
On the positive side for some churches: The sacred name of marriage is not tarnished.
However, there are a few gay folks who want the name "marriage" as well, and won't accept civil unions. Most, however, don't care what it's called as long as they can keep their houses, get insurance, and protect their pensions.
Likewise, there are many folks on the other side who are not so much interested in protecting the name of marriage, as they are in getting all gay folks to leave their partners and live celibately. They are just mean, and they probably constitute the majority.
But remember that the fight right now is neither about marriage or about civil unions. Right now, states are passing laws and amendments that strip ALL RIGHTS away from gay couples.
For example, the bits in Wisconsin and Virginia and several other states will make any contracts between non-married couples NULL AND VOID. That means things like health insurance, living wills, property deeds, adoptions, and family memberships at golf courses are suddenly unavailable to a chunk of tax paying citizens.
-- Keith.
Post a Comment
<< Home