Last Sunday, David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch penned an op-ed for the New York Times and made the case for a compromise between those on opposite sides of the same-sex “marriage” debate. Here’s what they proposed:
“It would work like 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. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.”
This suggested compromise position is problematic on many levels. The first and most obvious problem is that it is not really a compromise. When you boil it down, Civil Unions are really just “gay marriage” under another name. To some extent, this article acts as if the debate is about who gets to use the word marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At bottom, this debate is about whether or not the union of a man and a woman will be privileged in law. Homosexual activists and their liberal allies think that the union of a man and woman should not be privileged in law. The vast majority of Americans believes that it should. This reason for the widespread antipathy toward gay “marriage” is very simple. To privilege in law other kinds of unions (e.g., homosexual unions, polyamorous unions, polygamist unions, etc.) denigrates marriage and its concurrent societal benefits.
I’m not going to put the same-sex “marriage” debate to rest with a single blog post. I simply want to point out that the Civil Union proposal is no compromise. Anyone who pretends that it is has given up the fight for marriage.