NYT Op-Ed Calls For "Gay Marriage Compromise"

Today's New York Times carries an op-ed written by Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn which proposes a compromise on gay marriage:

Whatever our disagreements on the merits of gay marriage, we agree on two facts. First, most gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany legal marriage. Second, many Americans of faith and many religious organizations have strong objections to same-sex unions. Neither of those realities is likely to change any time soon.

Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with antidiscrimination laws. The First Amendment may make it unlikely that a church, say, would ever be coerced by law into performing same-sex wedding rites in its sanctuary. But religious organizations are also involved in many activities outside the sanctuary. What if a church auxiliary or charity is told it must grant spousal benefits to a secretary who marries her same-sex partner or else face legal penalties for discrimination based on sexual orientation or marital status? What if a faith-based nonprofit is told it will lose its tax-exempt status if it refuses to allow a same-sex wedding on its property?

[...]

Gay couples have concerns of their own. Most, of course, want the right to marry, and nothing less. But federal recognition of same-sex marriage — leave aside what you think about the merits — is not likely in the near future. The federal Defense of Marriage Act forbids it. Barack Obama and most other Democratic presidential candidates opposed gay marriage. And most Americans continue to oppose it.

At the same time, federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions. But these same benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.

Jonathan Rauch is openly gay and a supporter of same-sex marriage, although a relatively conservative one. He first came to my attention over a decade ago for his opposition to hate crimes laws and his support for marriage equality primarily due to its "civilizing impact" on potentially promiscuous homosexuals, especially gay men. David Blankenhorn is the founder and head of the Institute for American Values (for which he makes over a quarter-million dollars a year, primarily from ultra-conservative Republican financial sources) who posed as a "liberal Democrat" in a controversial Los Angeles Times op-ed that opposed marriage equality during last year's Proposition 8 battle.

What the Blankenhorn-Rauch compromise proposes is federal recognition of same-sex relationships (including already legal CT and MA marriages and civil unions/domestic partnerships in states like CA, OR, WA, NJ, VT, ME as well as DC) in exchange for stronger religious exemptions in state discrimination laws that will be preempted by this proposed federal legislation.

My first response to this proposal was to scream "bullsh*t" but then someone pointed out to me that is not really about how religions deal with civil marriage but about how religious institutions accomodate (or are accomodated by) anti-discrimination laws.

I actually might go along with this "compromise" if they throw in very strong federal anti-discrimination language based on sexual orientation and gender identity in areas of credit, education, public accomodations, housing and employment.

However, from Utah, we know how well the other side treats a "middle of the road" (common ground) initiative, so I doubt anyone else will go for this "compromise," even the Obama administration.

In the end (as usual) Rauch's piece will go to support the arguments by the opponents of LGBT people, in this case it bolsters their argument that marriage for same-sex couples infringes on their religious liberties.

Pam Spaulding has a similar view.