A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage (xpost from Editorials and Other Articles)

[Big_Mike]

From the NY Times <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?em>

"IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

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."

What is the general thought about David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch's NYT Op-Ed? I am a Cali resident, and where I live was purely 50-50 on Prop 8. I'm straight, and many of my neighbors who were against Prop 8 were strongly against the term "marriage" for GLBTs. They (mostly, there's always a few a**holes out there) had no problem with equal protections, they just wanted something other than Marriage to be involved.

Not too many flames, please. I honestly just want to know what the feelings are.

Big Mike

[readmoreoften]

1. Note: your neighbors who FOR prop 8 were against the term marriage.

Federal civil unions aren't going to happen so it's moot. Obama promotes it should be left "up to the states". There really isn't much of a middle ground here and those who have tried it--NJ for example--have come forth and said the "civil union" thing doesn't really work.

Haters are just going to have to get over it.

[GodlessBiker]

13. I agree. Not much room for a middle ground, especially when they will fight us as hard on...

the middle ground. Better to go for the whole enchilada.

[bluedawg12]

2. A Capitulation on Same Sex Marriage, is a better title.

Yes, the time is right for the right fight and the full court press.

Ask for less than you need and you will always get it. :grr:

Equality is the underlying principle. All people deserve equal human/civil rights.

The next fly in the ointment with these capitulation schemes is there before the ink dries:

"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."

Here come the qualifiers: "... most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage."

Most or all is never a good point to start negotiations, you have already given up something before you start.

I may not be bright enough to understand this fancy language, but:

"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."

No one is asking any religious organizations to recognize same sex marriage. Marriage, as a legal concept, is a civil, secular status, conferred by States. Weddings as a religious ceremony are not of concern and has no place in this discussion. In fact, it is counter productive, implying that someone wanted to force religions to accept same sex marriage? That is not so.

Odd, I have read earlier pieces by Rauch where he was specifically in favor or same sex marriage and as a conservative, he was surprisingly strong about it back a few years ago.

My opinion: now having read this and the stirrings of the Log Cabin Repugs: the GOP needs votes and money and so this may be a new half baked plan to woo gays with some token interest while conceding little to zero.

[bluedawg12]

3. "To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation."

"If the ban on gay marriage were only mildly unfair, and if the costs of changing it were certain to be enormous, then the ban could stand on Hayekian grounds. But, if there is any social policy today that has a fair claim to be scaldingly inhumane, it is the ban on gay marriage. As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society's most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation."

The author?

Jonathan Rauch.

http://www.jonathanrauch.com/jrauch_articles/gay_marriage_1_the_case_for_marriage/

Part of Rauch's 7 part series in favor of same sex marriage from a conservative point of view, you know, stable families, less cost to society, etc.

[Maat]

4. A couple of things ...

people on this board know that I'm the biggest GLBT supporter around, both literally and figuratively.

Constitutionally-speaking, Obama CANNOT make this a federal issue. Regulating marriage is a power reserved to the states essentially via the Tenth Amendment. What could happen federally is that discrimination could be forbidden, but the Supreme Court would have to negate centuries of court precedent that states marriage is left to the states.

Second, it is absurb to worry about religious organizations. The First Amendment, as extended to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, protects religious organizations against having to accept, practice, or recognize anything that is against the religious beliefs in question. Only behavior may be regulated by governments (example: the government may forbid one from killing chickens without a permit, or the like, providing it articulates a rational basis for that regulation).

Thirdly, we have to achieve equality, and it has to be called 'marriage.' Court precedent is also law, and marriage is mentioned too many times. It would be virtually impossible to change all of that law. So, this California will not accept anything less than marriage being legal for same-sex couples; but, this will be a matter for Cal's Supremes.

Finally, I have articulated all of this to a conservative acquaintance, telling her, "If you want two terms, we will have to differentiate between 'holy matrimony' and 'civil marriage,' or the like, because of the court precedent problems. Deal with it.'" She has come to terms with that, fortunately.

In Peace and Friendship,

Maat, J.D.

[bluedawg12]

6. I agree about the religious argument, but, the NYT piece had some permutations

designed to soothe the right wing.

Some, BTW, ripped out of today's headlines.

I see no problem. Churches and faith groups must follow the law.

Speaking of animals, if killing animals is against the law, then animal sacrifice is against the law.
Weird example, but, it shows that laws over ride everything. So the cases below are not valid concerns from the NYT article:

"Further sharpening the conflict is the potential interaction of same-sex marriage with anti discrimination 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?"
- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html?_r=1&em

Churches, faith groups, whatever they're called, must follow the law and provide equal benefits under the law, public rental policy must follow the law, as in the same sex wedding law suit that recently arose in NJ.

So these concerns in the NYT are ed herrings, and need no special accommodations.

Another example, under dubya, the Salvation Army was free to fire people based on religion and sexual orientation and they still received Federal Faith Based Funding. President Obama has put a stop to that, and that may be why they act like their rights have been taken away or might be. Tough!

The law is the law.

[Maat]

7. This part of the law is really interesting, and there are a couple of cases ..

out here in Cali testing our "Unruh" law.

That's our law prohibiting employment-related discrimination. It is pretty clear, out here anyway, that a church may discriminate in the hiring in terms of in-office and in-sanctuary employees. People are trying to stretch the law, in terms of the employees in their "secular arms." So far, the Courts have held that the churches may discriminate in terms of those employees not part of the secular arm (their community work in which they receive government funding); this area of the law, however, has not been fully adjudicated.

For the latest, DUers, I recommend being an ongoing reader of www.au.org (proud member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State here).

The case we studied in law school - ah, I remember that one case fondly - the one in which the prohibition of animal sacrifice/slaughter was deemed constitutional, being that it was not specifically directed at a specific church or at religious practice.

I agree that the idea of a supposedly secular arm of a relgious organization - well, the idea of them being able to discriminate in terms of hiring, employment, and firing is just ludicrous. I really support that being prohibited completely and clearly articulated.

[bluedawg12]

8. The "Unruh" law sounds really unfair.

What brought it up, the concern about being forced to hire gays, or workers of other denominations, or both?

That should be challanged, it is a special status above the law and seems to favor Church by the State, over the rights of citizens.

Thanks for the in-put and link.

I venture, you are not in favor of faithe based initiatives, then? Would love to hear good legal reasons why.

:hi:

[Big_Mike]

9. Personally, I believe that

there is one institution: Marriage.

Any other manipulation of two people joining their lives flies in the face of much law, as stated above. How could anyone logically parse out all of the settled law and split every legal document to cover what is essentially two people trying to be a family and strive together.

I was very happy to see the thread in LBN on IL recognizing adoption by GLBT today. If a person wishes to be a parent, why deny them based on something immaterial to raising a child? Brainwashing??? Hogwash!!!

I don't think this (GLBT marriage) will occur soon, but I hope to see it in the next decade, nation-wide.

[Maat]

10. I am totally against faith-based initiatives, because I feel that they are essentially a violation .

of the First Amendment. The government winds up promoting religion (and that's unconstitutional).

The Unruh Act is what protects people from discrimination; I should have made myself clear. The fundamentalists are the ones challenging the Act (asshats). The rightwing extremists are concerned that they won't be able to plunder the government treasuries while only hiring fellow rightwing extremists.

They are trying to get a ruling from Roberts and his buddies on the Court that permits their kind of skullduggery (permits the discrimination while getting public monies). I hope and pray they do not succeed.

Anyway ... take care.

I'm a non-practicing, retired, homeschooling mom, due to my child's unique needs, and am a bit of a bum. I do follow the great legal cases, however.

:hi:

[bluedawg12]

12. Thanks for your in-put Maat!

Your knowledge and skills are put to good use on these issues and at home! :pals:

If you do a search on the Salvation Army you will find their shocking bigotry in employment practices towards workers of other faiths, sexual orientattion, we had a good discussion about them a few months ago and how shrubya protected them so they could get Fed. $$ and still practice workplace bigotry.

[Maat]

16. My clients experienced this discrimination.

One more story, and I'll leave you alone. When I was a social worker ('93 to mid-2000), the Salvation Army used to harass my clients after my clients had gone to their program out of a lack of choices (county funding problem). The S.A. used to have my clients sign an agreement directing their welfare check to the S.A., so that they could "manage it" for them.

I didn't know that until I started working with the clients, who had already done so.

One time, I got an apartment for my client, so that she could assume full-time care of her kids. She had been doing well in her drug-abuse program. I asked her when she could pay for some things with her check. She replied that the S.A. had control of the funds. I went to the S.A. and they verified this. They refused to let her off of the agreement. I told them how I would be discussing this with county management, and I told the S.A. with whom I would be speaking, and let them know that I knew these officials well, and had a good reputation with them. Of course, if those county officials became ticked off with the S.A., some funding might be cut off (believe it or not, county funding was a happening thing way back when). They looked at me; I looked at them. Then, they tore up her agreement, and my client got back the control of her funds.

So, I'm familiar with their nonsense, and donate to other charities, with whom I am familiar instead.

Thank YOU for the conversation, and other DUers.

[xchrom]

5. only 'marriage' ensures equality legally. nt

[sui generis]

11. But there would be a condition:

NO. No compromise with religious bigots. This is America, not Afghanistan.

[Creideiki]

14. Religious-conscience exceptions?

Does the Catholic church get to ignore employees' second marriages (forbidden by Catholic doctrine without annulment) for the purposes of benefits of those employees? Will hospitals run by churches get to ignore civil unions?

Pure crap.

I'm about this close --><-- to starting a referendum stating that every individual's "marriage" needs to be voted on for recognition. Further, if I decide I don't like someone (like the noisy straight couple downstairs), then I want to vote to strip them of legal recognition that they got just because they're screwing each other.

[Zuiderelle]

15. Personally speaking, I think it might be a fair attempt at compromise...

with the larger path being full equality. We all see how the religious right uses the word to hammer us down, even though we all KNOW that they don't "really" care about the word. They use this threat of requiring churches to marry us to keep their own people in line, voting against us. If we can rip that part out of the argument, then what are they left with?

I've had arguments with generally progressive people who have this weird problem with the word marriage, and some really smart people who actually think that their churches would be required to perform marriage, or be sued if they refuse. It's insane, yes, but it's reality. So, remove the word, remove the "threat" and maybe we can get a step or two further down the road.

I'm too old to say "marriage or nothing." At this point, I want the rights that come with it, and if it takes capitulating and compromising to get federal civil unions instead, as our new President claims he supports, then I'm ok with that in the short-term. I'm selfishly most interested now in protecting my family. Give me my rights so that I can do that.

In my heart I doubt that this will really happen, that federal civil unions will confer all the rights we are currently denied... but I do think that making it a goal will expose a LOT of the hypocrisy that is now cloaked by those who are so possessive of the word "marriage." Maybe that alone will give us enough support to actual have full equality which INCLUDES marriage.

I dunno. I'm just tired I guess.

[mitchtv]

19. me too

[SacredCow]

17. No flames from me....

Having been (straight) married before coming out, I can attest that the word "marriage" has NO magical powers. If the legal ramifications are the same, I personally don't care whether my partner and I are termed as "married," "unioned," "shacking up," "common-lawed," or whatever phrase people choose to use as a descriptor. Our relationship is defined by *US and US ALONE.* What we are called by outsiders is irrelevant, and that's as it should be.

Now before *I* get flamed, let me go on record as saying that the above statement is decidedly a YMMV situation. I don't presume to speak for everyone. To others, it may be terribly important that their relationship be condoned and blessed in the church, as perhaps their parents' was blessed. I wish those people the best of luck in their struggle; however, I have my eyes on the practical matters first and foremost.

As for leaving the matter up to each state.... I think it's a bad idea. People move and travel every day- for that reason alone, I think having a different rule in each state would be a debacle. The scenarios are endless.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

18. this article made me literally nauseous. sorry, if you consider than flaming

but i consider the tone of the article to be nauseating.

to consider equality as an extreme move is mind boggling to me