(backing away)

But BRO is now calling for Civil Unions as a remedy, even though they clearly have not worked for Vermont, and fundamentalists in this state will only accept them if they are unequal to marriage.

We don’t need to be fighting for something that is less than equal for the next so many years (5 in Vermont), rather than putting our energy and resources towards full equality.

But we will be, and for anyone that argues that full equality is necessary, opposition voices will have BRO to point to in order to demonstrate that our equality leaders have no problem with less than equal.

GA, I think that it makes sense for BRO to try and push for civil unions at least until the lawsuit is concluded, since I think it’s the only viable short-term strategy, and civil unions, while (to put it mildly) less than ideal, would do some real good for some real families.

To my considerable despair, the voters have spoken; they’ve opened their mouths and vomited on equal rights. They won’t be ready or willing to repeal Measure 36 anytime in the next several years. Given that Measure 36 passed, I don’t see any alternative strategy other than going for civil unions in Oregon in the short term, and trying to change “hearts and minds” so we can undo Measure 36 and have real equality in the long term.

I see this as a bluff-calling measure. After all, if marriage is sacred, why not remove government from it altogether? What possible objection could there be to preserving the sanctity of marriage?

It would, however, increase conflict between denominations (”what do you mean, your church doesn’t recognize our Unitarian marriage as valid, and so you won’t let us stay together in your motel?”), and between nonbelievers and believers. That may be an acceptable price to pay.

As always, thanks for an excellent and very illuminating post on SSM / gay marriage.

I agree with zuzu. I’m not an expert on the issues but I’m becoming more and more firmly persuaded that universal civil-union recognition is the way to go. The way I see it, the case for it is threefold:

(1) Tactical: As the preceding comments suggest, it is the one solution that offers a realistic possiblity of a consensus in the near future.

(2) Constitutional: It seems to me that “marriage” is an area where religious and civil institutions have become conflated. Separation of church and state demands that the law view “marriage” as nothing less nor more than a set of contractual obligations.

(3) Philosophical: The “sanctity of marriage” is, and by definition must remain, the exclusive province of the church, synagogue, or mosque. Those who fret that another couple’s civil union somehow threatens the “sanctity” of their own marriage, are simply making it plain that they need to get in touch with their own religious faith.

Incidentally, I think you could make a case that any legal definition of “marriage” which privileges heterosexual unions, discriminates against those liberal religious denominations (Metropolitan Community Church and others) which do recognize gay marriage.

To precisely the extent that marriage is sacred, the law has no legal or moral claim to regulate it. The reconciliation of social progress with religious tradition is a process both demanding and subtle, and for good reason is just such a process off-limits to the firm hand of the law.

Marriage also implies a set of material rights and obligations, and it is with these exclusively that the law must concern itself. The “sanctity of marriage” is for the church, not the court, to defend. Universal civil unions would clarify this point beyond doubt.

(1) Tactical: As the preceding comments suggest, it is the one solution that offers a realistic possiblity of a consensus in the near future.

As all that likely to be the case. I think a large segment of the religious community will be very upset by this, as they’ll interpret it as another example of secularists using the state to further their ends. In addition, I predict opinion leaders on the right will paint any such proposal as “the legal destruction of marriage” or some such thing and it’ll work. I hope I’m wrong; this solution seems deeply and profoundly correct to me on principled grounds, and it ought to be understood as a compromise position. But I suspect it won’t be.

anthony, I think I’m still a card carrying member of the “far left,” but I don’t think my tribe has much to say about gay marriage that can’t be said by much more sensible and articulate moderates, who people might actually listen to.

CBS REFUSES TO RUN IT because they SHOW a potential same sex couple and since there is talk of a Federal amendment against same sex marraige it is too political!

So, inclusive Christianity is out, and divisive Christianity is in?

Read about it at
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_11_28.php#004131

IT

That’s why I think it has to be presented as “saving” marriage from the gummint, and has to be presented in the kind of language fundies use. Back them into a corner where the only way they can defend the status quo is to admit that they *want* the entanglement of the state in church functions.

Certainly there are some extreme homophobes who oppose civil unions as well; but not all of those who oppose “gay marriage” by name oppose civil unions, while those who oppose civil unions certainly oppose gay marriage.

Zuzu, exactly. This is an issue that could be phrased in conservative language as easily as in liberal language.

IT, I disagree - your post is not O/T at all! I just finished reading that item on another blog, and it is a perfect illustration of why this is a church/state issue. Note also that Bush’s public opposition to gay marriage was invoked by CBS - even though it has no legal force.

I’ve held forth on this at some length at my blog - feel free to click the link in my signature if you’re interested.

I think the conflation of civil and religious marriage is problematic for all kinds of reasons, but I think an awful lot of people rather deeply value that conflation.

Yup. And that’s why this issue is so important.

Except for those who oppose civil unions *because* they support same-sex marriage.