It took a Civil War to end Slavery - will Civil Unions end the 'War' on Gay Marriage?

I also support some formal recognition of gay "marriage." I am also conservative. I have posted this on my blog and received some thoughtful responses. Only 10% of human beings choose to sleep with the same sex. What is the big deal? Do most religious people not encounter homosexuals, ever? Isn't it painfully obvious to anyone with a partially open mind that homosexuality is- at least for most people- not a choice?

Thank you for visiting this blog and and for your thoughtful response.

I have found myself in disagreement with fellow-conservatives on this issue. Since I do not make or accept religious arguments in my political discourse, a consistent application of the concepts of freedom and equality leads me to my position on this issue.

Note: the above statement does not mean that I don't value religious opinions. I fully understand that religious faith plays a major role in the lives of many good people. However, my quest for ideological consistency requires that those opinions be relegated to the arena of personal values.

Like you, I can't accept the fact that a person's sexual orientation should affect their treatment by the state.

For the purpose of this discussion, it really doesn't even matter whether homosexuality is a choice or a genetic predisposition. While that may be a great topic for academic dissertation, it shouldn't be relevant to deciding whether gay couples should be treated differently.

As a conservative, I don't think that the tax code should be used to further the social agenda of either side. For this reason, I believe that a solution can be found by leaving 'traditional marriage' in the religious/traditional arena - and creating a construct around 'Civil Union'.

IMO, a Civil Union creates a unique taxable entity - sort of like the creation of a corporation with its own Tax ID. The rights, restrictions and obligations of this entity should be debated separately, and be worked out through the legislative process. In this area, I am concerned about the unintended consequences (for example, to children, whether adopted or biological). Clearly, these concepts must be carefully thought through.

For those who think that this may lead to abuse -including the most bizarre examples of incestuous unions - those will continue to be governed by existing laws.

If some churches or other religious institutions decide to sanction Gay Marriage, that is their prerogative. However, that is left to the discretion of religious leaders - and should have no bearing on the status of couples wrt the state.

First different religions have different views on gay marriage.
Unitarian churches have been performing gay marriages for
a number of years (I don't know whether they consider them
"gay marriages" or just marriages). So, the religion argument
is a weak argument that privileges some religions and their
practices over other religions' practices.

The big question is should the state "legalize" gay marriage,
a practice that already exists and is practiced by a small
minority of the population.

I will vote yes when it's on the ballot, probably, in the 2008
election in MA.

My feeling is that most people across the country who reject
gay marriage are voting on religious beliefs not universal
human rights like the right to liberty, pursuit of happiness
and that all men are created equal. Sorry to bring religion
back in but it seems nearly impossible to

Maybe, the question is, are two men equal to one man and
one woman?

FWIW, I believe that the best evidence shows that the gay
population is around 3%, not the 10% that is often stated
from, I think, the original Kinsey Report. Does this change
in % change anything? I've argued at least once on TH that
this % is speculated to be roughly constant throughout history
thus making homosexuality neither unusual, new, or abnormal.

Line that reads:

"Sorry to bring religion back in but it seems nearly impossible to"

Shoud read:

Sorry to bring religion back in but it seems nearly impossible not to

You might have to register for this, but here are
3 letters to the editor in response to a Jeff
Jacoby article which is hyperlinked on the first
letter:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2007/03/04/the_meaning_of_marriage/

.. without registration, so I encourage others to read the article by Jeff Jacoby as well as the responses.

Although Jeff Jacoby is a fellow-conservative, I can't get behind his ideas on this issue. Sure, he can make the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance activists seem ridiculous. Like most 'activists', the WDMA it is unabashedly trying to make a ridiculous point. They intend to underscore the absurdity of the conventional conservative point that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation.

Street theater of the absurd it may be, but it doesn't bridge the gap between the two positions. So, I don't consider the WDMA to be any more than a bunch of rabble rousers.

The analogy offered by marriage scholar David Blankenhorn, that 'cars are not intrinsically connected to driving' is a clever debating ploy, but ultimately absurd.

Blankenhorn likens the marriage-only-for-procreation question thus: "society does not impose upon you a binding obligation to drive it. If you buy a car but fail to drive it, the state does not for that reason revoke your driver's license. . . . Cars can be about many things, including pleasure, aesthetics, economic gain, and social status." But whether any particular car is driven or not, cars and driving are intrinsically linked.

Why is the above point absurd? Because a person can also buy a motorcycle, helicopter and airplane. All of them provide different forms of transportation; none of them is the same as a car, and each of them requires a license. He can also buy a non-working vehicle and license it. As-is, it will never get him anywhere, but he can get a license, if that is his choice. BTW, the above points can be used effectively by either side! So, it may be a nice analogy, but it doesn't prove anything.

As a heterosexual male and a parent, I firmly believe that kids benefit from having a Dad and a Mom. I don't see how allowing Gays to have Civil Unions breaks that model. If the concern is that lesbian couples may use Artificial Insemination to get pregnant, then let someone attempt to make THAT unlawful (For the record: I don't support making AI unlawful for anyone).

Usually kids are up for adoption when their parents are unable (or unwilling) to keep them. If the alleged problem is gay adoption, then try to make THAT illegal (For the record: I don't support any move to make adoption illegal by any competent adult or adults).

(For the record: I don't support any move to make adoption illegal for any competent adult or adults).

English - what a quirky language! I could also have written:

(For the record: I don't support any move to make illegal the adoption by any competent adult or adults).

Or, should that be:

(For the record: I don't support any move to make illegal the adoptions of children by any competent adult or adults).

Aargh! It probably sounds equally contorted in Swahili!

I hope that the point comes across, despite this quirky language of ours ..

In my post, I make a clear distinction between Marriage (a social/religious/traditional institution) and Civil Unions (recognized by the state for heterosexual AND homosexual couples).

Under this construct, Marriage is social/religious/traditional; it falls under the definition of a private institution. If existing Churches (or new ones) sanction Gay Marriage, that is well within their purview, and the decision of the leaders of that Church and its congregation.

States would neither legalize or make illegal marriages performed by Churches. In fact there wouldn't be a recognition (or lack therof) by the State, which would recognize all Civil Unions - heterosexual or homosexual.

Regarding the decision to vote for or against: I would have to see the language of the proposition. If it is skewed in either direction, I would abstain.

I agree with you that most conservatives vote on this issue based on religion or tradition. Obviously, that is their right. Personally, I keep my religion private and try to be consistent in my politics. Its not easy, especially on the few issues in which I find myself at odds with my fellow-conservatives.

I don't know the percentages - and it isn't really germane, once you define it as a 'freedom' issue. The way I define Civil Unions, I'm not exactly making a
2M = 1M + 1F or
2F = 1M + 1F
moral equivalence either, but there has to be an equivalence when it comes to freedom and rights.

civil unions. I see nothing wrong with them if two people want this. I'm a heterosexual woman and I don't like the idea of anyone being treated without rights and I don't go along with the anti-gay movements from some conservatives.

You are right it is best to keep one's religious beliefs out of this. It's hard to discuss this issue with some religious people.

As another poster said above about knowing gays. I have known some gay men who were very devoted to each other, very fine men, and I see no reason for them to be denied a civil union. Same with gay women.

Can you also get behind the idea that heterosexual couples should ALSO have Civil Unions?

These could be obtained simultaneously with a marriage license - to minimize the impact on existing couples, either document would be acceptable by the state for anyone married before the change in law goes into effect.

This concept is based on equality - if State economic benefits apply to anyone (married heterosexuals), then they should apply to everyone (heterosexual AND gay couples).

I think that some religious/traditional conservatives will have a problem with such a stance, but it appears (to me) that this is the only way in which the issue can be resolved.

I think what a lot of people who vote based solely on their religious convictions fail to realize is that the law must, and will, treat all religions equally.

If you want legal enforcement of your beliefs, don't be all shocked and angered if Dearborn, MI passes some law requiring all women to wear a hijab. You opened the door, and have nobody to blame but yourself.

Great article, BTW, and I agree.

I've often wondered what would happen if the Rep party had a non-religious platform. By that I mean a platform that was:

* for laissez-faire economics
* for a foreign policy based on self-interest
* for strong defense
* agnostic on 'social' issues, allowing a wide range of views on subjects like Gay Marriage.

Would it attract moderate Dems who are for free-enterprise and for a muscular foreign policy & defense?

Would it lose support from the evangelical Right?

A cynical question to ask would be: would there be a net gain or loss of support?

My point is that we seem to spend way too much of our political energies on the 'social' aspects. The divisions that are caused by social issues keep us from focusing on more substantive issues.

I tend to look at this from an even more libertarian viewpoint than you, I think...

What business does the government have in marriage anyways? Why do we need a license to get married? I remember forking over $53 for my marriage license and to this day I think of it as the most intrusive aspect of government yet.

How about this:
-Flat tax: treat everyone equally and do away with marriage implications of taxation.
-Let the courts decide cases involving children about what is in their best interest without having to resort to marriage legalities as we are starting to see in the gay marriages that are falling apart.
-Let marriage be a religious institution. Only. If you want to get married in a church, its a religious ceremony. If you want to shack up with a lover, fine.

What business does government have to be involved with marriage in the first place?

I agree with your 'more libertarian' viewpoint.

In my model, the 'Civil Union' concept is merely a band-aid, that allows benefits (if any) from the State.

It is analogous to 'school vouchers' as a band-aid along the way to a free-enterprise education system.

Yes, I would support civil unions for anyone.

Like LibertyBob stated I don't think the government should be involved in this issue however.

I'm somewhat libertarian in my own viewpoints though. I don't think government should be involved in a lot of things, like what you eat, drink, smoke, etc.

To me it seems that every time government gets involved in our personal business it just means another form of taxation, not to mention the infringement on personal rights and decisions.