A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage

This article by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch has been getting some traction in the last few days. The premise, ‘A reconciliation’ on gay marriage is a good one. If the GOP is going to move forward this is one of the top issues we are going to have to address.

 

____________________

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.

____________________

 

Seems like a pretty good compromise to me.  The problem is that I think with a liberal in the White House gays and their supporters are more likely to hold out for full legalization of same-sex marriage rather than civil unions. Likewise, with a liberal in the White House social conservatives who are not inclined towards compromise are going to dig in their heels as well. The article seems to recognize both of these obstacles and address them as such:

 

____________________

Cases of this sort are already arising in the courts, and religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage are alarmed. Which brings us to what we think is another important fact: Our national conversation on this issue will be significantly less contentious if religious groups can be confident that they will not be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.

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.

Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides, and it also ought to appeal to President Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has endorsed federal civil unions. A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example. If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together.

____________________

 

This is just one of many issues that conservatives could lead on. If we propose this concession and actively support it we are moving much farther towards the other side than we could ever hope from them. I am quite convinced that it would strengthen our position among younger voters, but it would also give us one more arguement that we are indeed the ‘pro-family’ party.  I could even see us asking these couples with new federal rights to support other efforts we propose to shape federal policy in favor of families.