AKA William

Share

Last Friday on the New York Times Op-Ed page, David Blankenhorn (president of the Institute for American Values) and Jonathan Rauch (author of “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America”), who are both Conservatives, wrote a piece that called for a compromise in the gay marriage debate:

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.

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.

I think this kind of compromise might make sense if the Religious Right were not a dying breed, if all we could hope for was scraps. But the Era of Bush is over, and not just because gays are tired of the Religious Right – most people in the U.S. are tired of the Religious Right. And, you know what? The extremists no longer own religion. (Dustin Lance Black provided powerful evidence of that last night just by simply say to us, “God loves you, too.” Whether you believe in God or not, he reclaimed religion from the small-minded.)

Using religion as an excuse to discriminate is wrong, plain and simple. And when we allow those who would misuse religion to serve their own bigotry, we do a disservice to everyone. Why not let the religious fanatics tell us that their religion means Jews shouldn’t be able to marry Christians, and then pass a bill that keeps them from marrying? Or blacks from marrying whites? Or people of the same sex from marrying each other?

And this doesn’t even address the problem with letting religious organizations dictate policy. With this kind of compromise (“Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions”) religious organizations would still be given massive control over gay people’s lives. Worse, this would give gay people a bizarre incentive to object to their own marriage rights since only states with robust religious exceptions would be recognized. And then the Right would end up arguing for gay marriage in order to contain gay marriage within the state and prevent federal recognition

We don’t need to compromise. We need to win.