Modus Vivendi

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

It's recently been brought home to me (again) that I have a rather skewed way of thinking (shocking I know) and so the notion that the same-sex marital status debate seems to me to parallel the old "quality vs. quantity time" for divorced parents, is probably another idiosyncrasy of my wierd brain.

Which brings me to the proposal that Mssrs. Anderson and Gergis recently made: A Real Compromise on the Same-Sex Marriage Debate. I'll give you the money graf here, but wherever you stand on the issue, to do to their argument justice, you should follow the link (above) and read the whole thing. They are aware that neither "traditionalists" nor "revisionists" get everything they believe they want, deserve and are morally entitled to.

But that's politics, isn't it?

But even people who hold differing views on marriage could agree that there is no special reason to extend recognition only to romantic same-sex unions. If hospital visitation rights and Social Security survivor benefits are appropriate for two cohabiting men who have demonstrated long-term commitment and care, does it matter whether they are sexually involved with each other? Wouldn't those benefits just as well serve, say, two elderly, codependent brothers?

That brings us to our alternative proposal: The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law. In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits. But, as Princeton's Robert P. George once proposed for New Jersey civil unions, unions recognized by the federal government would be available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival "marriage-lite" option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions' goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.

What do you think?

hattip to the folks at Merelewis and x-posted to my journal

Comments

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

YES YES YES.

My husband has been talking about something like this for years. He calls it "Life Linking" and it's for any two (or more) people who want to enter into a legally binding agreement like that.

[tingilya.livejournal.com]

Marriage, for me, is defined by the Bible. It doesn't matter what any 'revisionists' want to say. The simple definition of marriage won't ever change for me (and millions upon millions like me), and I won't ever compromise.

[onceuponapillow.livejournal.com]

Amen!

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

In California, civil unions give you just about everything you get from a marriage but that still wasn't good enough for the same sex marriage crowd. They don't really want the bennies of marriage. What they want is to break down any distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

As the kids say these days, THIS.

(Thanks for saving me a post.)

[nisie.livejournal.com]

Because separate but equal has always been the way to go.

[lazypadawan.livejournal.com]

Please note that the institution of marriage was not established purely to screw over gays.

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

In point of fact, for most of the people on the side of retaining the primary definition of marriage that has pertained to humanity since the frakkin' origin of the species i.e. it takes two sexes to dance that particular tango:

It's separate and unequal. As in "apples and oranges"

But like I said: that's one of the beauties of this proposal: it outs the hard-liners and zealots of both sides: people who don't want to simply live peacefully together in a free democratic society; a place requiring tolerance, forgiveness and a willingess to give in take. No. It's "my ideology" Or. Else.

Meh.

[scarletwalk.livejournal.com]

I am ALL FOR civil unions. I believe that gay couples should be able to have the same legal rights as straight couples.

The reason why I'm concerned about legalizing gay marriage, though, is that I don't want to government to dictate the churches (and I'm talking about ANY religion, here) into marrying couples they don't want to marry. If the government did that, then it would go against Freedom of Religion AND Separation of Church and State. That's unconstitutional.

And whenever I bring this argument up, someone professes, "That will never happen!" Puh-leeze. The government is getting bigger and bigger every day. You don't think that politicians would be drunk enough on power to control the churches? They hammer Separation of Church and State into our brains every day, but I'm positive that they would want to control the churches if it worked in their favor.

To sum it all up, I would be 100% fine with gay marriage if I had faith in the government to not control the churches and put them under law to marry gay couples. *sigh* In a perfect world ...

[ithildyn.livejournal.com]

Yes! I'm a spinster, no getting around that fact. My brother is a male 'spinster'. Odds are, we're going to grow old together. If we're dependent on each other for our housing, care. etc., why shouldn't we have the security of each others social security, insurance, legal rights?

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

It's Anne of Green Gables all over again, isn't it? Now all you need is a red-headed orphan girl :-)

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

I am too tired to think the entire proposal through tonight.

But isn't it incredible how the entire world has to be turned upside down and inside out, just to satisfy the desires of a small minority?

Something is wrong here.

Mmmm.... maybe, maybe not

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

There's certainly a strong dog-in-the-manger streak to most of the victims-r-us crowd.

But in fairness to the families involved, the world has already been turned upside down and inside out by the people who brought us the sexual revolution and no-fault divorce. There are plenty of casualties simply trying to live decent lives as best they can. If we can keep the government out of their bedrooms and acknowledge the ones doing their, oh... bother... call it civilizational duty (what a clunker of a phrase)... well. I'd like that.

[nisie.livejournal.com]

When the minority was women, it was a struggle.
When the minority was people of other races, it was a struggle.

Separate is never equal.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Totally diffferent things. This is not a civil rights issue.

This is about a group of people who want to change the definition of marriage - by force, if necessary.

[nisie.livejournal.com]

No- it's about a group of people who want to have the same terminology and the same rights applied to their partner.

Please don't tell me that a series of paperwork will do for a gay relationship- it's a lot of paperwork to have in your back wallet when your loved one suffers a heart attack while jogging. Without that paperwork, access is denied until the person can bring it to the hospital.

[mosinging1986.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm not understanding. Access is denied for what?

Anyway, I'm not getting into a big argument over this. Homosexuals are free to enter into legal arrangements as they wish. They are free to have ceremonies and live together. No one stops them.

This is about marriage being redefined. It is about homosexuals wanting those of us who do not agree with their lifestyle to accept it, by legal force.

I am sorry, but I cannot do that.

[middlegirl.livejournal.com]

I think I'm okay with this proposal. The Witherspoon proposal, that is.

As an evangelical, there is no way I'm going to support a) the repeal of DOMA, or b) anything that equates civil unions to the holy sacrament of marriage. On this I will not budge. However, as has already been mentioned, civil unions in California are already pretty darn close to being the same as marriages, and there isn't anything I can do about that. (I may be evangelical, but I'm also a pragmatist.)

If this proposal gives benefits not only to civil unions (well, lets them keep the ones they already have), but extends them to those elderly, codependent brothers and sisters, then I'd be for it.

[tingilya.livejournal.com]

Just a teeny quibble... Evangelicals don't view marriage as being a "holy sacrament". :)

[middlegirl.livejournal.com]

You are very right, but you knew what I meant, didn't you? :)

[ccr1138.livejournal.com]

The gays won't go for it. Their goal is to get their unions recognized as marriages. Nothing less will do.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

This is excellent. I came to favor the "equal civil unions" thing as soon as I realized that, really, despite glossing-over to the contrary, gay marriage, to its opponents, equaled gay marriage in CHURCHES, and, well, you can't force that any more than you can force all-pork luncheons in a synagogue. It violates freedom to practice your religion. (Why, pray tell, do the liberals not insist on male nuns and female Catholic priests, if they insist gender doesn't matter in love? Surely, then, men and women can love God in exactly the same way? I find it funny that the once-exalted total-gender-equality-at-all-costs theme has been dropped - it really is the Oppressed Group of the Week that matters, isn't it? *sigh*) This outdoes even the traditional "equal civil unions" proposal.

"Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival "marriage-lite" option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages."
Brilliant. Because, if it really IS all about love, why just obsess over only that which involves lust? If they're SERIOUS, then why not just do this? No freedom-of-religion is violated, and it does all that needs to be done to give legal equality to non-marriagable couples.

I mean... they could found their own religion and have it give the religious stamp of approval, if needed. I know that sounds jerkish, but since this is a semi-fandom comm, I feel a tad less silly using the following analogy: If your fanfic has Harry and Hermione as romantic partners, you can't just march up to JKR and insist she make Harry and Hermione a canon couple. (Though gad knows some fans seem to FEEL as if they could... XD) You have to put an Alternate Universe stamp on the fic. The canon-sticklers will still dislike you and possibly hound you for it, but far less so than if you actually insisted it was canon. Very, very roughly speaking, that's similar to religious affiliations. You can't claim approval of gay marriage is canon in Catholic, evangelical, and probably most other Christian denominations, because it ISN'T. And if that stinks, well, as I mentioned earlier, why's it that you never hear people objecting to the, err, tragic lack of male nuns? :P

"If hospital visitation rights and Social Security survivor benefits are appropriate for two cohabiting men who have demonstrated long-term commitment and care, does it matter whether they are sexually involved with each other? Wouldn't those benefits just as well serve, say, two elderly, codependent brothers? [...]
Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions' goals or, thus, eligibility requirements."
And that just makes me go "AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW". Because, really, this is a great point. If love is love, why do we concentrate only on the type involving the genitals? Equality for all, yes? <3

I truly love this proposal. It manages to give civil rights without stamping on religion's toes, and does one better. I mean... I feel GUILTY for not thinking of the platonic-relationship version, because it kind of shows me out for a shallow idiot. *winces* I mean... some platonic friendships and family relationships go far deeper and endure longer than some 'love matches'. So why not recognize them for what they are? Yes. Very good.

*applauds* May this become reality! :D

[sekhmetsat.livejournal.com]

they ARE arguing for female catholic priests... several male priests have been excommunicated for giving Holy Orders to women.

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

...Oh.

...Still, I don't see them arguing for male nuns... right? :D;;

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Ever since this debate started, I've had the image in my mind of Anne of Green Gables and her adopted parents Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert. That's a family, right?So why not reform the law to recognize families like that?

Husband and wife, raising kids: that's the U.S. model for raising citizens fit for a free democratic republic. It works. So why not support legally and socially, families that model themselves after this standard? You get to acknowledge that yes, a standard exists, but it's not an idea world, and good is usually better than holding out for perfect.

[mockingbird39.livejournal.com]

I quite like the proposal on its face. Sometimes, joining your life to someone else's has nothing to do with sex, and those unions perform a lot of the functions a marriage is supposed to - and thus provide a lot of the same benefits to the state, which is why marriage is good for individuals *and* the state.

However, when Hawaii voted down same-sex marriage in the late 90s, they instituted a reciprocal benefits law with (as far as I can tell from the article) all the same benefits as the above proposal. It wasn't civil unions or domestic partnerships, per se, but it afforded the same type of benefits from hospital visitation right down to car insurance. In practice, it didn't get used much, but it was supposed to take the teeth out of the "but I can't visit my partner in the hospital!" arguments - which, IMO, are only effective emotionally because nearly every benefit couples get from marriage can be obtained separately under the law. You just have to draw up and file some papers - something most couples do anyway, if they're going to get married.

But now, ten years later, the activists are at it again and trying to push legalization of same-sex marriage through the legislature without a popular vote. So it didn't end up satisfying anyone, really, and it's a shame because on its face, it looked like really good legislation.

[ohinternets.livejournal.com]

this still reeks of separate but equal in sheep's clothing. Neither side will ever go for it.

As a disenchanted Libertarian, I favor doing away with marriage as a legal institution altogether. Civil unions for everyone with the same tax/ health/ legal benefits for any two consenting adults (polygamists, sit down - there are legal complications that arise when 2 partners get to quibble over, say, the estate of a third).

Individual churches and/or local communities can decide for themselves whom they will and will not acknowledge as "married."

It amazes me how many of my fellow evangelicals rush to shoehorn government rule where it doesn't belong, when it's in their favor.