GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

Since I have one foot on each side of the homosexuality divide in America, I’m perhaps uniquely qualified to propose a compromise on the gay marriage issue that can appeal to enough people on both sides that everyone can live with it.

I am certainly not a big fan of what I am about to propose. I would much rather get to write all of society’s laws about sex, relationships, and the family myself based on my ideas and values rather than to have to consult other people. But in a democracy, I have to consult other people.

The first point I want to make is about tangible and symbolic concerns. Both sides have some of each, and nearly all are legitimate. Gays and lesbians have tangible concerns about losing custody of their children, not being able to visit their partners in the hospital, and not being able to designate various financial and health benefits to go to the person who is most important in their lives. Traditionally religious people have tangible concerns about not being able to use their own values in having their adoption agencies decide which families are favored for adoption and running their fertility clinic in a way that is consistent with their views on parenting. They also have tangible concerns about being able to write, teach, run their businesses, and raise their children using their definition of what a marriage is rather than that of the gay and lesbian community. Those are just a few examples on each side.

There are also legitimate symbolic concerns. They gay and lesbian community is concerned that being forced to use a different term – even if it provides the exact same benefits as in California – gives the appearance that they are second-class citizens. They see no reason same-sex couples shouldn’t be accorded the same respect and dignity by society at large as male-female marriages. Traditionally religious people are concerned that extending the word “marriage” to relationships that are significantly different and which they believe are not right and not even marriages will change the nature of the word as used in the culture away from the way they prefer to use it. They are concerned with the government no longer giving extra prestige to the family format they think is the best for children.

If there was a way to accommodate every single tangible and symbolic concern of the people on both sides, I’d be all for it. But that’s impossible. I think that most people in the middle of this debate would like to accommodate as many of the tangible concerns on both sides, while not being as concerned about the symbolic concerns. So my proposal below, which again is not my first choice, aims at accommodating as many of the tangible concerns as possible, while not putting too much energy into the symbolic concerns.

I think that a compromise that addresses most or all of the tangible concerns on each side, but virtually none of the symbolic concerns on both sides, is good for our democracy, good for gays and lesbians, good for traditionally religious people, good for America.

The only other choice I see before us is some states that accommodate all of the symbolic and tangible concerns of one side, and other states that accommodate all of the symbolic and tangible concerns of the other side. Gay couples and traditionally religious people would need a road map to figure out which states they’d feel most safe in. Is that really a country we want to live in?

So here’s my proposal:

1) Each state that wants to find a compromise on marriage convenes 10 or 25 or 50 passionate but reasonable people from each side. They meet in a conference lasting a few days, and hammer out together two proposals, described below:

2) Proposal A retains the man-woman definition of marriage, but addresses through legislation or constitutional amendment all or nearly all of the major substantive concerns gays and lesbians have about the ways man-woman marriage tangibly hurts them. Hospital visitation, inheritance, and custody would undoubtedly make the proposal in nearly every state, for example.

3) Proposal B implements same-sex marriage, but addresses through legislation or constitutional amendment all or nearly all of the major substantive concerns traditionally religious people have about potential losses of freedom under same-sex marriage. I imagine most such proposals will contain language guaranteeing the right of adoption agencies and fertility clinics and teachers and journalists to use their own definitions of marriage in performing their functions even if it conflicts with the new state definition.

4) Then, both proposals are put on the state’s ballot to be voted on by the voters. The ballot initiative that gets the most votes (as long as it’s a majority) becomes law.

I really don’t like the fact that under Proposal A and Proposal B I get almost none of the symbolic things I’m concerned about. I also don’t like the fact that I either have to lose on what I’m most concerned with (marriage itself) or on a variety of benefits I would prefer not to go to people on the basis of their having a gay relationship. But the whole point of compromise is that each side gives in a little in order to have a whole package that provides the most satisfaction to the most number of people.

The proposal above tries to do that. I am very interested in the reactions of people on both sides, as well as proposals to make the compromise even more fabulous.