It’s not a compromise if one side gets nothing
CommentsThe Sacramento Bee reports:
Meanwhile, two heterosexual Southern California college students — Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright — want to take the state out of the marriage business.
Their proposed measure calls for the term “marriage” to be removed from state laws and replaced with “domestic partnerships.”
Shams maintains the measure would provide equality to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, while preserving marriage as a religious and social ceremony. “This is a compromise,” Shams said. “It says ‘Get rid of marriage as a state institution. Make it a religious institution, keep politics out of it and stop the fighting.’”
This idea, which is hardly new, is not a compromise. Good compromises give both sides a lot of what they want, and leave both sides annoyed that they didn’t get everything they want, but still happy that the compromise is better than the conflict.
How is this a compromise?
The traditionalist side of the argument is trying to preserve marriage, as a state institution. None of us have been talking (publicly) about preserving marriage in our churches and synagogues. And the other side is trying to undermine or destroy the traditional definition of marriage, as a public institution. In fact, I fail to see what “marriage equality” people would have to give up with this “compromise.”
Now, I have proposed a handful of real compromises on this blog. But the marriage-equality folks are never all that interested, because they are so sure of the righteousness of their cause, and their eventual victory, that de-fanging this issue as a matter of public controversy is utterly unappealing to them.
DB: “How is this a compromise?”
Only in the sense that it’s _offered_ as one. I’ve long thought it was a rather clueless offer which misunderstands the typical religious position on marriage (as a religious _and_ public institution), and I’m interested to see you make explicit what I presumed the objection would be.
DB: ‘In fact, I fail to see what “marriage equality” people would have to give up with this “compromise.”’
I think you’ll find that what people who make that offer think they’re trading away is the prestige and rich historical associations of the word “marriage”.
I believe you are missing the point here, this is a compromise in the sense that it protects “marriage” from the possibility of state enforced “same sex marriage” and also allows for equal rights protection by the government. That seems simple to me, I don’t even believe you really address your own question in this blog. It’s not about “marriage” equality, it’s about EQUALITY period.
“I think you’ll find that what people who make that offer think they’re trading away is the prestige and rich historical associations of the word “marriage”.”
I think this is correct. Indeed this is what seems most important in the bid for same-sex “marriage” the “prestige and rich historical associations” that will make same-sex relationship the (hypothetically) the equal of heterosexual relationships.
The problem is the heterosexual relationship of marriage needs every drop of prestige it can get, indeed more than it enjoys at this time. Since most people are heterosexual and only heterosexuals can bear children: then even crude rule utilitarianism will get you understand that we need to preserve marriage NOT make homosexuals feel better.
Anyway European nations show a increase in cohabitation and a plunge in the social prestige of marriage as this trend continues. Same sex marriage is just another link in that chain as so many scholars rightly point out. So the “prestige and rich historical associations” of marriage are subject to diminishing returns. Its like jumping into a sinking lifeboat.
Fitz you are entirely correct, but I’d like to quibble with your phraseology if you’ll allow me. This is one of those things that keeps the issue muddied and hampers discussion (often intentionally):
Since most people are heterosexual and only heterosexuals can bear children
Sure most people are oriented heterosexually, and only heterosexual (sexually) unions can bear children. But comparing orientation to sex is apples and oranges. Homosexually oriented people are just as capable of bearing children as heterosexuals, but of course they also must engage in a heterosexual act to do so.
I know the very thought grosses them out, but it’s still the truth. Orientation has nothing to do with marriage or with procreation. Sex has everything to do with it — and it requires one male and one female.
Procreation is not a valid argument for marriage, because it excludes other groups as well such as individuals with disabilities that won’t allow them to procreate (should they not be allowed to get married either).
The compromise would demote marriage from its preferential status to a merely tolerative status, if that. Merging nonmarriage with marriage would not promote equality. It would not deliver equality. It would smother equality under false equivalences.
* * *
Marty and Fitz: the key is neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality. Not when it comes to protecting families vulnerable outside of marriage; and not when it comes to benefiting the social institution that benefits society.
This is about uniting the sexes. SSM is about falsely equating a “same-sex” category with the “both-sex” category. Of course, the conjugal relationship is only a subset of the both-sexed category of relationships and arrangements.
So the real comparison to be made when discussing any kind of so-called compromise is between the core meaning of the proposed relationship status — call it whatever one wishes.
What is the core meaning of “domestic parternship” that is proposed in the compromise?
We know the core meaning of marriage. It looks like the idea is to knock marriage down several more notches — not just in the law but also culturally and socially. From this I construe the meaning of the compromise to be just that.
In short, I agree with both of you — and with David — that this a non-compromise compromise.
Michael, are you claiming that homosexuality is a medical disability such as infertility? If so, we can talk about it. If not, your point is moot.
Fitz: “The problem is the heterosexual relationship of marriage needs every drop of prestige it can get, indeed more than it enjoys at this time. ”
Very possibly, but what makes you think you can increase it by banning same-sex marriage.
Non-recognition of same-sex unions isn’t about increasing the prestige of marriage — it’s about not diluting it even further.
I think people need to check out the actual legislation submitted. The legal definition of “marriage” doesn’t change, only the word used to describe it. If there is not distinction between “domestic partnership” (I mean they could have called it whatever they wanted) and “marriage” then you aren’t taking “marriage” down, you are bringing up “domestic partnership.” you’re taking away the legal power of the word “marriage” and giving the exact power to another word (in this case “domestic partnership”). Furthermore, it is a compromise, in that those that believe same sex “MARRIAGE” is between a man and a woman have that definition protected from possible reversals of prop 8, and the people excluded by prop 8 could get equal rights. Even if you want to say that it isn’t a compromise, you’re still wrong, in that no side loses anything (you don’t lose “marriage” as a ceremony, and you can still get married, only you won’t get a government license with that word on it)
Thanks George. But by whatever name or structure we use, same-sex “marriage” is about lowering the standard required for a valid marriage, thereby allowing more people to take part in it.
Honestly, the requirements for marriage are very few: a couple must be of age (varys by state), without consanguinity (varys by state), unmarried (50 states agree), and opposite sexed (~48 states agree). That’s it really.
So, what we’re talking about is removing one of the few requirements — lowering the standard — and arguably the most important standard of all. Certainly the most historically consistent. It’s hard to argue with a straight face that the man+woman requirement is not central to the very idea of marriage, or that eliminating it will not reduce the prestige of the institution significantly. Making a case for elminating any of the other 3 requirements would be FAR easier to do.
well I agree with you, and that’s why you can’t have “marriage” in a legal doctrine that is supposed to provide equality for all. Does that make sense? If “marriage” requires that, then fair enough, just don’t put it in a legal doctrine. No one is trying to weaken marriage, this isn’t an attack on marriage, it’s an attempt at allowing “marriage” to remain the way it has been, by simply taking it out of the political realm. And furthermore, if you talk about historical accuracies, one can only look as little back as the civil rights movement, to point out that laws and rules (or requirements of the past) are oftentimes discriminatory and eventually change to provide greater equality.
The Question is this….
Would you rather have “domestic partnership” as the term used in legal doctrine (you can call it whatever you please at home or even have a marriage ceremony at church). Or would you want to keep “marriage” in the state constitution, thereby allowing for the possibility that prop 8 will be over turned (thus allowing “same sex marriage” which completely contradicts the “historical requirement” of “marriage”). And regardless of whether or not this initiative succeeds, prop 8 is going to get turned over sooner or later.
that’s why you can’t have “marriage” in a legal doctrine that is supposed to provide equality for all. Does that make sense?
No not really. Marriage IS equally available to all — all who meet the 4 basic requirements I described.
What you are proposing is changing the name of the legal institution, and removing one of the 4 requirements. Still equally available to all — just with a lowered standard, and arguably lowered prestige.
As for Prop 8, the People of California are as free to repeal constitutional amendments as they are to enact them.
Marty: “No not really. Marriage IS equally available to all — all who meet the 4 basic requirements I described.”
Anatole France had the last word on this sort of thinking: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
Because being gay is exactly like being homeless and poor.
BD: “Because being gay is exactly like being homeless and poor.”
For the purposes yes. In case you missed it, the analogy is about people callously playing dumb about the differential effect of facially neutral laws.
In this case, the facially neutral laws are neutral in effect and in substance.
[...] the government out of marriage” so-called compromise to the SSM controversy. I have said that it’s not a compromise because one side gets nothing. But I’m starting to rethink [...]
CO: “In this case, the facially neutral laws are neutral in effect and in substance.”
Not if you’re gay they’re not.
Gay or not, you can find no gay criterion in the law — not in marriage and not even in gay union.
But maybe you can try to cite such a criterion and maybe you can explain precisely how the law distinguishes “gay” from non-gay.
Israel has a policy that marriages are not properly protected if one of the couple is Palestinian. This may not be technically religiously unfair, but it is likely to have far more impact on Israeli Muslims than on Israeli Jews, don’t you think?
Yes, gay people may marry an opposite-sex partner, just like everyone else. This does not grant gay people equality: not in the real sense of the term.
In Iran, everyone is equally free to worship Allah.
***
To get back to the original post: There are plenty of people (including my own mother) who think that same-sex and opposite-sex unions should be fully equally protected. But, for some reason, they object to applying the word “marriage” to same-sex unions, preferring instead a complete rewrite of the law books.
This proposal would either placate such people, or reveal to them the absurdity of their position. (And my mother’s a very intelligent woman.)
TRiG.