GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

I’ve expressed in the past my opposition to the “get 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 that.

If the government gets out of the marriage business, and every person and organization gets to decide for themselves what marriage is or isn’t, maybe that’s a compromise that would accommodate my religious-freedom concerns. Why can’t, for example, a caterer only accommodate those weddings she believes are actually weddings? The government has no stance on what marriage is.

If the government has no stance on what marriage is, it seems to me that a lesbian teacher could teach that marriage can be between two women, and an Orthodox Jewish teacher can teach that marriage cannot. Curriculum on marriage and the family can be written by each school district with the guidance of the elected or appointed school board.

I’m not saying I’d support such a compromise. But I would acknowledge that it is, indeed, a compromise.

The anti-gay-marriage folks in Washington state are using the most unfortunate phrase I’ve written in 10 months of op-ed writing. In my second op-ed during that time, which appeared in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I wrote:

Openly gay Washington state Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, and a representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, have both told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent.

While Murray and the Triangle Foundation rep did say that people continuing to behave as if marriage is between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired, and even jailed, they did not say “until they relent.” Murray did refer to Martin Luther King and Gandhi, who were jailed until they relented, but that’s no excuse for the sloppy paraphrase. (Note: it’s not a misquote because I didn’t quote them. It’s a poor paraphrase.)

As soon as this was called to my attention I apologized.

Anyway, the phrase has now made it into a campaign commercial against a gay-marriage bill in Washington state.

I of course like being quoted, but not in this case.

I recently returned from my vacation in Maui (thanks for your patience, everyone!), where I had a chance to observe the debate over the civil unions bill currently under consideration in Hawaii. I was particularly interested in the letters to the editor in various Hawaii newspapers, especially the small ones targeting Maui or even West Maui.

The pro-civil unions side (including representatives of churches) made the point that civil unions are not marriage and will not lead to marriage.

Ah, would that it were so. I’ve demonstrated on this blog and elsewhere that a pro-gay promise that “this will not lead to marriage” is completely valueless if later the measure can possibly be used for marriage. For example:

In Massachusetts, the Goodridge decision was based in part on a law that specifically said could not be used to support gay marriage.

In New York, Gov. Paterson used the SONDA law to recognize gay marriage, despite a clause in the law saying that was not to be done, and a legislative history of promising that the SONDA job-protections bill had nothing to do with marriage.

In California, the gay-marriage Supreme Court decision declared that the gay-marriage side had a lower burden of proof because of the domestic partnership law. This despite the fact that the domestic partnership law was sold to legislators and the public as not being marriage and not leading to marriage.

Thus, in three states, passing gay-rights measures that were sold as “not leading to marriage” led to marriage. And the appalling part is, not a single gay-rights leader (except me) has objected or apologized. Anything that leads to gay marriage is fair game, even if one has to lie, cheat, or steal to get it.

I’m increasingly thinking that with such wily opponents, it does not make sense for defense-of marriage people to give a single inch when it comes to “special rights” for gay individuals or same-sex couples. The Salt Lake City plan, yes, but that’s not special rights. But civil unions in Hawaii and elsewhere, no, because when we’re promised a measure won’t lead to gay marriage – and then it does – nobody says, “Whoops, that’s not the result we had promised.” and certainly not “We’ll try to overturn gay marriage, for now, and fight fair another day.”