About a year ago, in February, 2009, Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn came to a public suggestion, well intoned, that one way to prevent religion from intruding on the public square in America in untoward ways would be to have Federal civil unions and robust religious-organization exemptions, that is, special conscientious-objector-at-large rights for the putatively devout.
Of course, they didn't put it that way... But, let us here not mince words. Gay couples are not the moral equivalent of war. (I'm ignoring, of course, those who believe they are worse - and make no mistake, that's not hyperbole).
A year later, what have we found out? Two things.
Religious exemption protections, no matter how sweeping, are not enough to quell opposition.
Every single other Republican voted the bill down.
Antigay Catholic bloggers indicated that they had received a back-channel communique to cast doubt on such protections. Indeed, the only "protection" they want is freedom from married gay or lesbian couples. Period. (I mean, at least for those who bother to voice an opinion at all).
As for civil union, the case for gay marriage continued to crystallize, as across the spectrum of political thought many nongays began to wonder aloud why on earth our social institutions couldn't be made to conform to what are obvious truths: gays are okay and meant for each other, gay kids have a right to full affirmation, and married gay parents couldn't possibly bring the downfall of society, at least not any more quickly than so many other things we face.
Indeed, one year on, it seems that the compromise sought looks like the Hobson's choice variant it is for gays. Even if the Supreme Court soon dooms gays to their own trail of tears, it's unlikely that this Hobson's choice will stand the test of time. I don't mean that as a statement of demographics. I mean it as an obvious injustice, that might will not make right of the situation.
