The Compromise, One Year Later

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.

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.

A smart Republican State Senator, in New Jersey, proposed and got adopted, as a friendly amendment, that comprehensive, sweeping protections for anything that touches organized religion, even from 10,000 feet, would be "sacrosanct" in law.

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.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...

David Blankenhorn, Amphigory

Well, I've finished David Blankenhorn's The Future of Marriage. I regret deeply that I did not come to it sooner. Despite good personal reason not to, I feel now that I'm late. It requires attention.

What to say? It's as though there are two David Blankenhorns in the same book.

Of course, I cannot see into his heart, so it is difficult, on face, to tell whether he truly believes in the full human dignity of homosexuals or if he is simply so confident that his arguments against them are sufficiently robust that he can permit a false and disarming mini-largess.

Upfront, I can tell you he is very afraid. He's afraid of Judith Stacey. Who's Judith Stacey, I ask? What, you never heard of her either? Just as I supposed. The list goes on, but I found none of the more substantive fears insurmountable. Fear, too often, is the great mind destroyer.

I can also say this upfront, even if - even if - God is working through gays to help nongays think about their marriages, these days, I will reject as false his posited notion of "rival goods" on the question of gay marriage. We'll see, but I suspect that "false" will be the most friendly of terms used.

I might also add this, in charity. Nongays are in disarray, still, not only about their own marriages, but about gay marriage. As hard as it is, gays are going to have to spell it out, line by line, if needs be. In other words, it may not be enough to find fault in rationales for marriage denial, because it appears that there will be an enduring stream of them, yet to be faced. 'Marriage nuts' need something to crack open, something to hang their hat on, from gays. Their imagination and vision are lacking, as to their options on the able to influence outcomes.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...