A CALIF. COURT'S CASE AGAINST CIVIL UNIONS: Maggie Gallagher

...Of course, the judge's ruling in favor of gay marriage grabbed the headlines. But ultimately the biggest fallout from the case (which will be appealed) may be hidden underneath: The California court just handed the religious right a powerful new case against civil unions.

Civil unions are the kind of compromise legislatures are good at. For many people, civil unions are the sensible, can't-we-all-get-along middle ground in the gay marriage debate. After the November elections made clear the public's continuing strong opposition to messing around with marriage, some gay marriage advocates urged a tactical retreat, pushing civil unions as the quieter "next step" on the road to gay marriage. Get civil unions. Start calling them civil marriages. After a while the lines blur and people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Besides, with civil unions, they figured the wedge issue worked their way: While a strong majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage, a majority of Americans also tell pollsters they are fine with some form of legal protections for gays and lesbians who enter same-sex unions. Just don't call it marriage.

Why doesn't this compromise work? One reason is that for its passionate advocates, gay marriage isn't really a debate about benefits. (In Connecticut, gay rights groups recently angered Democratic legislators by initially opposing a state civil unions bill under consideration there.) If this were a debate about benefits, democratic compromise could work its magic. A little horse-trading here and there, everybody goes home happy. But gay marriage is, heart and soul, a debate about the meaning of marriage and who has the power to confer this meaning.

A second reason is becoming hard to ignore: Increasingly, pro-gay marriage judges won't let you compromise, as the California case makes clear. ...

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts -- separate but equal," the judge wrote.

In fact, the judge went even further: "The existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples. ... The state's position that California has granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well."

more
posted by Eve at 3:09 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home