A sane same-sex marriage compromise?
So many Rhode Islanders flocked to the State House for last week’s gay marriage hearing that the capitol police had to bar the capitol doors. Both sides are dug in deeply on this issue but WRNI political analyst Scott MacKay sees a compromise.
It’s trite to say that compromise is the heart of American democracy. But that doesn’t make it any less true.
Compromise is the reason that Americans haven’t changed governments with guns in the streets since the Civil War. As Rhode Island considers the emotionally fraught issue of gay marriage, this spirit of compromise ought to be paramount.
As is often the case, the House Judiciary Committee hearing shed more heat than light. Statements of questionable veracity were made by both sides. One example by supporters of gay marriage is that equal rights issues are never addressed by referendum. Well in the 1980s, Rhode Islanders voted on a state Constitutional Amendment that would have banned abortion. It went down to a crushing defeat.
And some opponents of same-sex unions would have us believe that no American courts have found a legal basis for supporting gay marriage. But state Supreme Courts in Iowa, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California and Vermont have clearly stated that bans on gay marriage violate equal protection or liberty principles of their state constitutions. Opponents also assert that marriages are designed to be between a man and woman for the sanctity of procreation.
Yet, a straight octogenarian couple in a nursing home can get married, a coupling that surely will not produce children. Gay people have no such rights.
While the Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence is vehemently against gay unions, other Christian denominations, including Unitarians and Congregationalists, support them.
Vermont recognized gay civil unions in 2000 and moved to full marriage rights in 2009. Massachusetts has had gay marriage since 2004. No Catholic church in either state has been barred from teaching Adam and Eve or forced to marry Adam and Steve.
In the recent past, the roadblock to marriage equality was Republican Gov. Don Carcieri, he of the Red State social issue views. Now, with gay marriage supporter Linc Chafee as governor, the ball is clearly in the Democratic General Assembly’s court.
In the House, Speaker Gordon Fox, who is openly gay, supports same-sex marriage. The House probably has the votes to pass a bill, but it won’t be easy and the emotion it would stir up would inevitably affect other issues, including such important business as the state budget.
Across the capitol’s marble hall in the Senate, the gay marriage initiative is problematic. Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed of Newport is against gay marriage but may be open to a civil union bill. This isn’t an easy issue for her either way; the Newport side of her district is heavily Roman Catholic but her Jamestown voters are social liberals who have elected an openly gay state representative, Democrat Deborah Ruggiero.
So the best solution to this dilemma is probably a compromise that will make neither side completely happy, but will accomplish the goal of giving gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
For now, the marriage equality supporters should consider backing away from using the term marriage and settle for a civil union law that gives gay couples precisely the same legal protections as straight families. And the opponents of gay marriage ought to understand that legal recognition of same-sex marriages will promote the family stability and personal responsibility they so fervently profess to believe in.
This is not a fair deal for gay couples, but politics is always, always the art of the possible. And this is a compromise that, for now, ought to win approval and extend Rhode Island’s grand tradition of tolerance to our gay friends and neighbors.
Scott MacKay’s commentary can be heard every Monday on Morning Edition at 6:35 and 8:35. You can also follow political reporting at the `On Politics’ blog at WRNI.org
(sarcasm) Compromise – sure -let’s repeal all marriage laws and call them “civil union” for everybody.
(not sarcasm) Scott, your columns are usually great, but this one’s gone to the dogs. Equal rights are EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMANS.
I agree Ben. But sometimes one has to be pragmatic. I do not believe the bill in its present form can win House and Senate approval and land on Gov. Chafee’s desk.
After reading this column I have come to the belief that you are not gay and do not know or have any respect for anyone who is. If you did you would be placing them in an arena that states that they as human beings are ‘less than, but not equal’ to the heterosexuals you know. I’m all for compromises as long as things move forward but his is not one of those issues. To quote Thomas Jefferson “The best principles of our republic secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights.”
Scott -
I get what you’re saying, but I must say I’m a little surprised to see you support what seems on the surface to be a fair compromise, but is in reality an institutionalization of a second class status. I thought we’d come to a national consensus that separate is never truly equal. Let me buy you a drink and deconstruct your argument? Ian knows how to find me.
Jenn Steinfeld
Very interesting post. First of all, I’m happy to see this issue where it belongs. I’m all for letting people express their support or opposition to gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But letting them go to the ballot box and let majority rule determine minority rights is nothing short of terrifying. Rhode Island and Maryland at the moment seem to be in the same boat. Maryland held public hearings this week on their gay marriage bill, and it stands a solid chance of making it to the governor’s desk.
Second, you’re right, even though I wish you weren’t.
Change will come but it will be incremental. However, we shouldn’t become satisfied or complacent with short-term compromises. It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s only a step. We seem to be moving in the right direction though, and that gives me reason to be slightly more optimistic.
It’s my opinion that everybody should be able to marry, and I hope it’s passed this year.
This column, however, lets the General Assembly off the hook by blaming Carcieri for the lack of a gay marriage law till now. The former governor was up front about his opinion before he was elected and remained consistent (and I’m disappointed that he took the stand that he did).
The assembly passed many laws over his veto; the leadership of he assembly simply took a pass on the issue for the eight years.
Pragmatic Position: My State Senator, David Bates, tells me, “While a civil union would have passed years ago, the leadership is still opposed to calling a union a marriage.”
Just Position: Separate but equal is not equal. Marriage for all!
For now, I am willing to set aside my ethics and pass civil unions. The vast majority of the next generation will accept gay marriage.
My reporting tells me that the votes are unfortunately not there in the House and Senate to push this to Gov. Chafee’s desk. So you are basically correct Paul and so is Sen. Bates.
Problem is, the opponents will not allow civil unions, either. NOM will not accept civil unions, and they will go after legislators who support civil unions just as hard as those who want gay marriage. They will push Paiva-Weed and others who support compromise into a harder line than they take now. You’ll see the legislators who stood against gay marriage but accepted civil unions attacked as traitors.
In for a penny, in for a pound.