There’s an interesting discussion going on at the Family Scholars Blog. David Blankenhorn – one of the leading opponents of marriage equality – has in the past favored hetero-only marriage but with “civil unions” for same-sex couples. But now he’s changed his mind, deciding (correctly, in my opinion) that civil unions would actually weaken marriage as an institution:
The third reason is that, as this story suggests, creating a two-tier marriage system — official marriage and sort-of marriage — is likely to accelerate rapidly the weakening of marriage as social institution. The whole marriage idea becomes slightly ridiculous, and more and more people just opt out, with official marriage becoming sort of like the Church of England — much rigmarole and lots of official pews, with no parishioners in them. I used to think that some version of civil unions was a reasonable, let’s-all-live-together compromise solution. But the more I look at it, the more it looks like a slow-moving disaster.
David now seems to be leaning towards “disestablishment,” AKA “leave marriage to the churches” – the proposal that the government provide only “civil unions” and provide them to same- and opposite-sex couples alike. Marriage would lose legal significance; couples could get “married” instead of or in addition to getting, er, civil unionized, and churches could choose for themselves which couples to perform weddings for. As David writes:
From a marriage equality point of view, either disestablishment or “redefinition of marriage” (by which David means “legally recognized same sex marriage”) would be acceptable, and none of the other solutions are. Both of them give equal legal rights and recognition to same-sex and opposite-sex couples, which is (I’d bet) the main goal of most marriage equality advocates.
(In the past, I’ve gone back and forth between calling myself a “SSM” proponent and a “marriage equality” proponent. However, it makes no sense to say that you’re in favor of SSM, therefore you want to disestablish marriage from the law. So the term “marriage equality” makes more sense.)
I do wonder, however, if David’s goals are really better served by disestablishment than they would be by legal SSM. David’s co-blogger Tom Sylvester wonders the same thing:
Because of the separation of church and state, discussing religion publicly is often seen as inappropriate. Would the same thing happen to marriage?
And wouldn’t leaving marriage to the churches result in a “redefinition of marriage” anyway? Some churches would have same-sex marriage, some will even have polygamous marriages. So there would be one civil union, and many types of marriage. Why not just have one type of marriage? And for Americans who aren’t connected to a church, would they only get “civil unionized,” and not “married”?
I’ll have to think about it more, but disestablishment still strikes me as “closing down the pools.”
Although David may or may not think of himself as on the side of “marriage equality,” I think his change of position puts him (tentatively) on our side; so, hooray! (I also have to say, it speaks very well of David that he has the intellectual flexibility to change his mind; I’m not aware of any other major voice in the debate who has done so, on either side of the debate.) There’s interesting back-and-forth between David and Tom at Family Scholars Blog; to read the whole thing, start with David’s initial post and scroll upwards..
In a way, though, we already have a situation where there are government “civil unions” and “marriages” that are religion-only. We just refer to those “civil unions” by the name of “marriage”. My guess is that even if you change the name, people will still call them “marriage”, so what’s the difference?
I’m not sure I understand your question, Amanda. Are you asking what the difference will be if the government has one form of union for everyone, and calls it Civil Union, instead of marriage? And the difference between what, that and the status quo? Well, for one thing, you can’t get civil unions, or any sort of union, for gay couples, in most places in this country. So that’s one. Assuming you could, though, and Civil Unions were exactly the same as marriage, but only available for gay couples, (or, rather, marriage was only for straight couples,) then it would be removing the “separate but equal” stigma, along with the second-class citizenship issue. Legally, it might also make a difference for adherence to “full faith and credit,” but that’s still up for debate.
Disestablishment is what the radical feminist agenda has been fighting for from day one. It will, and in their eyes should, destroy the “oppresive patriarchical family unit” once and for all.
SSM was always just a ruse to get the camels nose under that tent, and the truly committed homosexuals who bought into it will be in for a suprise when the “marriage” they fought so hard for winds up being as worthless as all the rest.
Kill the patient to cure the disease…
Well that’s certainly a novel version of the good old slippery slope…
It’s all part of the Radical Feminist Conspiracy. You know, to take over the world and stuff. I honestly believe they need to take out the Gnomes of Zurich before they can accomplish anything of any substance in that direction.
(Note: The preceding was sarcasm.)
Nothing novel about it. What they used to call the “radical” feminist agenda has never made any secret about its desire to shatter the so-called “traditional family”, nor is it any suprise that their stated goal of redefining gender stereotypes makes them a natural choice for championing GLBT issues.
If you truly think the push for SSM is not about destroying the institution of marriage, you’re just being naive.
I’m sorry Marty, but ever since the radical feminists angered the trilateral Bavarian New World Order High Council by severing their ties to the South American Odessa Nazis and the Theurgic Fraternity of the Bermuda Triangle they just haven’t been able to throw their weight around like they used to.
Sigh, remember the good ol’ days when the radical feminists used to clash every other day with the Elders of Zion over who would decide the fate of WASPS? Massive computer hacking operations, Poisoning, brainwashing, ancient Sumerian documents, hidden clauses in the constitution, JFK, forbidden Masonic rituals… that was conspiracy at its finest! Now it’s all about the Fashion Industry Cabal and its cotery of male model assassins, which is such a yawn…
Naive? Show me the proof Marty. I look at Denmark and see that 15 years of SSM has not affected the “institution of marriage”. What do you see there?
Besides which, the Gnomes of Zurich aren’t going to allow the destruction of the institution of marriage. Marriage is too important to their view of world economics.