Time for Civil Unions?
At the risk of certain people calling for revocation of my conservative decoder ring, I happen to think Allan Kittleman’s proposal for civil unions is a good idea.
As I’ve explained in the past about my position on gay marriage:
I haven’t fully reconciled the tension between liberty and virtue (order) that this issue aggravates. Anyone who knows anything about conservatism knows that the tension between liberty and virtue is the animating intellectual argument within the conservative movement. One that proves that there is no settled conservative “dogma.”
I tend to fall on the side that says committed homosexual couples deserve the same legal rights as married heterosexuals—visitation, medical decisions, property rights etc… Brian, Greg and I discussed this question over at The Conservative Refuge earlier this year.
However, my conservative temperament leads me to be skeptical of changing an institution that has shown throughout human history to be a fundamental building block of civilized society. I admit that I don’t think that gay marriage will doom the republic, but I will concede that I may very well be mistaken.
It seems to me—at least from the published reports—that Kittleman’s bill would assure that Maryland won’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it comes to recognizing civil rights—marriage excepted. Although I know many of my conservative friends oppose civil unions, I would think the concept would appeal to them, as it is both protects the definition of marriage, and checks the power of the state to interfere in an individual’s private lives.
This tension isn’t limited to Maryland conservatives. See Matt Lewis’ Politics Daily piece on the Family Research Council’s boycott of February’s Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference because of the inclusion of the gay conservative organization, GOProud.
Gay marriage/civil unions also pose problems for Maryland Democrats. Richard Cross deftly points out that opposition to gay marriage is a passionate for African Americans--a key Democratic constituency. Cross also argues that gay marriage may not be the guaranteed certainty it’s proponents think.
It will be interesting to watch how Kittleman’s bill and the gay marriage proposals play out over the legislative session.
However, in the grand scheme of things, Maryland has much more pressing problems, like structural deficits, unsustainable bond debt, corporatism, and a dangerous intolerance to economic liberty. I hope conservatives can coalesce around and fight together on those issues.
7 comments:
THANK YOU! Thank you for being a voice of reason and sanity on such a touchy (and non-starting) issue.
We are talking liberty here, and it is my firm belief that the state (or federal) government should have never been in the business of regulating marriage. Alas, we are there.
I find it asinine for the religious right to argue in favor of MORE personal freedoms, while contradicting itself on this one issue that does not and will not ever directly affect them (unless they are themselves homosexual or have children with such orientation).
As a 20s something person, to me, I personally see it as abhorrent in practice, but my rights stop at another man's door step. I'm not God, and I won't play God, through judgment or political process, which means ALL humans should be afford the same legal means and opportunities as everyone else. Therefore in the big tent party of conservatis
"Although I know many of my conservative friends oppose civil unions, I would think the concept would appeal to them, as it is both protects the definition of marriage, and checks the power of the state to interfere in an individual’s private lives."
This is the key point right here. Why is it our government's business to tell us who can get married and who can't?
I like Kittleman's idea of removing marriage from politics entirely and focusing entirely on civil unions (and allowing homosexuals the same rights as everyone else). We need to start removing government fingers from private pies.
On another note, I am surprised that African-Americans would oppose granting anyone else equal rights. Don't they remember a time when they were looked at as unequals?
I'm just a reactionary but call me stunned at the idea that we should take 5000+ years of human civilization and just can it in order to make people feel good about themselves.
As to the specious argument that government has no business in marriage, nothing could be farther from the truth. Are you seriously saying that you are in favor of polygamy, polyandry, child marriage, marriage of siblings, and on and on.
No, of course not. Very few people are in favor of those things, though I will say for my part I would support polygamy as having a basis in human history long before I'd support the travesty of "gay marriage" or "civil unions."
Streiff,
It's a grossly false analogy to lump gay marriage and child marriage as possessing equal moral standing for the simple reason that one is between consenting adults and one is not.
However take that out and yeah, I for one have zero issue with any of the rest.
Polygamy and polyandry - what one, two, three, or more consenting adults do is their business and stays that away until they violate my freedom to do the same. The fact that some particular combination of persons and genders are united in marriage in no way interferes with or harms the bond I have with my wife.
Marriage of siblings - there is only one halfway reasonable argument against this I am aware of, namely a higher incidence of birth defects. However plenty of other unions are likely to produce children with birth defects and at much higher rates too. Are you really suggesting that people who are HIV positive, mentally handicapped, carriers for various genetic diseases like Marfan's, etc. shouldn't be allowed to get married? Usually it's the Left we're calling out for their ties to the eugenics movement.
First, child marriage,unlike gay marriage, has a history in human culture. Parents in many states are allowed to grant their consent for minors to marry so it is hardly me that is inventing a whole new set of "rights" in support of solemnized sodomy.
I don't know where you got the idea that I support eugenics. That's a pro-abort position.
As your position isn't "conservative" by any stretch of the imagination I don't know who the "we" is that you are referring to.
But let me say this. The next time you attribute to me positions that 1) I don't hold and 2) aren't discussed in my commentary I will mark your account as spam.
Streiff,
The eugenics movement was hardly an abortion only deal. It also embraced forced sterilizations and discriminatory migration policies to achieve it's goal of a genetically superior society, so it's hardly beyond reason to consider limits on marriage as a eugenicist tactic, particularly when the increased incidence of genetic defects amongst children produced by sibling pairings is the chief argument against sibling marriage (and incest between consenting adults for that matter).
Now, if you have some other, entirely different argument against sibling marriage then I apologize and would be interested in hearing it. However, if your argument is the impact on the children argument, then I think my point stands.
As for the claim of "new rights," recognizing gay marriage isn't inventing new rights. The right to marriage is simply an extension of the right to freedom of contract, a right that has always existed as an individual right, freely exercisable by and between all consenting adults.
Limiting it on specious standards such as sexual orientation is not any substantively different than denying it to people based on race or gender. On the other hand, it is quite common to limit based on age due to the wideheld agreement that children are not fully possessed of the reason and awareness necessary to sign contracts.
And that "we" was the broader center-right movement.
You raise some excellent points, Kevin. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post a Comment