A Creative Compromise on Gay Marriage

David Blankehorn (president of the Institute for American Values) and Jonathan Rauch (author of "Gay Marriage: Why it is Good for Gays, Good for Straights and Good for America") have come up with an ingenious compromise on dealing with gay marriage at the federal level. Right now any federal recognition of gay marriage is a non-starter. It would never get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate, and Obama (and all the other 2008 Democratif primary contenders) officially oppose gay marriage. Blankenhorn and Rauch propose the following compromise:

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

The religious-conscience protections would function similarly to those that prevent Catholic hospitals from having to perform abortions. They would help restrain some of the more maximalist and litigous organizations on the left that think they can litigate away bigotry. From the right, although many conservatives would prefer no recognition of homosexuality at all, there appears to be a rising understanding among right-wing politicians that gay-bashing is alienating educated and young voters. Officials like Utah Governor Jon Huntsman are staking out a position in favor of civil unions, which even in heavily conservative Utah are favored by a third of voters.

This would allow the federal government to mirror the policies of the various states, and allow a truly federalist policy on gay marriage. States that don't want to do it don't have to, but their opposition won't preclude at least a practical recognition by the federal goverment of gay marriages or civil unions performed in more enlightened states.

My personal choice would be for all levels of government to get out of the "marriage business" altogether. As long as they met basic health and consent qualifications (i.e.- no siblings, no underage marriages, etc.) the government would only sanction civil unions for both gay and straight couples. Marriage would go back to being a social/religious compact between the couple sanctified by their churches, families and friends.