Jim Manzi has a longish post up about the
conservative reaction to gay marriage in which he makes some
important points. When this issue was first being debated in the
late 1970s, support for same-sex marriage was a fringe position.
Before that, the concept of same-sex marriage was too absurd to
contemplate. Even by the time the issue went national in 1996,
polls showed more than two-thirds of the American were opposed. The
Defense of Marriage Act sailed through both houses of Congress by
something like 5-to-1 margins and was signed into law by Bill
Clinton, the most pro-gay-rights president in history.
A majority of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage. Ballot
initiatives opposing such a redefinition of marriage have passed
almost everywhere they have been put on the ballot and probably
would have passed in Arizona too if the language had been less
broad. Even liberal states have passed such initiatives, usually by
comfortable if not landslide margins. And yet support for same-sex
marriage is not a fringe position anymore -- instead, it is a
position held by upwards of 45 percent of the American people. This
includes large majorities of young voters. In many polls, fewer
people support the federal marriage amendment than support gay
marriage, which may explain why it hasn't done as well in Congress
as the Defense of Marriage Act. Within a minimum of three election
cycles, the Democratic presidential nominee will support full gay
marriage.
Many polls show a majority of Americans supporting civil unions,
including a critical mass of people who oppose same-sex marriage.
As I argue on the main site today, I don't
think civil unions are a workable compromise. It's a middle ground
that abandons the logic of traditional marriage while not
satisfying supporters of same-sex marriage. Ultimately, as we've
seen in California, it just leads inexorably to gay marriage. But
the status quo of a decade ago doesn't seem sustainable anymore
either.
In my view, conservatives ought to support the decoupling of
benefits associated with marriage from marriage itself except where
those benefits are fundamental to the purpose of marriage (e.g.,
related to children and reproduction). That will give people in
untraditional couples most of the benefits they desire without
extending official recognition to their relationships in a way that
undermines traditional marriage. Second, we should seek remove the
Defense of Marriage Act from federal judicial review while
accepting that some states might begin to move toward same-sex
marriage or something like it. This will allow true cultural
federalism on the issue: Massachusetts and California won't be
prevented from doing what they want to do but they won't be allowed
to change marriage in Alabama or Ohio. All branches of the federal
government will stay out of the issue beyond an official
recognition of traditional marriage.
Is such a policy ideal? No. But it's probably the best we can
hope for at this point. And even it isn't a slam dunk
politically.
topics:
Law, Unions
