Compromise Without Merit
In the June 6th issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru opines that the public debate over traditional marriage and its bastard children (same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) should be steered in a different direction. Ponnuru argues that both sides could agree that the benefit structure that has been legally created for traditionally-married couples (i.e., hospital vistation rights and bereavement) should be extended to same-sex couples. His premise:
[T]he issue of benefits can, to a large extent, be separated from the issue of the legal recognition of relationships.
And the issues should be separated. There is no very good reason that many of the incidents of marriage that remain on the books should be tied strictly to marriage. To the extent possible, they should be extended more widely. Liberals and conservatives, supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage alike, should be willing to support this extension.
Ponnuru argues, in a follow-up piece, that the piece-meal giving of benefits to same-sex couples “is worth doing on the merits.”
What Ponnuru fails to acknowledge is that the meritoriousness of the benefit derives from the marriage relationship itself. It is the marital bond that our state and federal legislatures seek to encourage and sustain in granting the benefits or incidents of marriage. The State doesn’t support marriage merely because the conjugal relationship is the traditional familial structure, but that heterosexual couples foster benefits to the State and society that cannot be replicated in other non-traditional relationships–particularly child-rearing.
The problem with a compromise on benefits is the explicit acknowledgement by the States or Federal government that homosexual relationships are worthy of supportive recognition. The family is the bedrock of any society. Our representative governments need not further fracture the family by encouraging the coupling of its citizenry who cannot procreate or provide the optimal environment for the growth and development of children.
The debate over same-sex marriage and subsequent legal battles will continue at a torid pace. As Maggie Gallagher wrote in response to Ponnurru, any compromise will not placate the gay radicals. Ultimately, there will be a constitutional amendment protecting the traditional defintion of marriage–between one man and one woman–or, same-sex marriage or civil unions granting all benefits of traditional marriage will be imposed by judicial fiat.
June 11th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Thanks for the comment. I think, however, that the option I outlined avoids any “explicit acknowledgment by the States or Federal government that homosexual relationships are worthy of supportive recognition.” That’s part of what commends the option as a limited compromise. Also, I think that the notion that the government “encourages” marriage in some important sense by tying hospital visitation rights to it is empirically shaky. Do we really believe that reconfiguring that benefit would damage marriage?
June 11th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Ramesh, thanks for the comment. I believe that the mere extension of benefits is an explicit (perhaps implicit) acknowledgment by government of a same-sex relationship. In other words, creating a benefits package for same-sex couples indirectly legitimizes those relationships. Over time, this mini-legitimization might create enough pressure to extend even more benefits and ultimately lay the foundation for legalization of same-sex marriage.
I agree with you that the tie between the benefit of hospital visitation rights and traditional marriage is shaky (at best). On its face, granting same-sex couples the right to visit one another in the hospital would not deter individuals who would otherwise marry from marrying or substantially weaken marriage. However, my fear rests in the misuse of any benefits granted to same-sex couples to gain an advantage of a “benefit tradition,” that would enable same-sex couples five to ten years down the road to argue for supportive recognition (i.e., same-sex marriage).
June 13th, 2005 at 11:48 am
But Tank (if I may be familiar), the government wouldn’t be (under the proposal I outlined) “creating a benefits package for same-sex couples” qua same-sex couples. It would be decoupling various benefits from marriage and extending them to all sorts of couples. It would be as though the government had allowed only married couples the right to co-sign loans and then extended that right to any co-signer a signer chose. Some of those co-signers may be lovers, some not. If a benefit extension is done in this way, I think the slippery-slope concerns you raise would be less powerful.
June 13th, 2005 at 7:05 pm
Ramesh (and yes you may be familiar), I agree that decoupling marriage benefits to “all sorts of couples” (as you cogently argued in your proposal in NR) in lieu of exclusively granting such benefits to same-sex couples weakens the argument that same-sex marriage advocates would make based upon a benefit tradition.
However, in my view the effectiveness or persuasiveness of a benefit tradition-type argument would not be based on its granting of marriage benefits to all couples–lovers or non-lovers. Rather, same-sex marriage advocates will emphasize the longevity of the benefits given and that originally those benefits were exclusvely tied to traditional marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates could care less that other couples are co-recipients of any marriage benefit.
I am hopeful (painfully so) that the legality of traditional marriage will be resolved through the legislative process or “We the People,” rather than the courts and that any State in the Union could block homosexual marriage and/or categorically refuse to recognize such marriages without Federal intrusion. However, if same-sex marriage is constitutionally resolved by the courts (particularly the U.S. Supremes), supporters of traditional marriage will require many argumentative arrows in their quiver to persuade a socially-liberal Court to uphold heterosexual marriage. In some States a few marriage benefits have already been decoupled (e.g., adoption rights). If more feathers fall off the marriage benefits arrow than remain affixed, that arrow will not shoot straight, leaving traditional marriage advocates fewer arrows to hit the bull’s-eye and thereby save marriage.