Let's Make a Deal: Federal Civil Unions?

Britain's most famous civil partners, David Furnish and Sir Elton John

There's a number of state legislatures currently considering various gay-rights bills, including civil unions and even equal marriage. Mostly it's a lot of talking and hem-hawing that I don't feel a need to report here; you guys can read up on these things in some of the other news blogs that I link to. I'll wait till something major happens to write about.

But over the weekend, the New York Times published a joint op-ed piece , "A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage," written by Jonathan Rauch, award-winning political journalist and author, and David Blankenhorn, a self-described liberal Democrat and founder of the Institute for American Values. Rauch is gay, Blankenhorn is straight. Here's an excerpt, but you really should go read the whole thing:

In politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

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. . . .

Linking federal civil unions to guarantees of religious freedom seems a natural way to give the two sides something they would greatly value while heading off a long-term, take-no-prisoners conflict. That should appeal to cooler heads on both sides, and it also ought to appeal to President Obama, who opposes same-sex marriage but has endorsed federal civil unions. A successful template already exists: laws that protect religious conscience in matters pertaining to abortion. These statutes allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, for example. If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together.

In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief.

But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it.

Well, what do you think, guys? Leaving aside the legal questions and enormous political wranglings, let's imagine for a moment that Congress did enact a Federal Civil Unions Act - and let's imagine further that this meant you and your partner could enter into a civil union anywhere you live in the U.S.A.; and that you would then be recognized by the federal government (but not every state government) and have all the federal-level rights and benefits of married couples.

Would you settle for that, instead of holding out for full, complete marriage equality everywhere, in every state as well as on the federal level?

In the United Kingdom, Parliament enacted a Civil Partnerships Act in 2005, which by all accounts seems to be working just dandy for our Brit cousins. I've done some reading and , and as far as I can tell, the only differences between CP and marriage are these little details:

1. Civil partnership ceremonies cannot be held in a church; they have to be held in a marriage license office, or in some non-religious place (like a hotel or banquet hall) that is licensed for weddings.
2. Civil partnership ceremonies cannot include any religious readings, prayers, or hymns.
3. Civil partnerships are technically not marriages but . . . civil partnerships. Your passport is marked CP, not married, if you have a partner, and so are other legal documents.

However, in every other respect, as far as I can make out, the laws recognize civil partners in exactly the same way that they do married couples; the effect is being married in every way, but without the name. I wonder if some Blue Truck readers from Britain could comment on how well this is working over there; so far, I've not come across any complaints except from the far rightwing religious types, of which they have a lot fewer than we do.

But the U.K. is a much smaller country, and not a huge federal republic of 50 states with wildly differing laws on this subject. So I'm thinking it's much easier to implement the CP thing there than it would be here.

Anyway, what do you think, fellas? As Rauch and Blankenhorn point out, if both sides in this debate won't budge an inch, we have a Mexican standoff. Would you be willing to compromise on the word "marriage" if you got all the rights and responsibilities under another name?

Or should we hold out for the real thing, no ifs, ands, or buts - even though that might take another generation or two to accomplish? Before you answer, you might want to watch this conversation between Rauch and Blankenhorn on the topic:

P.S. - I just realized there's one more little difference between U.K. civil partnerships and marriage: civil partners who tie the knot with a male peer do not get courtesy titles like female spouses do. Which means if you get hitched to Lord Broadbottom, you absolutely do not get to call yourself Lady Broadbottom, no matter how big of a screaming queen you are. You're still just plain Miss Thing.