As I said, “the Internet is abuzz today“. There were many, many commentaries, including mine, below, on the Tmes’ Op-Ed, “A Reconciliation On Gay Marriage“. What I found fascinating is there were so few in favor of it. My own piece, An Embarrassing Reconciliation On Gay Marriage, has some strong misgivings and questions the authors’ motives. It seems I’m not alone. Here are some excellent responses to the piece, both from blogs and from comments to blogs. An assortment.
Over at Episcopal Cafe, the Rev. Sarah Flynn leaves this comment:
“What this proposal is is really a surrender. Conservatives know they are losing the battle even in spite of Prop 8, and are suing for the best terms possible in the face of inevitable defeat. …Â Gay and lesbian people should not bargain away their right to full equality in this society for the sake of a false and unjust peace. There is no need to make a bargain with the devil for the sake of second hand citizenship in our own country. We should see this proposal as really a recognition by the Right that they are ultimately going to lose this issue, and not be deterred from finishing what we have begun at such cost and effort.”
Josh Becker at NYU Local writes,
“…ignorant assumptions about broad swaths of American minorities is equally dangerous, as is the arrogant assumption that your own prescription for what’s proven to be a thorny legal and moral issue is the only “reasonable accommodation†available.”
Georgetown Law Professor Nan Hunter adds these important observations,
“…if federal law is going to continue to follow state law for the purpose of defining who is eligible when a federal program requires marriage, then it should recognize as marriages – not as civil unions – the Mass and CT and other same-sex marriages that are legal under state law. Following the status recognized by the state has always been the federal approach.”
It was striking to me that the op-ed completely omitted any discussion of the impact when non-church (etc) entities – like charities or hospitals with a religious affiliation – accept public funds. When all of our tax dollars are supporting these organizations, then all of us have a legitimate concern about the services they provide.”
And, this, from Doug Mataconis at The Liberty Papers:
“Modern marriage is a civil institution governed by the state, so long as that is the case then the state has no right to discriminate against people when it decides who is and is not entitled to claim the benefits of that relationship.”
Rottin’ in Denmark writes,
“First they hated you because you were going to molest their kids. Then they hated you because being gay was a choice and a sin. Then they hated you because you were promiscuous. Then they hated you because you wanted to settle down. Now they hate you because you’re the bigot, potentially restricting their freedom to teach their kids that your nature makes you a cancer on the human race. Tomorrow they will hate you because you put mustard on your French fries, or because you pushed ‘Avenue Q’ into profitability.”
Pam Spaulding at Pam’s House Blend makes an excellent point, one that I have been espousing here as well. “The law leads”. Well, it should.
“…the law leads, not follows the people when it is a contentious issue. And even when the law extends civil rights, that doesn’t mean the public is ready to or willing to accept that change. We’re clearly still fighting race-based civil rights issues, and that reflects a society that has not fully matured on the matter. It will be no different as LGBTs win civil rights, one by one.
In making compromises to tamp down the conflict that make Blankenhorn and Rauch so uncomfortable, we all must go in with our eyes open that the impact of compromise may have unintended consequences that may take years to extract ourselves from by creating a separate and unequal system. Is it worth the price? Â In Blankenhorn’s and Rauch’s compromise, it brings a host of rights to couples unable to obtain them because of the laws in their states. By rejecting compromise and working incrementally, those in states with few or no rights remain second-class citizens at any level for who knows how long (before the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately decides the matter).”
Lastly, SanFranCal via Topix commented,Â
“Reread the entire article, substituting the adjectives “same-sex” and “gay” with “inter-racial,” and you’ll see how insulting and blatantly discriminatory this so-called compromise is.”
**Late Edition Update!**
I really liked what Good As You had to say as well:
“Here again, we have church fears and desires casually tossed around as if they, in terms of American government, are interchangeable with testaments toward civil fairness. And once again the tone suggests that just because churchesdesire something, that they are automatically deserved of it. That’s a very dangerous concept. And not only for LGBT people, but also for any group that might at any time find themselves within cross-wielding crosshairs.”
“Yes, we still have work to do to get the president and the American public fully on our side. But you know how not to do that? By ceding ground on a matter that we know within our loving hearts and learned minds is nothing short of right!”