February 25, 2004

A Compromise

How about this for a compromise in the gay marriage debate: end state sanctioning of the concept of "marriage." Instead, have the state recognize homosexual and heterosexual "civil unions" with all rights and privileges that marriage previously had. Let churches, mosques, and synagogues determine what a marriage is and isn't. It treats all couples as equals before the law. The religious institutions decide what a marriage is and isn't. The separate-but-equal argument gets tossed out the window. What this compromise does is keep marriage as a sacred, religious institution while recognizing committed homosexual couples even if we don't approve of their behavior morally or religiously. Homosexual couples won't go away even if a marriage amendment was added to the constitution.

Three other thoughts:

1. This issue wasn't started by President Bush to inflame the culture war and rev up his Christian conservative supporters. This began with a state supreme court deciding that thousands of years of human history can be ignored to advance radical egalitarianism.
   
2. It's hard to call San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom's action "civil disobedience" when he has governmental power behind him. To compare him to Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and Gandi is absurd.
   
3. How come these same defenders of Newsom didn't come to the defense of wacko tax protesters? Will this issue now "enlighten" them to the immorality and occasional oppression of our tax system? That's real civil disobedience.
   

"Bush Endorses Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage"