Jennifer Rubin applauds Rand Paul’s remarks on gay marriage and tells social conservatives to pay attention:
As much as I disagree with Rand Paul on his larger vision on foreign policy, he is worth heeding on marriage. Americans have not bought into the “traditional marriage” advocates (presumably high divorce rates in heterosexual marriages are none of their business?), most especially the claim that same-sex marriage “harms” other marriages. (I confess to never having understood that argument.) Paul is dead right: It is time for conservatives to move on and start focusing on issues that are properly the concern of elected leaders and on which the public actually wants government to act.
This in response to an interview with National Review in which Paul called for civil unions that would give same-sex partners benefits without redefining marriage:
I’m not going to change who I am or what I believe in. I am an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historical definition of marriage. That being said, I think contracts between adults — I’m not for limiting contracts between adults. In fact, if there are ways to make the tax code more neutral where it doesn’t mention the word marriage, then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is. We just don’t have marriage in the tax code. If health benefits are a problem, why don’t we not define them by marriage? Why don’t we say, you have another adult who lives in the house, and a kid who lives in the house can be part of family coverage? Then you don’t have to redefine, and have people like myself, and people who live in the Southeastern part of the country, we don’t have to change our definition of what we think marriage is, but we allow contracts to occur so there is more ability to [make] the law neutral.
If Paul’s remarks seem novel to Rubin, it’s only because she hasn’t been paying attention. As early as 2009, Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis—hardly squishes in the gay marriage debate—had all expressed openness to a form of civil union that could fit with what Paul describes.
These unions would be “available to any two adults who commit to sharing domestic responsibilities, whether or not their relationship is sexual. Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity), these unions would neither introduce a rival ‘marriage-lite’ option nor treat same-sex unions as marriages. Their purpose would be to protect adult domestic partners who have pledged themselves to a mutually binding relationship of care. What (if anything) goes on in the bedroom would have nothing to do with these unions’ goals or, thus, eligibility requirements.”
Rubin wants social conservatives to listen to Rand Paul; she first should try listening to social conservatives. It certainly seems that Rand Paul has been.
March 13th, 2013 | 11:16 am
Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis—hardly squishes in the gay marriage debate—have all endorsed a form of civil unions that could fit with what Paul describe.
I think endorsed is much too strong a word. I note that Anderson and Girgis say the following in a parenthetical remark in the linked article:
Expressing a willingness to accept something in a compromise you yourself propose, especially when it has no chance whatsoever of being accepted, falls far short of endorsement.
March 13th, 2013 | 11:35 am
Civil unions have only come into existence as a stepping stone toward the redefinition of marriage. George/Anderson/Girgis say they can support them if they precisely aren’t that. I understand their argument, but why support something based on reasoning that has nothing to do with the reality of what civil unions are for (unless they are advocating their version of civil unions as a way of stopping civil union legislation, which might very well be the case)?
March 13th, 2013 | 12:16 pm
Please. George’s proposal was neither serious nor offered in good faith – knowing full well that it only offered a benefit to religious conservatives. This article is scant on details and so was Robby George at the time. However, it does seem faithful to Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2009 pronouncement that no form of legal recognition to gay couples was acceptable or permissible.
At its core, a gay couple is not just two adults who want to share housekeeping. It is a relationship that George does not care to understand.
Nationwide marriage equality is inevitable. Dr. George needs a new hobby.
March 13th, 2013 | 12:34 pm
Good point, Mr. Nickol. I’ve updated the post.
March 13th, 2013 | 1:35 pm
The Catholci bishops have historically opposed civil unions, most recently here:
http://www.cocatholicconference.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=95
The bishops consistently opposed civil union legislation in New Hampshire and California as well until same sex marriage started the gaining legislative support we see today.
March 13th, 2013 | 1:35 pm
I do not understand why Robert P. George, Ryan T. Anderson, and Sherif Girgis wish to restrict civil unions to those unable to marry.
In France, civil unions, or “civil solidarity pacts” [pacte civil de solidarité] as they are called, have proved popular with opposite-sex couples, as an alternative to unregulated cohabitation. Thus, in 2000, before their introduction, there were some 300,000 weddings in France. In 2010, there were 250,000 weddings and 200,000 PACSs. On the other hand, they are not open to those already married or pacsés, (a new verb!) nor to ascendants and descendants nor collaterals, up to the third degree (e.g. uncle and niece).
March 13th, 2013 | 5:15 pm
If I understand Michael PS correctly, the French approach is an alternative to marriage that assumes sex between the partners, hence the consanguinity limits. Please confirm or dis confirm, Michael.
As I also understand it, Ryan’s proposal is simply open adult contracts that would have no consanguinity limits as they do not presume sex among the partners.
So these two do not seem quite comparable.
March 13th, 2013 | 5:29 pm
It’s never enough. Recall the old motto of the generation that brought us to this point: “too much is not enough.” The Left doesn’t “settle.” The Church — still sympathetic to the left — has yet to learn this. Which is why for the most part they have yet again taken the antiseptic legal approach — this time to the HHS mandate challenge from this administration.
I wish you luck being “reasonable.”
March 14th, 2013 | 7:00 am
As noted before, the majority of “defense of marriage” amendments passed by the states over the years explicitly rule out such civil unions. It would seem the majority of ‘social conservatives’ have not, in fact, “expressed openness to a form of civil union that could fit with what Paul describes.” Rather the opposite.
March 14th, 2013 | 8:37 am
Ray Ingles
Of course, “civil unions” vary a good deal between different jurisdictions; in some the incidents are all but identical to marriage (except for the presumption of paternity); in others, France being a good example, they are quite distinct. This is one of the reasons they are proving so popular with opposite-sex couples as an alternative to unregulated cohabitation. In 2010, the ratio of Marriages to PACSs was 5:4, and same-sex couples have never accounted for more that 7% of PACSs in any year since their introduction in 2000.
March 15th, 2013 | 2:02 am
Ray, a large part of the reason conservatives have expressed skepticism about ‘civil unions’ is that the whole concept of ‘civil unions’ was deliberately designed to be a gateway to same-sex marriage. We have the 9th ‘Circus’ Court of Appeals saying that if the a state has civil unions, it must also have same-sex marriage. If you pursue that strategy, as gay rights groups have, you should expect conservatives will respond seeking to do what is needed to protect marriage.
March 15th, 2013 | 11:17 am
Mike P. –
It might make sense to call the DOMA amendments banning civil unions a ‘response’… if the 9th Circuit decision you note happened before they were passed.
In reality, the causality appears to be reversed.
March 15th, 2013 | 11:18 am
Michael PS –
Sure, but I was talking about the United States.
March 15th, 2013 | 12:40 pm
Ray Ingles
And even between states they are far from identical; which is why I said “jurisdictions” rather than countries.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact