Tomorrow is the deadline from the Massachusettes Supreme Court for the legislature to legalize homosexual marriage in the state. The position of supporters of homosexual marriage is that it is a civil right, just like voting, or public education, or freedom of religious expression, etc. The position of most opponents is that marriage is inherently a heterosexual institution - through thousands of years of precedent - and that therefore homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. Others attack the ruling on moral terms, claiming that America is moving down the road of the declining pagan Roman Empire - leading to the inevitable conclusion that America will go FALL if we continue down this road. Everyone is a radical on this issue, and no one is looking for a middle road.
The issue of the appropriateness of a legal joining of same-sex couples is following the same course that abortion rights hit with Roe-v-Wade. Prior to that decision, America was having a spirited but civil discussion about the morality of abortion and the needs of single mothers and rape victims. Opponents of abortion were willing to concede that single mothers and rape victims needed a solution. Proponents of abortion were largely willing to concede that abortion was inappropriate as simply a form a birth control. The legislatures were battling out the issue in the arena of ideas and a compromise would have been reached - in time - which would have defused the issue for most and lead to few abortions (something which even John Kerry claims is a laudable goal). Instead, Roe-v-Wade interrupted the democratic process and
imposed a one-sided solution to the issue - complete legalization and no restrictions on abortion - which radicalized both sides and has interfered with any chance for compromise to this day.
Same-sex marriage is on the same collision course today with the Massachusettes decision. Prior to the interruption, both sides were debating vigorously but a vibrant middle was beginning to form. Opponents of homosexual marriage were willing to concede that it would be in the interest of the state for some consideration to be given to same-sex couples. For example, ensuring that a such couples could have next-of-kin status for notification after deaths on 9/11/01. Likewise, proponents were willing to consider legal arrangements not called "marriage" in order to achieve their goals. Now, another Supreme Court has stepped in and both sides have been radicalized. Opponents can not give an inch and must push for a Constitutional Ammendment, because no other solution is guaranteed to be effective. Proponents can not give an inch, because the current decision allows for no compromise.
Must we become a nation so polarized on issues that the so-called Red and Blue States are always at each other's throats?While I know others who post here feel differently, my own opinion is that civil marriage is
not a right, but a social arrangement which society has recognized as beneficial. Like a Corporation or a Charter School, it looks to formalize a relationship of peoples for the betterment of society, and specifically the production and raising of children. As such, Marriage is
not an issue of equality in the eyes of a governing body. It is not like race, religion, or other facts of life which are beyond government and based in natural rights. As such, government has the ability
but not the obligation to extend this arrangement to same-sex couples. I think the natural compromise is a new arrangement for couples
not called "marriage" which extends limited rights for next-of-kin notification, inheritance, and others as needed. To further assuage conservatives, just be sure that two elderly women living together for mutual support - with no sexual component - can also take advantage of this kind of arrangement.
