Connecticut tries a new approach

Actually not really a new idea, just a new way to implement it. Gay Patriot has the best comment on the recent move in Connecticut (where I grew up and still have family, btw) to recognize gay civil unions, while simultaneously affirming that a "marriage" is a union between a man and woman.

As the issue of civil unions has become so controversial, surely, state representatives and senators talked about the legislation with their constituents. Perhaps, that is one reason the legislature included the (in my mind) gratuitous provision defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. They may have learned, as "THE HARTFORD COURANT" reported, that many who favor same-sex civil unions, oppose calling such unions marriage.

I don't agree that it is a gratuitous provision, I think its vital. There are time when ambiguity is a very useful thing, but this is not one of them. We need to be clear about separating two issues that many would like to blend. The rights of Gay people to form lasting partnerships and receive similar state recognition and privileges as married couples, is one issue. The definition of "marriage", and recognition that there is a distinct, traditional institution linked to heterosexuality is another. Many people, myself included are happy to see gay people moving away from a shallow, self-absorbed and ultimately self-destructive life-style, towards commitment and lasting relationship. It is very much a step in the right direction and should be encouraged and recognized. I also recognize, as do many I believe, that the institution of heterosexual marriage is so ancient that it defies words, "pre-historic"? It is one of the foundation stones of all human society and is intricately tied to the concept of "family" which is even more important. So there are two separate issues; respecting the rights of gays and encouraging the "maturing" of the gay community, and respecting the ancient importance of traditional marriage and deepening our commitment to family. Two things...and Connecticut has affirmed both. Very good!

As I said, there a re some who want to see those issues confused. There are some who's beliefs will not allow them to support anything that appears to sanction homosexuality in any way, even within the entirely secular world. They would like the state to be actively anti-gay, but the public is not agreeing, at least not in sufficient numbers to win election. There is strong support for a traditional definition of marriage, and linking that issue to this one is one way of keeping gay couples from getting state recognition. The anti-gay forces want us to think that a gay union is an assault on the institution of marriage and family. This is nonsense. These gay couples are among the few in modern society affirming the need for lifelong commitment and monogamy. They hunger for a "family" of whatever sort they can fashion.

On the other side, somewhat strangely, are gay activists who are, just as their opponents claim, trying to launch an attack on traditional marriage. Already some in Connecticut have claimed that it is not enough, and that gay people will not have full equality until marriage is redefined to include gay couples. The term "heteronormative" turned up in a news item from Harvard recently. Wow, that's a big windmill to tilt against. You've not only got the whole of human social history against you, but your fighting biology as well. There is a lot that is flawed in our current, modern understanding of what marriage is, or could be, even within the heterosexual world. I'm disturbed by the level of divorce in the country, and the trivialization of marriage in our culture. In that many heterosexual people don't really understand marriage, in my mind, I find it easy to imagine that most gay people don't understand it either. A gay union, even at its best, may well be nearly equivalent to many of today's heterosexual unions, but it is not an equivalent to what marriage ought to be and perhaps could be again. I, like many others, would very much like to maintain that distinction in the hope that someday we can restore a cultural respect for traditional marriage.

This is a very hot issue in my church as well (Episcopal). It may well tear the church apart, which is an enormously painful thing to contemplate. In both the civil/political debate and the angry shouting within the Episcopal Church, I observe that we are again arguing past one another. Talking about two different things in what appears to be a discussion (or an argument). Its not a discussion, its two long speeches being delivered from a common podium. One side is talking about principles, the other side about people. I came to my thinking about this issue by knowing gay people, including some who are in very loving and long-lasting relationships. At some point, there is an instinct in one that responds to the "wonderful couple", and not the legal or biblical definitions. At some point, the issue is no longer about an abstract "institution of marriage", but about the very tangible people in your community. Robert and Doug, Elain and Alice, people who demonstrate the sort of loving relationship that many of the married couple in your circle could emulate. People who have been together for decades, who are caring for one another in infirmity. Comparing them to the alternative gay lifestyle, the "traditional gay lifestyle" (see Gay Patriot's post) makes it viscerally clear that this is a very good thing.

So we end up with a typically centrist solution. Give the gay couples a solid recognition of their union, and preserve the historical distinction for heterosexual marriage. It satisfies none of the activists but meets the needs of the people and, not inconsequentially, will work.