How to Avoid an Intractable Gay Marriage Debate

By: David Peyton

The gay marriage debate is heating up and fuming steam in two opposite directions. On the one side, gay rights activists are calling for full marriage rights for same sex couples while religious conservatives maintain strict opposition. At a recent Brookings Institution event, guest scholar Jonathan Rauch warned that we are headed toward a “scorched earth” debate in which both sides fight for all-or-nothing positions, similar to the abortion debate.

As America becomes increasingly polarized, is there a way to avoid an intractable and divisive debate about gay marriage? Yes, according to Rauch, who has found an unlikely ally in the gay rights discussion, David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values and author of The Future of Marriage. Both scholars take very different stances on gay marriage but have devised a compromise that they argue will give America the necessary space for a courteous and healthy public debate about the topic.

The Blankenhorn-Rauch proposal would grant civil unions to same sex couples in exchange for guaranteeing the right of religious groups’ to opt-out of recognizing them. This means that same sex couples would receive the same federal entitlements conferred on straight couples – Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. In turn, religious groups would receive federal protections if they refused to recognize same sex unions. Religious houses of worship would not be obligated to participate in commitment ceremonies for same sex couples and could refuse to participate in any activities involving same sex couples that they find objectionable. In the hypothetical, if a photographer objected on religious grounds to taking pictures at a same sex commitment ceremony, he/she could refuse to offer photography services without being sued for discrimination.

The proposal is modeled in part after the federal exemption offered to doctors who object on religious grounds to performing abortions. According to Blankenhorn and Rauch, “If religious exemptions can be made to work for as vexed a moral issue as abortion, same-sex marriage should be manageable, once reasonable people of good will put their heads together.”

Both Blankenhorn and Rauch admit that their proposal is not perfect, but think it nonetheless creates the necessary policy space for a constructive discussion. “In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society.”

They did not design their compromise to solve the issue, but to buy America time to thoughtfully and cordially make tough decisions about marriage and same sex relationships. While it leaves neither side completely satisfied, it may be an important step in decreasing the chasm that has emerged between Americans on opposite sides of the debate.