CIVIL UNIONS: Maggie Gallagher replies to Andrew Sullivan

[Posted late because of my lameness. --Eve]

On his blog, Andrew Sullivan challenges me to "come out" on the civil unions issue. Well, gee Andrew, you could just read what I've written. (It's all posted on www.MarriageDebate.com).

For example, last fall in the Weekly Standard I pointed out that, while I am not for civil unions, marriage and civil unions are not the same thing, and the FMA should not try to ban civil unions. If asked, I would have recommended that state marriage amendment not try to bar civil unions either. (I'd vote for any of the versions I have seen, however).

Why do I not support civil uinons? I have supported a version of them in the past (after Hawaii for example). I no longer do so, because I have been convinced (by Andrew and William Eskridge) among others that civil unions are just a way station en route to gay marriage.

Most personal, intimate and intrinsically-valued adult relationships are totally unregulated by law. (It's commercial relations the law typically regulates). Why is marriage the exception? The current challenge is to deepen and strengthen our understanding of why marriage (the union of husband and wife) is different from other relationships. There is no alternative, in my opinion, to winning the marriage debate, which includes explaining to the American public, the next generation and I hope even ultimately Andrew himself, why the unique legal treatment of marriage is justified--indeed essential--for the common good, including the good of gay and lesbian people.

Tall order, but that's what we have to do.

A brief comment on one of Andrew's other assertions:

"For what it's worth, I tend to think this is [Bush's] real position, rather than a belated realization that his extremism on this matter has cost him many votes."

Andrew is now living in an alternate universe, if he thinks that Bush's stance against gay marriage is costing him votes. Which is why Bush is now including gay marriage in his campaign stump speech while Kerry is avoiding the issue. If Bush wins, his support for protecting marriage will be an important reason why.

posted by Eve at 6:38 PM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home