Compromise Bill #3 Gay Marriage
Now I will admit I’m stealing from myself on this (I’ve mentioned this before in a previous blog and in my upcoming book Republicans and Reincarnation) but this is exactly the kind of compromise I’m suggesting the GOP make to ensure that it comes out ahead with the American public.
Republicans need to drop this defense of Marriage/against gay marriage bull. Really it helps no one. Marriage isn’t weakened or strengthened because of laws. It might be because people are no longer shamed in public for divorce, but you really don’t want to start legislating how people should be ashamed. That would be a Pandora’s Box you would never even want to conceive of opening. Ever!
Marriage is a beautiful institution. But strangely enough it’s a religious institution. What is the government doing regulating a religious institution? What is it doing giving tax benefits for a religious institution? Giving property and inheritance rights for a religious institution? I may not have the truly psychotic interpretation of the wall between Church and State that those idiot Atheists do, but this does seem to be intruding just a little too much of State intruding on Church. So here is what I propose:
We change every single reference to marriage in all law (from federal down to the most local) to civil unions. Any two legal adults, who are not related by blood, can engage in a civil union. You are allowed to engage in a civil union with only another legal adult. (I also assume there will need to be some kind of provision of living at same residence).
Doesn’t the “not related by blood” thing show I’m just making this marriage by another name? No. Most of the benefits that those proposing for gay-marriage (inheritance, custody of children) are that courts already give preference to family members.
Marriage will return to being a religious institution. If you can get your priest, rabbi, minister or whatever to marry you, great! If you don’t want to be married but just the civil union you can. Or vice versa.
Now we will have some changes come about in the way health care is dealt with. There can be no laws about forcing health care providers to give health care to the other partner of a civil union (If you want to have laws forcing coverage for the children of someone who gets coverage, the capitalist in me still has problems with this, but I also realize I can’t upset everything at once). However, it would be good business to offer rates for partner at reduced prices, which I’m sure will happen as the companies that offer such an incentive will have better business (especially since it would encourage people to have a civil union partner, which it has been shown in study after study that if you live with someone, even if you aren’t intimate you have fewer health problems).
For the same reasons there need to be really good tax incentives for entering into a civil union. I mean spectacular tax incentives. Why? Well to still encourage people to get married with is good for society as any social scientist will tell you. But this will also encourage people who are not married to get at least become better friends with each other, which is also an exceptionally important part of society (and becoming somewhat lacking in the modern world).
Now will business partners or roommates get civil unions for tax benefits or whatever other benefits come with it? Sure. But, do you really think people aren’t getting married for health insurance, tax benefits, or a green card right now? This may make civil unions a bit of a joke, but it actually won’t affect the strength of marriage in any negative way (in fact people who say they are married will likely have much stronger relationships because now they don’t see failed “marriages” all around them which cause negative psychological effects about their own marriage.)
Marriage is stronger, for the conservatives. Everyone is treated perfectly equal in the eyes of the law, for the liberals. A perfect compromise.