David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch co-wrote an article recently in the New York Times called, “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage”. I have linked the full article above and excerpted the first three paragraphs word-for-word below:
IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now.
It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.
Please take the time to read the entire article, since it provides their justification for this proposal – and because I think it is very well written, regardless of agreement or disagreement with particular points in it.
My question is very simple:
Would this compromise work – for both “sides” of the issue? Could you personally accept it? Do you think those with whom you disagree would be able to accept it? Why or why not? Which group would have a harder time accepting it – and why?
If you think this would not work, is there a different compromise that you think would work?