Not surprisingly, Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn’s NYT op-ed on finding a compromise on the issue of gay marriage inspired a few Letters to the Editor. In fact, today’s entire NYT letters page is devoted to them:
February 25, 2009 Letters
Is ‘Marriage’ Subject to Compromise?
To the Editor:
Re “A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage,” by David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch (Op-Ed, Feb. 22):
My partner and I are getting married this summer (in Massachusetts, of course). One of my dearest friends is an evangelical Christian and does not support same-sex marriage. Knowing her feelings, I told her that I would not be hurt if she didn’t come to the wedding. To my surprise, she said she planned to attend. When I asked why, she responded, “I want you to be happy.”
My relationship with my friend has convinced me that it is possible to arrive at a compromise on the issue of same-sex marriage. I’m concerned, though, that the compromise David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch suggest would create another “separate but not equal” situation.
The way to prevent marriages and civil unions from becoming a two-tiered unequal system is for the federal government to establish a category called “civil union” available to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. I believe that given the choice, many heterosexual couples who are not religious would choose civil unions. And heterosexuals like my friend who are religious and want to be recognized by their religious organization would continue to choose marriage.
Denise Danford
Media, Pa., Feb. 22, 2009To the Editor:
I know and like Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn (and Mr. Blankenhorn happens to be my boss). But their proposal does not address my central concern about same-sex marriage: that such a redefinition requires also that we redefine parenthood, saying only that children need two parents but not necessarily their mother and father.
Such a move, I fear, could further undermine already weakening social norms, which say that mothers and fathers, most of whom are heterosexual, should stick with each other and the child, for the child’s sake.
This concern is not a “religious” one.
Elizabeth Marquardt
New York, Feb. 22, 2009The writer is vice president for family studies, Institute for American Values.
To the Editor:
I believe that if only we would have trusted the democratic process instead of judicial fiat on same-sex marriage, most states by now would have enacted the necessary legislation. Eventually, the rest would tag along rather than remain bonded to an injustice. Most Americans today accept civil unions with equal rights for gays.
It takes time, understandably, to accept a radical change in an institution that has been universal - marriage between a man and a woman - for thousands of years and which probably evolved for the protection of offspring.
Marriage reinforces romantic love and commitment, and gays should not be denied this all-too-human need and right. And surely it will come, I hope much sooner than later. But judicial imposition will only delay this process, along with unjustifiable but perhaps inevitable rancor and resistance.
Thomas A. Edelman
Santa Monica, Calif., Feb. 22, 2009
