The Gay Marriage debate is currently at a stalemate. The lines have been drawn and sides have been taken, but the American voter is torn between an institution worth preserving, and laws that could, and perhaps should change. Yet the pundits and activists will have you believe there is no such thing as a "compromise." This is probably true for those who are motivated by hatred of homosexuals, or for those who don't understand the importance of traditional marriage. But those who feed off the culture war on both sides have got it wrong. Gay couples can achieve the social recognition that's central to their aims, and the institution of marriage can be secured if both camps can separate the laws that govern the "accidents" of marriage, and the institution of marriage itself.
The laws that govern marriage aren't necessary tied to an institution that predates the constitution and has belonged to every civilized society for thousands of years. For example, the laws only allow bereavement leave to government employees whose spouse was the deceased don't effect marriage the institution. This could be changed to give greater recognition to any couple who has suffered a death, regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, laws that forbid anyone but a spouse to have hospital visitation rights could give greater recognition to homosexual couples by making these rights blind to the kind of relationship the couples have. These are only some of the potential changes that could be made to laws that govern similar elements of marriage. By making the law more blind to relationship status when it clearly isn't the business of the state, we would be granting greater autonomy for the people and local legislatures to determine rights, and not impacting the true meaning of marriage the institution.
Marriage as an institution has a meaning greater than any law. In a literal sense, this is because marriage predates our laws and our constitution. In a more, dare I say spiritual sense, it is the first and best institution society has to foster unity between the sexes. Society recognizes the benefits of marriage subtly and directly everyday. This institution allows the two sexes of our society to be unified together in every way possible, heart, mind, body, soul, and in spite of any challenge, remain stable to ensure that every child has a loving mother and father. Love is integral to a successful marriage, and through it marriage can incite unconditional acceptance, forgiveness, and complete understanding to the opposite sex and to a child most importantly.
It would be foolish to assume this happens all the time, or to say that every marriage is a successful one. To defend marriage as an institution is not to defend the personal choices that caused people to marry, but to defend what it as an institution stands for. To use another example, we may not agree with those who run our government, but we still stand by the institution of our government because only in doing so can we try and achieve its highest ideals. For this reason, marriage as it has existed in every civilized society for thousands of years, the union of one man and one woman, needs to remain intact.
The polarization of opinion on this issue disguises the reality that many Americans feel just as strongly for social recognition of non-heterosexual couples and the traditional institution of marriage. By inciting such compromises, and coming to consensuses about what marriage really means, we would be doing the institution a great service and securing it for future generations. Truth be told, the benefits to the activists of both sides are more than just a change in the laws and the sanctity of the institution. Many who support gay marriage believe the socially liberal youth will turn the tide of the debate in their favor. Those who believe that here at AU would point to an 89 percent approval rating of gay marriage in the class of '09. If their logic is correct, what do they have to loose by working with conservatives about such amendments if the youth is going to ultimately vindicate their cause anyway?
Those who oppose same sex marriage have everything to gain as well. It would be much harder to pin those who oppose same-sex marriage as being anti-gay if they worked for such reforms, and they would have proof to the American people that this debate is more about preserving marriage than it is denying social equality. Considering the 2004 election saw 11 states approve measures to define marriage as the unity of one man and one woman, they have a great starting point to turn the tide of the debate in their favor. To good to be true you say? Our President seems to have the right idea when he says " the definition of marriage [is] different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights." Perhaps there is a suitable starting point after all.
Will Haun is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs, and a conservative columnist for the Eagle.
