So a couple of pundits want us to settle for the half slave, half free model of the pre-Lincoln era? I cannot understand how this could be a workable solution. Would gay retired couples in Florida have to move to Massachusetts so they could get Social Security survivor benefits? Would gays in Georgia have to crowd into Connecticut so they could get the tax benefits of claiming a spouse as a dependent? Here's a clue: Federal "rights" apply nationwide or else they violate the Equal Protection Amendment.
As for the robust church conscience protection baloney, what's wrong with the good old First Amendment that says Congress will neither establish religion nor deny people the right to practice it. Those Christianists who don't care about the Constitution and prefer idolizing the Bible can take their guidance from the "Render unto Caesar" verse.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is a very, very good sign. Not because the Right is actually caving to social liberalism, or that people are actually discussing same-sex partnerships. The key to the news blip is this: the Religious Right are clawing for a foothold -- _any_ foothold -- to stem the tide.

There isn't much compromise in a two-party system. When one party holds a majority they receive a sort of "golden ticket," assuming that everyone tows the party line. Ideologically congruent bills pass with little effort. Compromise is reserved for positions of weakness and for large, important decisions that must be unilateral.

So the Religious Right are staring down a mean trifecta:

1. The congress is Democratic.

2. The president is Democratic.

3. Public opinion favors same-sex partnership benefits.

This compromise should be framed as a fifth-grader saying, "Okay, you won the game, but _only_ because I had something in my eye!" Their attempts at compromise show weakness.

The blood, my friends, is most certainly in the water. Now is not the time to be spooked out of our boots by whatever the mean, nasty Religious Righties have to say.

Dear DAVID BLANKENHORN and JONATHAN RAUCH
By Carlos T Mock, MD
February 24, 2009

I find myself boggled that anyone in their right mind would accept this proposal as a “compromise”

The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple.

In Loving v. Virginia, (1967) where The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Court's decision, Chief Justice Warren wrote:
“Marriage is one of 'the basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

The Gay and Lesbian community is not asking for the right to have religious organizations recognize their unions. As a matter of fact, some religions are already performing same sex marriages: both the Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements support gay and lesbian rights, including the right of same-sex couples to wed; In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage; In 2005, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage.

However, in spite of the wonderful ability to wed in these religious ceremonies, Gay and Lesbian couples get no civil rights through them.

As a nation that was built in the separation of Church and State, Gays and lesbians are not trying to force any religious institution to recognize our marriages (really, we don’t care!)—just the federal and state governments. Gay and lesbian Americans feel they need and deserve the perquisites and protections that accompany a civil legal marriage. Federal law links many important perquisites to marital status, including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights and protections against mutual incrimination. All of these benefits are currently denied to same-sex couples, even those living in states that permit same-sex marriage or civil unions.

In 2003, the U. S. Supreme court Lawrence v. Texas Sodomy declared unconstitutional sodomy laws. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, explicitly reversed Bowers v. Hardwick. (On June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick, that homosexual citizens had no constitutional right to privacy.) What is significant about this decision is that under the common law, the existence of rights of sexual partners are recognized through the marriage contract. That is, in common law there is no stand-alone right to engage in sexual activity, be they male or female, adult or minor. But, it is a basic legal principle under the common and statutory laws that everything that is not forbidden by the common and statutory law is allowed. As sexual acts usually take place in private, few cases involving engagement in sodomy and fornication come before the courts, and no precedent was established under the common law forbidding fornication; with sodomy, the common law is mixed. This was most notable in Judge Scalia dissension: with this decision, Scalia concluded, the Court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda." While Scalia said that he has "nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means," Scalia argued that the Court has an obligation to decide cases neutrally. In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, a later case decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires that marriage be available to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.

Now that The Lawrence decision has made our relationships “officially” legal—our rights need protection like those of any other U. S. citizen—therefore the 14th Amendment to the constitution applies fully to homosexuals: this amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Its Due Process Clause has been the basis of much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (Roe v. Wade), and other issues.

This is the only legal compromise for same sex “civil “marriages—we are legal citizens of the U. S. of A. and pay taxes and FICA like every other citizen in the country. Until we are allowed the “civil right” to wed, we will be second class citizens—we will be deprived of more than 1,138 federal rights that accompany civil marriage, and some additional 300-600 per individual state. That means your run-of-the-mill-marriage-license-carrying heterosexual couple has access to over 1,400 rights, benefits, and protections that gay and lesbian citizens are unable to obtain! This is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution that provides equal protection under the law to all persons regardless of sexual preference or gender orientation!

Carlos Mock, MD has published three books and is the Floricanto Press editor for its GLBT series. He was inducted in the Chicago Gay & Lesbian Hall of Fame in October of 2007. He grew up middle-class in the suburbs of San Juan, Puerto Rico. His website is: www.carlostmock.com

?