Civil-union bill an apt compromise
Civil-union bill an apt compromise
By Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published March 26, 2007
The issue of gay marriage deeply and emotionally divides the American people. But it is an issue on which compromise is possible. Last week, the Human Services Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives voted to legalize civil unions. Illinois should enact this legislation now.
House Bill 1826 is sound legislation because it does not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a well-functioning democracy, we must all strive to see the world through the eyes of others. We must seek common ground with those who see the world differently. We must find ways to preserve our own sense of fairness and justice while respecting the divergent views of others. The civil-union bill exemplifies this spirit of thoughtful compromise.
This legislation will not please everyone. Some people will object that it goes too far because it legitimates "immoral" relationships that are condemned by Scripture. Others will object that it does not go far enough because it fails to allow same-sex couples to marry and thus perpetuates "immoral" discrimination against people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
On the one hand, the bill respects the views of those who sincerely believe that "marriage" must be a relationship between a man and a woman and makes clear that religious denominations that oppose civil unions are not in any way required to recognize or solemnize such relationships. On the other hand, the bill grants same-sex couples who want to commit to long-term relationships the same basic legal rights and responsibilities that Illinois law now grants to opposite-sex couples. This includes such fundamental matters as medical decision-making, joint ownership of property, pension rights, worker's compensation, health insurance, inheritance, domestic violence and the care and protection of children.
The extension of such rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples is not only right as a matter of simple justice and human decency, it is also sound public policy. Ending racial segregation, granting women the right to vote and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnic origin and disability were not only morally right but also created a stronger, more productive and more stable nation. The same is true of the civil-union legislation. Supporting families is good public policy.
The more difficult issue is that the bill leaves same-sex couples in a position of second-class citizenship. Civil unions are not recognized as the legal equivalent of marriage for purposes of federal law and most states do not recognize the validity of civil unions even when they are lawful in the state in which they were created. What Illinois can do is to treat its own citizens with respect.
The other objection to the legislation is, of course, that it denies same-sex couples the dignity of the word "marriage." It is easy to dismiss this as merely symbolic. But symbols matter. If African-American or Jewish couples were relegated to civil unions and could not legally call their unions marriage, we would readily see the insult and injustice. "A rose by any other name" has its limits. Nonetheless, this is a period of transition, and transition demands compromise. We now stand on the verge of a profound social transformation with regard to sexual orientation. As the columnist George Will recently observed, most young Americans now see an individual's sexual orientation as no more legally or morally relevant than whether one is left- or right-handed. Moreover, every national poll now shows that a substantial majority of Americans support civil unions. The civil-union bill is the right proposal at the right time. It strikes a sensible balance between our national commitment to individual dignity, liberty and equality, on the one hand, and our traditional respect for religious belief, on the other.
It is time for us, in Lincoln's words, to reach for "the better angels of our nature."
----------
Geoffrey R. Stone is a professor of law at the University of Chicago.
By Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published March 26, 2007
The issue of gay marriage deeply and emotionally divides the American people. But it is an issue on which compromise is possible. Last week, the Human Services Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives voted to legalize civil unions. Illinois should enact this legislation now.
House Bill 1826 is sound legislation because it does not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In a well-functioning democracy, we must all strive to see the world through the eyes of others. We must seek common ground with those who see the world differently. We must find ways to preserve our own sense of fairness and justice while respecting the divergent views of others. The civil-union bill exemplifies this spirit of thoughtful compromise.
This legislation will not please everyone. Some people will object that it goes too far because it legitimates "immoral" relationships that are condemned by Scripture. Others will object that it does not go far enough because it fails to allow same-sex couples to marry and thus perpetuates "immoral" discrimination against people for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
On the one hand, the bill respects the views of those who sincerely believe that "marriage" must be a relationship between a man and a woman and makes clear that religious denominations that oppose civil unions are not in any way required to recognize or solemnize such relationships. On the other hand, the bill grants same-sex couples who want to commit to long-term relationships the same basic legal rights and responsibilities that Illinois law now grants to opposite-sex couples. This includes such fundamental matters as medical decision-making, joint ownership of property, pension rights, worker's compensation, health insurance, inheritance, domestic violence and the care and protection of children.
The extension of such rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples is not only right as a matter of simple justice and human decency, it is also sound public policy. Ending racial segregation, granting women the right to vote and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, ethnic origin and disability were not only morally right but also created a stronger, more productive and more stable nation. The same is true of the civil-union legislation. Supporting families is good public policy.
The more difficult issue is that the bill leaves same-sex couples in a position of second-class citizenship. Civil unions are not recognized as the legal equivalent of marriage for purposes of federal law and most states do not recognize the validity of civil unions even when they are lawful in the state in which they were created. What Illinois can do is to treat its own citizens with respect.
The other objection to the legislation is, of course, that it denies same-sex couples the dignity of the word "marriage." It is easy to dismiss this as merely symbolic. But symbols matter. If African-American or Jewish couples were relegated to civil unions and could not legally call their unions marriage, we would readily see the insult and injustice. "A rose by any other name" has its limits. Nonetheless, this is a period of transition, and transition demands compromise. We now stand on the verge of a profound social transformation with regard to sexual orientation. As the columnist George Will recently observed, most young Americans now see an individual's sexual orientation as no more legally or morally relevant than whether one is left- or right-handed. Moreover, every national poll now shows that a substantial majority of Americans support civil unions. The civil-union bill is the right proposal at the right time. It strikes a sensible balance between our national commitment to individual dignity, liberty and equality, on the one hand, and our traditional respect for religious belief, on the other.
It is time for us, in Lincoln's words, to reach for "the better angels of our nature."
----------
Geoffrey R. Stone is a professor of law at the University of Chicago.
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 4:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home