Printer-friendly version Reader Comments

The Legislature should welcome this public policy debate, not squelch it with compromise.

January 25, 2009

There are issues on which both sides can split the difference and come away with a deal that everyone can live with.

At this point, same-sex marriage is not one of them.

State Rep. Les Fossel, R-Alna, has admirably tried to bridge the gap between people who want to extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples and those who do not.

His solution, a package of rights that married couples now enjoy assembled under another name for same-sex couples, is one that will satisfy neither side. The measure is well-intentioned but would provide an unnecessary distraction in the midst of an already intense public-policy debate.

A domestic partnership law is the wrong place to start the discussion. Those who object to the state applying family law norms to same-sex relationships see it as a way to sneak gay marriage into the law books.

Those who support same-sex marriage view it as a less-than-equal legal status that does not carry one of the most important benefits of marriage – its universal recognition.

In a school, hospital or courthouse, everyone understands the family relationship of marriage and the rights that go with it. A new institution with an unfamiliar name would not have the same weight.

We support full marriage rights for same-sex couples because we believe they are entitled to equal protection under the law. Marriage is the best building block for stable, supportive families, and families led by same-sex couples should have same legal rights and obligations as those led by heterosexual couples.

Obviously, others disagree.

But a discussion of marriage equality is the public-policy debate that we should be having. It is not something that should be sidestepped with a pre-emptive compromise.