Bush faces gay marriage topic
If President Bush wants to be a true “compassionate conservative,” he’ll support civil unions for homosexual couples and try to avoid using gay marriage as a “wedge issue” in the 2004 presidential campaign.
Civil unions — granting gay couples the legal rights of marriage while avoiding use of the term — clearly are a compassionate way for society to treat homosexuals.
They would correct the injustice that gay couples, even those in long-term committed relationships, are denied rights that married heterosexuals have, including the ability to make emergency medical decisions for their partners, take leave from work in case of illness and receive Social Security and health insurance benefits.
Conservatives concerned that civil unions will somehow “encourage” homosexuality need to consider that civil unions actually will encourage commitment and fidelity, virtues that conservatives respect. Moreover, granting of benefits is not going to cause anyone to choose a gay orientation. There will be no gay “advantage.”
And, in any event, conservatives by this time should realize that liberalization of American culture toward homosexuality has not caused a great surge in the incidence of gayness, which studies show is about 5 percent of the population.
Bush tried again last week to juggle his compassionate and conservative instincts about gayness — and his desire to appeal to moderate and right-wing voters — but the White House has no answers to what his views may be on civil unions.
Bush, in his press conference last week said, “I think it’s very important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts, to be a welcoming country.” He implied that he considers homosexual activity to be sinful, as many conservative Christians do, but added “we’re all sinners” and cited scriptural cautions against making judgments of other peoples’ conduct.
At the same time, he said that he would not “compromise” on the issue of marriage. “Marriage is between a man and a woman and I think we ought to codify that one way or another.” He said, “We’ve got lawyers looking at the best way to do that.”
Bush wasn’t asked about civil unions — the institution signed into law by Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean as Vermont governor and endorsed by other Democrats — and his press secretary provided no clarity when he was asked about the matter.
Bush also stopped short of endorsing a proposed constitutional amendment declaring marriage as male-female unions and forbidding the courts to grant the legal rights of marriage to gay couples.
Advocates of the amendment, which has been endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., say it would not forbid Congress or state legislatures from granting civil union-like rights to gays.
Bush and most other actors on the gay rights issue are awaiting the outcome of a Massachusetts Supreme Court case that may declare gay marriages to be legal.
Conservatives consider any yielding on gay unions to be a threat to the institution of marriage, which they regard as sanctioned by religion. The Roman Catholic Church’s declaration that gay unions are “immoral” underscores the point.
It will be hard for Bush to cool this issue down. The press loves it. People feel strongly about it. But polls suggest that the public, while opposing gay marriage, favors civil unions. That would be a good place for Bush to stand.
(Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.)