OPINION:
Cheryl Wetzstein’s article discussing Minnesota’s adoption of same-sex marriage (“Minnesota becomes 12th state to pass gay marriage,” Web, May 13) is an important recognition that conservatives are losing the battle to keep marriage holy. More than that, though, it could be argued that the battle is already lost.
Marriage for all as a civil right has been pounded into the heads of our youth, so as they vote in larger numbers throughout their lives, the cause eventually will win all 50 states. Getting conservatives to teach in our schools is another issue, and it is important to understand the difference between winning the battle and winning the campaign. The larger campaign for social issues rages on, but conservatives have lost 12 battles regarding same-sex unions and are facing further defeats in the near- and long-term future.
The conservatives have not argued effectively for the preservation of marriage, nor warned about the changing face of marriage once the institution loses its definition. Unless the conservatives take the offensive, marriage as we know it will be sent down the drain, and something radically new will take its place.
That’s why the traditionalists need a radical approach of their own. I propose an alternative “marriage” for an alternative lifestyle: “partnerships.” A partnership might be a legally binding agreement special to the lesbian-homosexual-bisexual-transgender world, and better than a marriage for the various lifestyles of that community. The purposes of this licensed union are manyfold, but if done correctly they may preserve marriage from the destruction it is surely headed for at this time. They may protect priests as well as other ministers from being compelled to conduct same-sex marriages by force of code or any other regulation. At the same time, partnerships fully empower those who claim to have been denied their civil rights. They could have their own licensed ministers and others who might perform the union ceremony, and the government could administer a legal code for partnerships especially tailored to the needs of the homosexual community.
While this proposal certainly has many flaws that have to be ironed out, it does have some major advantages in the campaign for hearts and minds. It takes away the argument that Republicans are depriving people of their civil rights. Instead of defending a battle that has been lost in our schools, and thus will lose in the nation as a whole, we are launching an entirely new idea into the larger campaign by offering the homosexual community something better than marriage for their lifestyle, wants and needs.
PAUL RIEGERT
Poolesville
Please read our comment policy before commenting.