This article from the Kalamazoo Gazette has caused some confusion. In my talk, I didn’t say a word about civil unions. The reporter came up afterwards and asked me some questions. I said that “all the practical problems of same sex couples can be solved without redefining marriage.” I didn’t say I favor civil unions or that I’m ok with civil unions. I’m not in favor of civil unions.
My position on civil unions/domestic partnerships:
I do not favor domestic partnerships or civil unions based on a sexual relationship. That is, some civil union statutes are written to be a marriage substitute. I think this is a bad idea.
I used to think civil partnerships could be ok if it were open to people whether they are sex partners or not. It seems wrong to me that in the UK for instance, two elderly sisters who lived together all their lives would have to pay inheritance taxes on their home when one of them died. In this particular practical case, the surviving sister would have had to sell their home in order to pay the inheritance taxes. But if they were lesbians, they would have been treated like a married couple, and been exempt from the taxes. They appealed their case to the European Union court, and lost. So because of cases like this, I thought it might be ok to create a kind of civil partnership that anyone could participate in, but which does not single out unmarried sex partners for special consideration.
Upon further reflection and observation, I don’t even think this is a good idea. In some European countries with civil unions, a lot of straight couples are choosing civil unions over marriage. Blurring the lines between marriage and non-marriage, setting up “half-way houses,” weakens the whole institution. The problem of the elderly sisters in the UK could be solved in a much more just and direct fashion by abolishing inheritance taxes.
I also think that the position, “I’m against same sex marriage, but I favor civil unions,” is not a stable political position, nor a reasonable compromise, but a dodge. Advocates of same sex marriage do not view civil unions as a compromise position, but as a stepping stone. Domestic partnerships or civil unions have never been good enough from their perspective, as they have repeatedly stated. Hence, I think the “civil unions, not same sex marriage” position doesn’t really buy anything.