Thursday, February 16, 2006

Reciprocal Beneficiaries

Colorado may have the answer to the issue of benefits for unmarried persons--not same sex civil unions but reciprocal beneficiary benefits. Ramesh Ponnuru has an interesting article here. And here is an excerpt:



The debate over gays and marriage in Colorado has recently taken a different turn from the national debate. Until a few weeks ago, the debate looked familiar. Gay-rights advocates were trying to get the legislature to enact a bill recognizing civil unions (or “domestic partnerships”) for same-sex couples. Social conservatives were trying to get voters to adopt a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Now conservative state senator Shawn Mitchell has changed the script by introducing legislation that grants some benefits to same-sex couples — with the support of James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

His legislation results from an asymmetry in the debate. One of the reasons many people support civil unions or same-sex marriage is to get certain practical advantages for gay couples. The main reason other people oppose these policies is that they do not want the government to recognize homosexual relationships as marital, or even as akin to marriage.

Mitchell’s idea is to make certain benefits available to gay couples — and to many other pairs of people. His legislation would make it easier, for example, for gay men to arrange to give each other a say in their medical care by becoming “reciprocal beneficiaries.” But two brothers, or a brother and sister, or two male friends, could enter the same arrangement. Thus there would be no recognition of homosexual relationships as such. (Hence Dobson’s support.)

No benefit would be contingent on any assumption by the government that the beneficiaries were involved in a sexual relationship outside traditional marriage. In extending the benefit, the state would be blind to the precise nature of the relationship between the beneficiaries.


Is this a reasonable compromise, one that provides marriage for married couples and reciprocal benefits for everyone else? Do you think gay rights advocates will accept this compromise?

In effect, this scheme recognizes that there is one unique and ideal kind of sexual/romantic relationship--traditional marriage--and many other perfectly good kinds of friendships, relationships, and attachments, which receive reciprocal benefits.

I like this bill.

No comments: