Paul, you say that homosexual monogamy is a ?myth.? Talk about an abuse of the English language. It may be rare, particularly if you (as you seem to) restrict your gaze to gay men, but it is certainly not mythological. I know of cases in which it is real. More importantly, the argument is that some kind of legal recognition of same-sex couples — which has never existed before — would affect the behavior of gays and lesbians. Your argument lacks internal logic.
That being said, I’m not going to defend any particular solution to this problem, nor do I assume that the monogamy gambit will work, especiallly with regard to half of the population we’re talking about. I think there are compelling speculations coming from both sides, and they are speculations. Far more damage to traditional marriage ? and to limited government, for you libertarians tuning in to this debate, because of the resulting and (unfortunately) inevitable shift of custodial and financial responsibility from the family to the state ? has been wrought by easy access to divorce and misbehavior by heterosexuals, as you note.
I notice, however, that you don’t answer the basic question I pose: why should gays and lesbians be treated as simply a means to someone else’s ends here? Why should certain practical problems they face be ignored?
I just read an interesting piece by John O’Sullivan of National Review (not online) that advances many of the concerns of conservatives about all of this but concludes as follows: there should arise three types of legally recognized household forms with varying levels of public accommodation. First, there would be domestic partnerships, basically bundles of contractual responsibilities that any household could sign onto for reasons of convenience, power of attorney, etc. No assumption is made here that we are even talking about romantic couplings: these could consist of two widowed sisters wanting to share a household, for example.
The second level would be the civil union, sanctioned by the state but not necessarily by any religious institution. It would confer certain rights and responsibilities on its parties, again focusing on practical matters. Gays and lesbians would presumably use this form if they wish.
The third level would be a reformed, truly traditional marriage, really a “covenant marriage” such as Louisiana has created, which would be administered by any religious institution and serve as a legally binding, only-for-cause-divorcable marriage with appropriate pre-counseling and pre-divorce counseling, etc. This would be the preferred form for couples seeking to have children, and for men seeking not to get clobbered over the head by their prospective wives when they say, “Hey, honey, let’s just get civil unionized.”
