Duncan v. Koppelman debate

[Michael McConnell]

I am not sure that it matters in principle, and I worry that I am
taking up too much of people's time with this subject, but I wanted
to correct Greg Sisk's assumption that my "proposal" (which is really
nothing but a hypothetical trial balloon -- I don't know what I think
of it myself) is as follows:
>
> First, with respect to extension of public benefits (such as
> tax, social security, etc.), Michael McConnell has suggested a
> compromise by which public benefits would be extended to
> same-sex unions.  As I understand him, and please correct me
> if I am mistaken, this proposal would be something like saying
> that any two adults irrespective of relationship (erotic, economic,
> familial, etc.) could obtain these benefits.

I haven't offered specifics on this point, but I actually did *not*
have this in mind. I am inclined to agree with Alan Brownstein (if I
am remembering correctly) that this would be a fiscal impossibility.
The moral hazard of allowing people to designate whomever they wish
for all types of benefit would be very costly. Maybe this sort of
arrangement would be possible for some benefits, but not all. I was
assuming that the registered partnership would be limited to people
assuming all or most of the legal incidents of marriage, including
mutual legal liability, support obligations, etc., and who are
committed to a life-long union.  This, of course, increases the
symbolic dangers to which Rick Duncan refers, since it focuses on
the ways in which certain  same-sex unions resemble marriages.

To add to the mix: If I were czar, I would want to couple this
proposal with an effort to make divorce more difficult. The point
would be to reinforce the idea of the special status of long-term
commitments, across the board, for homosexual and heterosexual like.
The aspect of the gay rights movement that most distuurbs me is its
toleration for, and even celebration of, casual and short-term sexual
encounters. I think it is important not to extend public recognition
to couples who have no genuine long-term commitment; and I think the
same should hold for heterosexual unions. (This is partly why I do
not approve of extending partnership benefits to unmarried
heterosexual couples. It seems to me that their very decision not
to marry is a symbolic statement that they are not a life-long union.
Under current law, the non-marriage of gay couples is not such a
statement, since they cannot marry.)
-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)