Corporate trainers love to tell the story of two sisters arguing over one orange.

Students are asked to come up with creative solutions for the standoff. Cut it in half is the obvious -- and wrong answer. Afterward, the trainer informs students that one girl wanted the orange for juice, the other for the rind. (It would've helped if we had known that little bit of information before the trick question!)

I wonder how these modern Solomon's would handle the juicy controversy over gay marriage?

Canada is considering legalizing homosexual marriage and Vermont offers "civil unions" to gay couples. Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay and lesbian couples in that state are legally entitled to marry, thereby entitling them to the same "legal, financial, and social benefits" as heterosexual couples

Following the Massachusetts ruling, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins responded, "It is inexcusable for this court to force the state Legislature to 'fix' its state constitution to make it comport with the pro-homosexual agenda of four court justices."

Hillary Goodridge, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case, explained, "Civil marriage to me is about having the economic and social security other families take for granted. And it's about providing gay and lesbian couples with the dignity of recognition and the rights that go along with that."

So, lines are drawn, sides are taken, charges and countercharges made, hands are wrung, and names called. The proponents and opponents of gay marriage both want the whole orange and nothing less.

Those opposed to gay marriage argue that marriage and the family is the bedrock of a stable society. Study after study reveals that children raised with both male and female parents are healthier, better adjusted socially, and thus make better citizens. And homosexual acts lead to serious health problems that I won't go into in a family newspaper. Anyone arguing differently simply hasn't read or accepted the data.

Those supporting gay marriage point to the legal and financial perks afforded to married heterosexual couples, but not to gay couples: health care for partner, time off to care for loved one, bereavement leave, a say in partners medical care, inheritance issues, and even tax breaks. In a democratic, pluralistic society, that's discrimination pure and simple.

So, how's this for a pulp and rind solution?

Continue the centuries old ban on homosexual marriage and so-called civil unions.

Allow people (straight, gay; married, single; male, female) to specify who they want to be allowed hospital visitation, make medical decisions, use their allotment of days off, etc. Equalize the tax structure to avoid the so-called "marriage penalty" and inheritance taxes that penalize singles. Treat people as people and not by what social group to which they may belong.

Maybe it's a fruity idea or maybe a "win/win" situation.

One side wins by maintaining its insistence that marriage is between one man and one woman. There will be no social recognition of what they consider immoral or unnatural. To sweeten the deal, throw in an amendment to the Constitution.

The other side wins by being able to determine who inherits their worldly goods, makes medical decisions, etc. (Ten states and 161 local governments now offer such protections and benefits.) Their legal rights are guaranteed.

I wish "my" side won every moral, social, and political battle. I want the whole orange! But in a pluralistic society, that's not (and never will be) possible.

The best we can hope for is a solution that is not a compromise (cutting the orange down the middle), but a solution which gives both sides what they want (pulp and rind).

© Copyright 2003 James N. Watkins

Comments

Regarding your suggestion to allow the economic and social advantages of marriage to couples other than a man and woman married to each other, I think it overlooks an important function of society. A society that cares about continuing to exist will shape incentives for its citizens to engage in behavior that provides for the best outcome, thereby reaping benefits for the society as people choose behavior and receive the associated benefits. A society may choose to tolerate many other patterns of behavior and not consider them illegal, but it has no obligation to consider all choices equally good. If we have abundant evidence, as we do, that children do better raised with a male and female parent, and that there are increased health risks associated with homosexual behavior, our society fails its citizens by encouraging behavior that is likely to have less positive outcomes. We would do better to address the problems in heterosexual marriages so that we can look forward to better psychological and physical health for all citizens. csh6369@aol.com

I'd love to hear your opinion about whether America needs a Federal Marriage Amendment. This subject has been tearing at me for some time. You see, I love my gay sister very much. She tried for 2 years (a few years back) to get out of the lifestyle through a Christian church that specialized in that ministry, but eventually found some rationalizations that explained how the Bible really didn't mean what it says. I'm not as smart as she is, and cannot figure out how "abomination" can mean anything else but bad stuff, and I really don't buy that argument about it being restricted to the Levitical priesthood. So here I am, all fundamental and conservative, but having trouble getting behind this FMA because something inside me is saying that this is not the way to change hearts. Yet, people that I respect, like James Dobson and D. James Kennedy, are beside themselves trying to rally the Christian majority to support this. Your thoughts? keithm@gvtc.com (June 2004)

While I support the Federal Marriage Amendment, I don't think it will have much of an affect on the moral condition of our country--particularly when "Christian" marriages are failing at the same rate of unbeliever's marriages and when spousal abuse is actually higher in some segments of the "Christian" community. As you so accurately pointed out, what we need is more Christian love rather than more manmade laws. Unfortunately, we don't see a lot of love toward our theological and philosophical enemies (especially gays and lesbians)--whom Jesus commands us to love. Until Christians actually start modeling Christ, I don't see a lot of hope for this situation.