Ryan T. Anderson and Sherif Girgis write at Public Discourse:
In their op-ed in the New York Times this past Sunday, Jonathan Rauch and David Blankenhorn suggest a compromise for our national marriage debate . . . The federal government would offer civil unions (including most, if not all, marital benefits) . . . At the same time, the federal government would enact legislation to protect religious organizations from being forced to acknowledge same-sex unions . . .
That brings us to our alternative proposal: The revisionists would agree to oppose the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus ensuring that federal law retains the traditional definition of marriage as the union of husband and wife, and states retain the right to preserve that definition in their law. In return, traditionalists would agree to support federal civil unions offering most or all marital benefits . . . Available only to people otherwise ineligible to marry each other (say, because of consanguinity) . . .
This proposal has already been offered as a compromise by many leading pro-family organizations. But, it has been rejected by proponents of marriage redefinition, because the real battle here is about defining societal norms not benefits.
See this Townhall commentary, dated March 24, 2006, by ADF attorney Glen Lavy: How Colorado’s reciprocal benefits proposal helps defend marriage