Unlike Washington state's Supreme Court - which may really be playing politics by delaying a favorable gay marriage ruling until after the November elections - the high courts of New York and Georgia today upheld, respectively, a state legislative ban of and a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage. I've always tried to eschew emotional rhetoric and religious incantations on the issue and focus on the realpolitik. And every year news from more and more states shows the realpolitik is, it's going nowhere. A majority of Americans are opposed, and legislative bodies and ballot measures continue to strongly reflect that opposition. NOT because of anti-gay bigotry or homophobia, but because the body politic believes - strongly - in the tradition of marriage as between a man and woman. Democrats and gay activists like to talk about the political risks run by conservatives and Republicans in opposing same-sex marriage, but the longer that gay marriage advocates unsuccessfully seek court actions to overturn either existing state DOMA laws (as in Washington) or existing state constitutional amendments (as in Georgia), the greater their risk of looking like obsessed extremists who really ought to just get on with their lives. And the longer Democrats champion the issue, the greater their political risks. From the AP story in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer (second link, above):
High courts in Washington state and New Jersey are deliberating cases in which same-sex couples argue they have the right to marry. A handful of other states have cases moving through lower courts. Forty-five states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.
When the Washington state Supreme Court issues its post-election ruling either overturning the state's DOMA law or kicking it back to the legislature, all hell will break loose. The legislature has already spoken. The unwarranted intrusion will legitimately stoke resentments, playing greatly to the benefit of Washington state Republicans. If it comes to the next step for defenders of traditional marriage here - a state constitutional amendment - the high bar for passage may actually help energize the grassroots rather than hinder the effort. More broadly, continued sore-loser court challenges to state DOMA laws and state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage also increase the odds of failure one day turning to success for backers of a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. It's just that it may take a different, even more conservative Congress and U.S. Senate to get there. Libs, Dems and self-righteous "social justice" mouthpieces had better watch it on this one: they're playing with fire. Politically speaking, that is.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 06, 2006 04:07 PM | Email ThisThere are various ruling the court could make rather than just affirming or throwing the law out.
Plus, Sanders likes to write long separate opinions and is probably doing so now. There is a good chance that neither the right or left is going to like how he deals with it.
Posted by: Erik on July 6, 2006 03:21 PMI'll say this: I could, at one time, be considered a reliable Democrat voter. A Democrat had to stink the place up pretty bad for me to not vote for him. Then one day (at the dawn of the nineties when the liberals were dragging out their 3 year old kids to demonstrate against welfare reform . . . disgraceful) I sat down and really worked through where the Democrats stood on the issues of our day and where I was at on those issues. I haven't voted for a Democrat since. This is the same thing and probably is just as defining for a lot of people who will follow my path.
Most people don't have a problem with two people of the same sex having legal rights that entitle them to care for each other, buy property, pay taxes, and all those other things that married couples do, but the sticking point is on the term "Marriage", I believe mostly due to religious and historical usage.
Marriage, as sanctioned by the state, is a legal contract between to people. The fact that many people who oppose same-sex marriage would have no problem with civil unions shows that they are primarily concerned with the corruption of a cherished tradition, not that they are opposed to people having the same rights as them. And the fact that many same-sex supporters are opposed to the idea of civil-unions just goes to show that they aren't so much interested in the obtaining of legal rights as they are in the corruption of a cherished tradition.
Posted by: Jason on July 6, 2006 04:13 PMYou are in exactly the same boat as my partner and myself. The dumbocrapic party (what used to be the dimocratic party) loons sent us running to the other side too.
I'm not wholly enthralled with the Republicans but the alternative is worse by orders of magnitude.
/Sigh....
Posted by: Fox3 on July 6, 2006 04:25 PMThe civil union represents acceptance. Marriage represents approval.
Posted by: Huey on July 6, 2006 04:30 PMPossibly the most intelligent post on this website -- ever.
Thanks much.
Posted by: xy on July 6, 2006 04:44 PMPossibly the most intelligent post on this website -- ever.
Thanks much.
Posted by: xy on July 6, 2006 04:45 PMBy angrily forcing an issue with very little chance of mainstream acceptance, the left continues to marginalize their party.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 6, 2006 04:47 PMI think the split in the WASC is 4-4, with Sanders, Jum Johnson, Chanmbers and Madsen defending the DOMA, and Charles Johnson, Bridge, Owens and Fairhurst in the pro-homosexual camp. Alexander is indebted to Gregoire and owes her a huge favor. Personally, he is likely for the DOMA, but he may very well rule for the pro-homosexual side in this case.
Don't expect a decision prior to the November election. The recent decisions in a few other states upholding DOMA laws could very well ensure that Alexander will vote in favor of the DOMA.
Posted by: Don on July 6, 2006 08:50 PMIsn't it kind of shallow for a group of people to unite and define themselves based on their sexual behavior?
The left always complains about "morality being shoved down our throats," but why do they get do exactly that to everybody else?
Posted by: M on July 6, 2006 09:30 PMBy basing partnerships on sex, you are defining yourself as much as them based on sexual behavior. I'm not sure how you can describe homosexuality as a "habit." A habit is biting your nails, or picking your nose.
The gay community is not shoving anything down anyone's throats. Their relationships and how they are defined are none of your business, if you'd recognize that there would never be an issue.
Posted by: Ben Diamond on July 6, 2006 09:40 PMTell me. Where is there room to make gay marriage a huge political issue - especially when most of the nation's judges seem to be siding with laws legislatures have passed? I don't get it. Even in Massachusettes (the only state where the high court has insisted on marriage) it is quite likely that voters will take another turn on the subject.
We would all benefit from less hyperbole on this non-issue and more leadership focus on higher priorities.
Massachusetts, home to legal gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation; therefore, every state which has banned gay marriage has a higher divorce rate. The Bible Belt states have the highest divorce rates in the entire country. Many of the politicians who supported the federal Dumma were divorced-- some of them multiply so. At least one was a closeted homosexual, who promptly got expelled from said closet for his rank hypocrisy.
I have no problem with the state recognizing the marriage of my friend Joe and his partner Vince, who have owned a home together in Seattle for most of a decade now. I do have a problem with "family values" types claiming to hold marriage dear, all the while quietly accomodating the multiply-divorced hypocrites who moan about my gay friends. If anything, my friend's marriage, should it ever happen, would be sullied by having such "pious" divorcees proclaimed as defenders of it.
I doubt that legal gay marriage will have much effect on the nations 50% heterosexual divorce rate; the overall divorce rate will initially fall slightly, as the long-term gay couples wed.
Mazel Tov,
Posted by: Paddy Mac on July 6, 2006 11:21 PMThe gay debate is so funny, seeing Conservatives flip flopping over the years. Conservatives used to complain that gays were promiscuous. Now that the gay want to be couples and get married, the Conservatives have flip flopped back the other way and don't want them to be committed.
Can someone please explain how gay couples are ruining your marriages? Take a little responsibility for your dysfunctional kids and dysfunctional families. Quit blaming the gays and immigrants for all of your problems.
the public is moving toward acceptance of gay marriage. Hell civil unions garner a majority in some polls and the presidents/vice president even came out in support, al be it quietly. Could you imagine Reagan doing that, or even Carter. We are winning the debate, we just need to be patient and not pull a Roe. We also need to recognize that civil Unions might be a necessary step. Show people that gays forming relationships is no threat.
Thank God you don't have a problem with consenting adults and dead bodies! It would have completely ruined my sex life! ;-)
Posted by: Jeff on July 7, 2006 07:00 AMOne of the duties of government is to protect institutions that establish order and hold a society together. You cannot have liberty without order! The government must protect the institution of marriage with law like DOMA.
Posted by: M&M on July 7, 2006 09:01 AMAs for the amputee argument you could make the same argument just with different sex marriage. I guess I don't really see any reason not to have gay marriage. I see it as no different then straight marriage. No of the opposing arguments resonate with me at all. Just because something has been done for one way for a while, doesn't mean it should be that way forever. Hell if we had that standard we would still have slavery and all sorts of stupid ideas and institutions. Same with religious arguments. The bible has all sorts of stuff it I think is silly (slavery, weird science, horrible cruelty, etc) shy should I care what it says about marriage.
If tradition and the bible are still going to be our guide then we should return to marrying people at very young ages to people they don't love, not to mention slavery. Perhaps you would care to articulate why you are(I would guess) opposed to the tradition of marrying of people at 12 or 13.
It's more than a little ironic to see the proprietor of this site allow it to be used to decry the very mechanism by which all United States were required to recognize his marriage. It's just another example of a so-called conservative free-loading on past liberal achievements. It happens all of the time, so we liberals just think of it as conservative validation (albeit very, very late, and utterly self-serving) of liberal principle.
Any word on an effort to deny marriage benefits to lying adulterers? Or can a guy destroy another man's marriage and still be called a "defender of marriage"? I guess we know the answer to that one, right, Rep. Hyde?
For all this talk about abolishing marriage, I've never actually seen a legislative proposal that would do it. Now we've got one. In the wake of New York's highest court's refusal to find a right to same-sex marriage in New York's constitution, Barbara Lifton, a New York State Assemblywoman (D-125th District), is proposing to eliminate marriage as a legal status, in favor of "civil commitments" for all. No doubt, that would allow same-sex couples to have "civil commitments." And as we've seen with Kinsley and Turley, if we're no longer talking about "marriage," multi-partner "civil commitments" will surely follow. In any case, it wouldn't take multi-partner unions to make the abolition of civil marriage a disaster. Just removing public support for marriage as an institution would be damaging enough.
This proposal has no chance of passage right now. Yet it's a clear sign that as same-sex marriage spreads, more and more people (including traditionally religious opponents of gay marriage), will begin to look to the abolition of civil marriage as a "solution." This is the reality of what same-sex marriage has brought: not a strengthening of traditional marriage, but calls for its abolition."
Posted by: om on July 7, 2006 09:28 PMIn the US, marriage is now about responsibility not rights. When you are married two become responsible to pay for the kids, pay for the credit cards, house, and taxes. The rights of marriage have been gradually stripped away until there is almost nothing left. Property rights on the death of a spouse are about all I can think as a remaining right. Healthcare, unfaithfulness, legal documents, access to proprietary information are treated as if you are two independent people.
Why would gays want to "get married"? ... for what? So they can now be responsible for the bills of the other partner? No wonder Bank of America is so supportive of gay marriage.
I'd suggest that most Christians dump the idea of a government sanctioned marriage and go to the church and sign a marriage contract with your friends, relatives, and church as witnesses. It will carry the force of law as a legal contract, have the rights and responsibilities that a real marriage is supposed to have.