Yesterday, the New York State Senate crushed a bill that would have allowed gay couples to get married by a margin of 38-24. While righties everywhere are probably doing back flips this morning and proclaiming that the people have spoken, the decision is not just morally wrong, it is also unconstitutional and bad for the future of the Republican Party.
As women, blacks, the handicapped, and many others who have been deprived of equal treatment in the past can attest, getting society to recognize the errors of the status quo is a long, hard struggle which continues to this day. But if history shows one thing, it is that these groups will prevail. The question is not if… but when… and how.
In every one of these fights, conservatives have been on the wrong side of history. Our natural instinct to fight against any radical change in the makeup of society can, and has blinded us to real injustices. The positions some of those we call our own have taken on these issues are quite simply indefensible. Today, hardline conservatives are dug in opposing yet another inevitable development: gay people will one day be able to wed in the eyes of the law. Victories like the one earned by conservatives in New York yesterday do little but delay the inevitable and give Democrats more ammunition to use as evidence that the Republican party is an intolerant, ignorant group of belligerent dinosaurs.
Ironically, one of our own might save us before it is too late through the very process that we (and he) so very deplore: “judicial activism.” Ted Olson and David Boies have joined forces to appeal the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage. The two men, who faced off in Bush vs. Gore, are quite possibly the best two constitutional lawyers in the United States, and together they represent a formidable legal force to be reckoned with. If they were to succeed in showing the California ban to be what it is, an unconstitutional law that is, in Olson’s words, “utterly without justification” and that brands gays and lesbians as “second-class and unworthy” in the eyes of the law, Republicans will owe the two a debt of gratitude for saving the party from twenty years of supporting a position that 20 years from now men and women will view as utterly abominable. Not only will they save us from the eyes of history, they will save us from the electoral losses that the public’s general condemnation of the position will turn into at some point.
If you care about electoral victories, cheer for Ted Olson. You will thank him later if he wins.
105 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Dec 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm
One of the bloggers on Balloon-Juice put it thusly today:
2 ConArtist // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Well said. Bigger battles are to be fought than denying homosexuals marriage licenses. Not only is the entire topic unmerited of discussion (civil rights should be just that), it paints the GOP as anti-gay. Not the best portrait in the ‘outing’ that is the 21st century. Don’t have to look far to see the aggression against gays (nationwide) is reducing and the right-GOP will only have themselves to blame if they continue their discrimination.
3 MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Obama: “I am in favor of traditional marriage and think marriage should be between a man and woman. I am in favor of extending the benefits of marriage to same sex couples but marriage, per se, is for a man and a woman.”
Dick Cheney: “I thought freedom means freedom for everyone. I think my daughter should be able to marry her partner because of that and enter into any arrangements or agreements they like.”
I think someone needs to get to all those Democrats who keep voting against gay marriage, first. Afterall, most gays have been willingly brought up on the Democrat Plantation and all they’ve gotten is promises and a seat outside on the front porch of da’ Masta’s manor.
When the Democrats finally come to the party and get religion on this question, you can argue that all those states where gay marriage has gone down in 60-40% splits, the GOPers need to refocus on making freedom mean freedom for everyone.
4 MR FACE // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:12 pm
But being gay is morally wrong according to the Christian’s interpretation of the Bible, thus making gay marriage morally wrong. At least that is what I have been hearing from the right. Why should they cave in if they have God on their side?
5 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Excellent piece. Conservatives have a huge blind spot where this issue is concerned and they go on as they have at their peril. Ultimately, I think the best argument for marriage equality comes from comparing the relatively low divorce rates of states in New England (which have embraced same sex marriage) with the high divorce rates in the Bible Belt (where they’ve fought it tooth and nail). How can opponents possibly make the case with a straight face (if you’ll pardon the pun) that they’re “protecting marriage” when the data shows the opposite to be true? Your marriage seems at greater risk in a Red State than Blue.
6 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm
It’s one thing to claim that supporting, enacting, or practicing “gay marriage” is good public policy, or good politics, or morally virtuous.
It’s quite another stretch, by far, to claim that the US Constitution forces the federal government and all states, regardless of their wishes, to enact the preferred public policy agenda of the “gay rights” lobby with regard to marriage and other issues.
It is undeniable fact that the writers and ratifiers of the text of the Constitution and its various amendments, including the 14th, never in their wildest dreams intended anything like forcing ” gay marriage” on the states and the people. Any given piece of writing means only what its writer intended it to mean, and our job as readers is to figure out as best we can what he intended when he wrote it.
“Gay marriage” advocates are free to press their case in the court of public opinion, but any claim that a court that honestly and with full and proper knowledge of the facts, the law, history, and logic would impose their personally preferred public policy on the rest of us is false.
7 LFC // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I thought one of the basic tenets of conservativism was that it was thoughtful, stepping on the brake when it makes sense but likewise being able to step on the gas when it made sense.
Current conservatives seem to have flipped this dynamic, hitting the breaks on regulation of the financial industry when indicators showed we were headed for trouble for multiple years, and hitting the gas to go into Iraq without any real plans.
8 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm
CentristNYer, blue staters love to make that comparison that you did, but suddenly get quite uncomfortable when their noses get rubbed in the following less fashionable realities:
1) Blue state darlings like Vermont and Oregon have nearly none of a prominent, indeed conspicuous, high social pathology demographic, compared to Mississippi and South Carolina, which contains it in huge proportion, to the tune of one fourth to one third. It’s a lot easier to rack up nice social stats without having to carry such a burden.
2) Those who like to steer and chortle about such comparisons seem reluctant to compare, say, California and New York with Montana and Utah, let alone Detroit with Boise. That’s because when comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the gaps cherished by lefties suddenly shrivel.
9 DFL // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Giving a positive status to people who engage in a dishonorable lifestyle will only corrode civilization. If conservatives won’t stand for civilization, it may as well fold its tent and head for the hills.
10 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Gay marriage” advocates are free to press their case in the court of public opinion, but any claim that a court that honestly and with full and proper knowledge of the facts, the law, history, and logic would impose their personally preferred public policy on the rest of us is false.”
Swap “gay marriage” with the words “interracial marriage,” and you’ve pretty much repeated the same arguments that were made against that, too. If conservatives are going to stand on justifications that were discredited half a century ago to deny people a basic human right, that doesn’t bode well for the future of the movement.
11 woofyman // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“Giving a positive status to people who engage in a dishonorable lifestyle will only corrode civilization. If conservatives won’t stand for civilization, it may as well fold its tent and head for the hills.”
You can’t make this stuff up !
12 balconesfault // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Carney: Blue state darlings like Vermont and Oregon have nearly none of a prominent, indeed conspicuous, high social pathology demographic, compared to Mississippi and South Carolina, which contains it in huge proportion, to the tune of one fourth to one third.
Man – I’m just left wondering what that high social pathology demographic is …
MI-GOPer: think someone needs to get to all those Democrats who keep voting against gay marriage, first.
LOL – we’ll make our tent bigger, when the other guys make their tent smaller, and not a minute before.
13 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Mr Face said, “But being gay is morally wrong according to the Christian’s interpretation of the Bible”
Wrong. No major denomination I know of, now or in the past, condemns anyone for feeling same-sex attraction, any more than it would for feeling other inappropriate desires, sexual or otherwise. To be human is to be flawed and to be tempted, sometimes strongly.
What traditional Christianity condemns is choosing to ACTING on that desire. “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
Disagree with this stance if you like, but please don’t mischaracterize it.
14 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:37 pm
DFL // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“Giving a positive status to people who engage in a dishonorable lifestyle will only corrode civilization. If conservatives won’t stand for civilization, it may as well fold its tent and head for the hills.”
I assume this is parody, right?
15 MR FACE // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Carney
Fair enough. I do not disagree with your point.
16 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
CentristNYer, in the first place, you again blur the distinction between the moral, political, and legal cases for something. They are sharply distinct.
It’s perfectly possible, as many intellectually honest people do, for example, to say that you favor abortion being legal but that Roe v. Wade was bad constitutional law.
The legal case for striking down anti-miscegenation laws in the courts, flawed as it was, is and was far stronger than the legal case for forcing gay marriage on the nation.
Although the authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment would have been outraged if told that their work would be interpreted to mean a ban on anti-miscegenation law, at least the purpose of the 14th Amendment was clearly and unmistakably to address race relations and legally mandated racial inequalities.
The problem with judicial activism compared to the harder work of legitimately changing the law is similar to how Yoda described the Dark Side of the Force: it’s “quicker, easier, more seductive.” Once you justify cheating in order to do what seems so overwhelmingly right and just, it becomes easier and easier to keep on doing it.
That’s partly why, for the Left, every issue is the civil rights movement all over again, because they like to tap the perceived moral authority from that to whatever other pet cause they’re pushing, and to overcome any qualms they have about a process that the educated ones at least know perfectly well is a legal fraud.
It takes character to buckle down and have the patience to do it the hard way, by persuading your fellow citizens, rather than counting on a fellow member of the left wing cultural elite sitting on the bench to push through your mutually preferred political agenda with a specious claim of constitutional necessity. Too few on the cultural left (regardless of claimed party label) have such character.
17 cpanza // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Face:
No need to concede that so quickly. It’s not “obvious” that “being X” is always consistent with not performing the behaviors and rituals associated with X. Some X’s are mere dispositions or feelings, other X’s cannot be described in just that way. A further argument is needed there. Most notably (but not exclusively): virtues and vices. “Being courageous” is only distinguishable from doing courageous things in abstraction, not in reality. If homosexuality is more similar to this, then it’s “being gay” that is condemned. If not, then the argument flies. But the argument needs to be given nonetheless.
18 PracticalGirl // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:56 pm
I can’t wait to hear the arguments put forward by this Odd Couple, Olson and Bois.
As one who has been married for over 22 years, raised my own children as a stay-at-home parent (a minority in this world, Conservative or Liberal), I laugh out loud at those who say anti-gay marriage laws are intended to prtect the institution of marriage. With a divorce rate hovering around 50% (and more like 65% after 10 years), I dont’ think heterosexuals have yet even cornered that market.
I also scratch my head at those who say this is basically a religious rite (agreed) and then seek to enact laws that prevent religious institutions from performing gay marriage if they so choose. That, to me is the larger Constitutional issue. Not talking about DOMA, which is clear on a state’s right issue, but on the issue as a whole.
19 Churl // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Hmmm. Pushing gay marriage, an issue that has failed in 31 states (one of which was California for crying out loud) will be a winning strategy for conservatives?
Jeb, old chap, “It’s still the economy, genius”. Think about this stuff for a while and get back to us.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/In-panic-over-jobs-Dems-detour-from-health-care-78440547.html
20 balconesfault // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm
practicalgirl: I also scratch my head at those who say this is basically a religious rite (agreed) and then seek to enact laws that prevent religious institutions from performing gay marriage if they so choose
Bingo! We don’t go making laws about baptism or circumcision, or granting drinking and voting rights based on confirmation or Bar Mitzvah date, or call someone legally dead when they get last rites. But somehow we have the fixation with straddling the secular and the religious on the issue of marriage.
The right solution is to eliminate marriage as a legal status for anyone … and just have civil unions for all. Then religions can recognize or fail to recognize marriage on whatever basis they want, and society can move on.
21 PracticalGirl // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:14 pm
MiGOPer,
Good golly, an historic day. We agree on something. Although Dick Cheney’s position is certainly outside of the mainstream GOP, you make a good point. Democrats want to have their cake and eat it, too. With their positions, prominent Dems obstruct the advance of gay marriage equally with Republicans, albeit without the zeal. And with their arguments, I think they’re trampling on the larger issue, which is freedom of religion.
22 DFL // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:18 pm
PracticalGirl, no civilization in the history of the world has rewarded homosexual with the right of marriage, at least until nations in moral collapse, like Holland, did so in the 1990s. And many of these were done by jucicial fiat.
As for divorce, I would agree that easy divorce laws have had a deleterious effect on society and I would change them if I could. I would also agree that the penchant for divorce among heterosexuals have damaged society much more than the current dilemma over homosexual marriage. But there is no chance of substantially altering the divorce laws today as most Americans these days are too self-centered and expedient in their desires.
23 PracticalGirl // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:21 pm
balconesfault;
“The right solution is to eliminate marriage as a legal status for anyone … and just have civil unions for all. Then religions can recognize or fail to recognize marriage on whatever basis they want, and society can move on.”
Another bingo. One has to wonder, though. Do politicians really want a practical solution,, or any at all? I consider it the smallest of issues in the larger political arena, but campaign coffers on both sides of the aisle benefit from what I consider to be pretty much the same position. The difference is only in tone and tenor. If we actually did something as reasonable as your suggestion, the gay community would be one less thing (come election time) that Mommy and Daddy could use to bash each other with as well as prove their cred to their supporters.
24 balconesfault // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:26 pm
PracticalGirl: One has to wonder, though. Do politicians really want a practical solution,, or any at all?
Yep. They just want a practical solution that they don’t get the crap beat out of them by one special interest group or another over.
25 PracticalGirl // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:31 pm
DFL,
Who cares what Holland does? Wasn’t it the GOP who told me, over and over again over the last decade and a half, that the United States shouldn’t look to Europe to establish standards for out country?
Laws that restrict religious practice of two consenting adults within their church trample on the 1stAmendment. As our society, already unchurched as a majority, moves forward do you really want to set that kind of precendent?
26 woofyman // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:35 pm
PractialGirl, DFL’s argument is that if it hasn’t been done before (gay marriage) then it’s bad.
You could apply the same logic to:
1) Women getting the vote in 1920
2) Ending slavery
3) Ending child labor
Hopefully, as civilization marches on, we get more enlightened.
27 PracticalGirl // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Woofy,
Those who argue against gay marriage do not see this as the civil rights issue you pose. Fine, I say, it is their right to believe that homosexuality is only a choice, not of birth. But the religious argument is still valid. Why enact laws that trample on the 1st Amendment right of any American? I am surprised that those who ususally voiciferously lead us away from a slippery-slope don’t understand how vulnerable they make their right to religious practice with this one.
28 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Of course, woofyman, lumping in “gay marriage” with social reform is begging the question, presuming from the outset that it is such a thing, rather than a troubling sign, like high rates of divorce and illegitimacy, of a society that has lost its way.
29 PracticalGirl // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Carney,
If you believe that, then why not raise your voice to correct what is a true social problem (high rates of divorce that absolutely downgrade the traditional family) rather than against a very small minority of our population? It is much, much harder to conquer-true enough. But in the end, what would make the biggest difference?
30 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“The legal case for striking down anti-miscegenation laws in the courts, flawed as it was, is and was far stronger than the legal case for forcing gay marriage on the nation.”
I would much prefer to see this issue settled by the legislature than by the courts, but so long as those who oppose marriage equality continue to use highly charged (and demonstrably false) language like this that tries to frighten people into believing that something is being “forced” on them, it’s not going to happen. (If some lesbian couple that’s been committed to one another for 40 years wants to seek the legal protections of that union by the state, how the hell is that “forcing” something on anyone else?)
So long as the religious right and their allies use these kinds of scare tactics to make their case, or argue that removing the prohibitions from marriage for gays is somehow a “special” right, legislatures will be too timid to act. That’s why Messers Olson and Boies are to be commended for their efforts. It’s not the ideal, I agree, but sometimes democracy is messy.
31 BarryS // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“Hopefully, as civilization marches on, we get more enlightened.”
I wouldn’t put a bet on it. Some here are trying to take the country back to the 1700’s
32 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:27 pm
CentristNYer, I used the term “forced” in the context of the judiciary mandating a policy against the wishes of the people and their elected officials. What do you call it when something happens without your consent or against your will?
But I’ll take the bait – even if a popular majority via referendum, or an elected legislature via statute, passes “gay marriage” via the legitimate political process where public policy issues are supposed to be decided, the term forced is still defensible because that majority is imposing unwanted, radical social change on the rest of the public.
33 mthen // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:31 pm
I support full marriage rights for gays. Not “civil unions”. Marriage. I dont and will never support those that pretend the constitution has anything to say on the subject. This site is pro-war, anti-immigrant, pro-tax(in the Bartlett mold), and now apparently pro-”living constitution”? Its enough to drive a guy into the arms of the libertarians.
34 DFL // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:32 pm
As a practical political matter, if the GOP takes Mr. Frum’s, Mr. Olson’s and Mr. Golinkin’s advice on homosexual marriage and a host of other social issues, the Republican Party will write off a large chunk of its base and be buried politically by the Democrats. Essentially, Mr. Frum, Mr. Olson and Mr. Golinkin are anti-Christian and probably say so in the privacy of their residences. So be it. David Frum’s attempt to eject Christians from the Republican Party is doomed to fail. He is the one most likely to be ejected or, more likely, he will self-eject like David Brooks or Andrew Sullivan, neither of whom were truly conservative in the first place.
35 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Also, CentristNYer, judicial activism is not a matter of “messy democracy” – it’s not democracy at all. Nor is it justified by rationalizing that the other side didn’t “really” win the debate because, well, they don’t deserve to.
36 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:52 pm
PracticalGirl, maybe social conservatives would have the breathing space, and the freed-up resources and political capital, to tackle such a mammoth project as rolling back divorce rates, if they didn’t have to strain to the utmost to fend off a massive, better-funded effort, supported nearly unanimously by the established social, cultural, educational, and legal elite, to ram through “gay marriage”.
As I recall, however, such efforts as have been engaged in, such as covenant marriage in some states, have not been met with applause and praise by those who raise arguments like yours – quite the contrary. Nor do I suspect that efforts to roll back no-fault divorce would be met with anything other than hysterically shrill opposition.
That’s one of the key factors driving such stubborn conservative resistance – the knowledge that once the Left manages to get some law on the books that further frays weakens the family, gets more people hooked on government for basic necessities, etc., that it is nearly impossible to repeal. It’s exhausting because we have to win all the time in intense effort just to keep things from getting worse, and the Left just has to win once, to ratchet things down further.
37 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“the term forced is still defensible because that majority is imposing unwanted, radical social change on the rest of the public.”
This is what I don’t get: Is someone forcing you to gay marry? How is the lesbian couple I mentioned “imposing” a change on you? How does their legal commitment threaten yours? They get protections and rights extended to them that you currently enjoy. What rights do you lose because they now get theirs? This charged up, hyperbolic language just isn’t elevating the debate at all.
38 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“the term forced is still defensible because that majority is imposing unwanted, radical social change on the rest of the public.”
And “unwanted” by whom? People who refuse to move forward? People who cling to notions that are biblical but illogical? People who are frightened by change, however modest? People who need to have a minority they can look down on and deprive of basic rights? Those are the people who see marriage equality as “radical” and who are worked up into a lather that they lose something if someone else gets something.
39 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:23 pm
CentristNYer, you would not deny that “gay marriage” represents unprecedentedly radical social change, do you not?
If that radical change becomes law, we become a society which through its government, its most powerful social institution, and the only one with both a monopoly on initiating force (in most cases) and a plausible claim to speak with the authority and will of the people, culture, and society at large, has chosen to have “gay marriage” as a part of its makeup and structure, its established norms, its pervasively threaded-through arrangements, the texture and flavor of its daily life and culture.
Social conservatives would prefer that our culture and society not be such a culture and society. We prefer social norms as they are or were, not where the Left is trying to push them. We especially resent and resist efforts to push through or change those norms through institutions that claim to speak for us, such as our governments. We do not want to grant the imprimatur, the seal of respectability and social approval, of legalization to something we do not feel merits it. And more than with mere detached intellectual analysis (although that too exists); many of us find that prospect personally offensive, because it equates such relationships with our own, or our parents’.
Both sides in the debate understand perfectly well what power legal recognition has in driving through social change and approval. To this day, one of the most frequently-used “arguments” voiced to “justify” or defend abortion is that it is legal. Poor logic, but effective polemic. Thus I suspect that it is either naive or disingenuous for advocates of “gay marriage” to profess bafflement at why social conservatives object to the law changing in this way.
40 Carney // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“the term forced is still defensible because that majority is imposing unwanted, radical social change on the rest of the public.”
And “unwanted” by whom? People who refuse to move forward? People who cling to notions that are biblical but illogical? People who are frightened by change, however modest? People who need to have a minority they can look down on and deprive of basic rights? Those are the people who see marriage equality as “radical” and who are worked up into a lather that they lose something if someone else gets something.
————
You returned to the idea of whether the change itself is desirable and opposition to it morally illegitimate. That’s another argument.
But that is irrelevant to the point over whether the term “forced” makes sense. I hope you understand better now why I used that term.
41 MI-GOPer // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:31 pm
M-then declares: “This site is pro-war, anti-immigrant, pro-tax(in the Bartlett mold), and now apparently pro-”living constitution”?”
Ummm, M-then, this site is loaded with far Left democrat activists who are decidedly anti-war, anti-military, sanctuary minded, taxes without boundaries and pro-gay rights.
I don’t know what rock you’ve been living under, but trust me… there are about 3 true conservatives or true republicans here… the rest are far Left loons fresh from the DailyKos.
42 pnwguy // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:33 pm
CentristNYer:
“This is what I don’t get: Is someone forcing you to gay marry? How is the lesbian couple I mentioned “imposing” a change on you?”
I can’t see how this is any different that having inter-racial marriage “forced” onto people. It was only in the last decade that places like Bob Jones University stopped preaching that inter-racial marriage went against biblical principals and wasn’t merely a social change. But no public policy can make everyone happy. I mean, we “force” people to drive on the right side of the road, instead of the left (government tyranny!). But at least in those instances, some material change is mandated to someone’s behavior, assuming they want to drive automobiles. But say we now change laws such that horse meat can be sold for human consumption. How does it “force” someone to eat it, who doesn’t want to? For sure, some people may have emotional anguish about this, but why do we give them veto power over other’s choices?
43 Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:50 pm
I oppose changing the definition of marriage from the traditional western definition for same sex couples, for muslims who want to marry more than one wife, for polygamists. I see no compelling reason for redefining such a central western institution. I do believe that same sex couples have legitimate grievences than must be addressed. But we can do that without redefining a central cultural institution.
44 GayPatriot » No, David, judicial resolution of gay marriage is not good for the GOP (nor is it good for America) // Dec 3, 2009 at 5:57 pm
[...] conservative lawyer Ted Olson for, together with liberal attorney David Boies, appealing “the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage“: If they were to succeed in showing the California ban to be what it is, an unconstitutional [...]
45 Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Gay Patriot is right. Better to have the people vote on it or we’ll create another Roe vs. Wade situation where 40 years we are still arguing about it.
46 mpolito // Dec 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I am open to the “reform-minded” conservative approach, and I do not wince as much as some conservatives probably do at some postings on this site- in fact, I agree with most of them. But this post is truly ridiculous, Jeb. It repeats the most pathetic left-wing talking points about same-sex marriage.
Buying into the inevitability argument peddled by pro-SSM forces is silly. The left in the 1930s thought eugenics was the wave of future. During this time we also heard from the enlightened leftist Lincoln Steffens about how he had “seen the future” in the Soviet Union. Should we have endorsed communism because everybody ‘just knew’ it was the future? Or are we too afraid of the judgement of history to stand on principle? The stay-at-home mom was said to be dying in the 1970s; should we have decrying stay-at-home moms for fear of being called sexist by history? Looking to the future, should the GOP also endorse polygamy as a basic right? After all, the youth approve of it much more than their awful, bigoted parents. We don’t want to look like “ignorant dinosaurs,” do we? Have conservatives been “wrong” in the past? Sure. So have liberals, though, and quite often.
I do not understand why Jeb is appaulding and encouraging judicial activism, even if he likes the result. Have some principle and oppose it whether you like the policy outcome or not. Wrapping up social issues in the courts solves literally nothing (just look at abortion). Let the states sort this out.
As for electoral victories, if the goal of this website is to get the GOP back in power, then it is worth noting that amendments to define marriage as male-female only have been successful in all 30 states where they have been offered. This includes fairly blue states like CA, WI, MI, OR, and HI, as well as swing states like OH, FL, NV, and VA. So this post is one of the few times we are not told that we need to abandon our principles in order to win. We just need to abandon them.
47 CentristNYer // Dec 3, 2009 at 6:25 pm
“CentristNYer, you would not deny that “gay marriage” represents unprecedentedly radical social change, do you not?”
Radical change? No. It’s a change that will directly affect perhaps 5, 6, 7 percent of the country (maybe one or two percent more), which is why I find the level of fear so irrational. The institution of marriage itself has undergone changes throughout the millenia, as I’m sure you know. I’m quite certain it can survive gay marriage.
“We do not want to grant the imprimatur, the seal of respectability and social approval, of legalization to something we do not feel merits it.”
If you were speaking on behalf of your church or synagogue, I’d agree with you wholeheartedly. There’s no reason why any religious institution should have to provide the “seal of respectability” to a union it opposes. But we’re not talking about the church, we’re talking about the state. And the state has an obligation to protect its citizens — and in this case making sure that gay people do not have the right to marry unfairly withheld is doing just that.
48 Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 7:09 pm
mpolito
I think Jeb means that Olson is doing the GOP a favor based on surveys that show younger people supporting same sex marriage.
49 cpanza // Dec 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Chekote is right: it has been argued that the shifting perceptions of American demographics indicate that as time goes forward, the older you are the more likely you are to be con gay marriage, the younger the more pro-oriented. I believe this holds across the board, right and left. The argument is that the next generation up, politically, is not moved by this wedge issue at all, and if anything is dismissive of it as a wedge issue in the first place.
I think that’s all the inevitability argument comes to.
50 sinz54 // Dec 3, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Chekote:
The method doesn’t matter as much as the ideology behind it.
The reason why black civil rights could be mandated by the courts and get accepted by the rest of society was that there wasn’t this clear-cut religious opposition to it. In fact, people of faith could be found on both sides: Southern Baptist white preachers favored segregation, while REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King favored integration.
Whereas with abortion, 98% of the opposition to abortion comes from religion.
Even if America had tried to legalize abortion through the legislatures or by popular referenda rather than by the Supreme Court, we would have had decades of those votes with only slow progress–because there is this religious argument that personhood begins at conception, an argument that just won’t go away.
Religions do evolve, but slowly.
It’s taken religion 20 or 30 years to come to peace with birth control.
It’s going to take even more time to come to peace with abortion.
And it’s going to take even more time to come to peace with gay marriage.
51 balconesfault // Dec 3, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Another major difference between gay marriage and abortion.
There are probably a LOT of women out there who have had abortions, and never told anyone. Later in life, because of the opinion of their spouse, the church community the fall into, or even a pure heart on their part, they may end up becoming strident advocates against abortion rights, with little or no fear of being found out and called a hypocrite. Others might actually use the experience of their own abortion, and their own mental state, to prostelytize to others about the “evil” of the practice.
That’s pretty much almost never going to happen with gay marriage. When a gay gets married, it’s going to be a rachet. I’d imagine that there will be some number of gays who divorce, and even enter into a hetero second marriage, but I’ll bet you won’t find any of them manning the picket lines to reverse gay marriage legalization.
Similarly, much of the prejudice against gay unions is due to the unfamiliarity of the practice. This is lessening over time, and legalized gay marriage will mean even more open participation by gay couples in society.
Just a completely different ball of wax.
52 anniemargret // Dec 3, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Jeb Golinkin did a superb job here in this essay. He is absolutely correct. My only criticism is his comment, ‘…give Democrats more ammunition to use as evidence that the Republican party is an intolerant, ignorant group of belligerent dinosaurs.”
He said it, I didn’t.
But this is not the issue, nor should it be. Republicans should embrace homosexual marriage because it’s the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. If the majority of the party call themselves Christians, then every child of God is equal in the eyes of God. Antiquated beliefs stemming from religious history should have no place in the America of almost 2010. In fact, it is unbelievable. To say we should keep marriage only between man and women sacrosant because it is a tradition is an coy way to get out of the debate. After all…there have been many ‘traditions’ which we now understand were both evil and abhorrent:
There was a time in this country when minorities and white could not date, or marry. There was a time in this country when blacks were slaves, and when women were beaten by their husbands with impunity, because they were considered ‘goods.’ There are many things we now shake our heads about because we have *evolved.*
The Republican party has not evolved. The loud right wing voices demand to be heard, and they are. Their thinly disguised hatred of homosexuals is also apparent. One hates what one fears. To keep believing that homosexuals ‘choose’ their sexual identity is so incredulously intellectually loose, one has to wonder why they keep embracing it. Like the church, they don’t practice what they preach. Also.. nonsense that they only ‘hate the sin and not the sinner’ is just that…nonsense. The divorced people in this country did more to harm children than homosexuals but you will never get them to admit that.
I applaud the efforts of some moderate Republicans to try and turn the tide against those in their party that are still trying to nullify need change. And the Democrats need to step up to the plate and do the same. We need to become a nation that gives all Americans an equal chance at success and an equal chance at dignity.
53 Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Sinz
The abortion issues has been put to a people’s vote as recently as 2008 where all three initiatives restricting or banning abortion failed. In Colorado, the “Personhood” initiative lost 73% to 27%. In Italy, abortion was made legal even though the country 90% Catholic. The reality is that people want that option. And even people who may be pro-life for themselves, don’t believe it is the government’s role to get involved. The only reason this debate keeps on going is Roe vs. Wade creates the illusion that religious people would abolish abortion. The reality is that they would not. Any more than religious people would vote to ban adultery or pre-marital sex.
54 Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 10:43 pm
We need to become a nation that gives all Americans an equal chance at success and an equal chance at dignity.
Are you saying that gay people don’t have dignity now? What does getting married have to do with dignity?
There was a time in this country when minorities and white could not date, or marry.
True. But it did not involved redefining marriage which in the Western culture has always been one man and one woman. We are talking about redefining a fundamental institution. Gay people have the same marriage rights as I do. Like myself, they can marry someone of the opposite sex who is an unrelated adult. Like me they can’t marry more than one person. And no, love is not a requirement for marriage. People marry for all kinds of reasons besides love. Money, status, security, companioship. There is no requirement of “being in love” to get married.
55 cpanza // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:07 pm
[ital]True. But it did not involved redefining marriage which in the Western culture has always been one man and one woman. We are talking about redefining a fundamental institution.[ital/]
I would agree that being a tradition is a prima facie argument in favor of retaining a practice or a set of rituals, but on this level it’s just a prima facie argument, nothing more. To argue for its retention you need to show that the costs of alteration far outweigh the benefits. So what are the costs of gay marriage? What sorts of honestly arguable costs will befall people if gay marriage is accepted?
56 Chekote // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:28 pm
So what are the costs of gay marriage? What sorts of honestly arguable costs will befall people if gay marriage is accepted?
The primary cost that I am concerned about is that it will not stop with same sex couples. Once that door is open I don’t see how we can’t deny Muslim men their right to have more than one wife. So will we stay a Western culture? Whether we do or not matters deeply to me. And for me to let go of a cultural tradition it has to involve a compelling case. I agree that same sex couples have legitimate greviences but these can be accomodated via contractual arragements. So why would we open up the door to redefining marriage? What is the compelling reason?
Also, I don’t care for the racial comparison. Sexual orientation is more complex than race which is purely genetic. I do believe that some people are born gay. However, how do you explain someone like Anne Heche or Merideth Baxter who said this morning that her marriages were not lies? She said she turned gay at 50+. Have you ever heard of someone being black and later on in his life changing to white? (Leave Michael Jackson aside).
57 cpanza // Dec 3, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Chekote:
Slippery slopes are difficult arguments to run, I think. If, arguably, gays have a just case to pursue marriage rights, then it shouldn’t matter whether, hypothetically, polygamists could then argue for marriage rights. If it’s just then it is just. The justice of gay marriage is not connected to the justice or injustice of polygamy. If gay marriage is legalized, and there are honestly polygamists would want to make the case, you argue against it on the merits. If it too is found to be arbitrary and the restriction without real cost, you’d accept it. However, if gay marriage is eventually accepted, it will take a shift in public opinion on the question, and a state by state approval, a process of which is likely underway already, as we noted before. I know of no such groundswell of support for polygamy, so it looks to me like a red herring.
I’m not sure I see your racial point. How is sex more complicated than race? On Anne Heche, who knows? Maybe she’s bi? My guess is that a vast majority of people who are gay are born that way. Still, I don’t doubt, by the way, that some people make a decision at some point to live a gay lifestyle, though it is hard to believe that such persons never had a proclivity in that direction. Can you imagine tomorrow deciding to be gay, if today you are straight? Sexual orientation hardly seems like an act of volition.
But even if people were choosing to be gay — so what?
58 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:02 am
I disagree totally with your view, Chekote, with all due respect. I cannot address what Merideth Baxter said or not . Perhaps she always knew she was a lesbian, but fought against it? There are many people who have had to hide their sexual orientation because of the fear and hatred it incurred from society. There have been violence inflicted on homosexuals. I would suggest that this very violence is what prevents some people from open disclosure. And I would also suggest that being gay is part of the human experience, the human condition on earth.
Surely I don’t have to give you a history of that sad history. I do not agree that affording people the right to marry who they choose is going to open a door to ‘muslim men having more than one wife.’ Promiscuity in any form should be denigrated. And…. I would much prefer we go back to acceptance that cheating on your spouse is damaging, instead of this ‘everyone does it’ adolescent nonsense…..damaging and hurtful to the spouse, to the children, and as we all have seen already in our politicians on the left and the right, has far-reaching effects as well.
To my mind, this is more damaging overall than two homosexuals tying the knot.
If some people are ‘born gay’ then are you saying some are born gay and others choose it? And if so, what difference does it make? The gay people I have met in my life have all felt it was part of their human existence, not something they decided to do when ‘they turned 50.”
In the end, I’m talking about two people who love each other and are committed to each other. For the life of me, I cannot see what or why that should hurt or threaten my marriage to my husband? It is a state of union. It is legal contract.
There are some churches that bless homosexual marriage, others that do not. And yes, I see this simply as giving the full potential of the dignity of a human being to another regardless of sexual orientation.
And I think just throwing them a bone, if you will, ‘allowing’ them to have some type of legal contract, but not marriage, is not deferential, but contemptuous. Yes, I see marriage as something beautiful, and as Cheney himself said, “”I think that freedom means freedom for everyone.” (which is about the only thing I can think of at the moment that I agree with Cheney on.)
And to think of it being ‘more complex’ than race, is not correct. It is been a poorly understood aspect of humanity, and it only now in these times that our former beliefs are being challenged. Fifty years from now, we will not be discussing it. The same way we have accepted that women have more to offer humanity than just trying to ‘pretty’.
This might be trite comparison, but there was a time in humanity’s history that left-handed people were considered to be evil. The word, ’sinister’ means left in Latin. During medieval times parents tied their left-handed children’s hands behind their back to force them into using the right. This evokes the same thought of how some churches try to force homosexuals to be heterosexuals. It is not, I admit, a good example, but we can now laugh at those medievalists, knowing now that their understanding of the human body was lacking.
The wheels of change grind slowly.
59 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:12 am
When I worked in the high schools years ago, I knew a young just out of school young man who was a physics teacher. We had a nice friendly relationship, and enjoyed chatting and joking, etc… at the end of my last year there, he asked to talk to me. He told me he was gay and then his sad story of how his father threw him out of the house. He said it had been years since he had talked to his parents. He cried. I remember now I terrible I felt for him, how awful that must be to be so judged and treated as if he had committed a heinous crime.
He thanked me for listening and understanding. His story remained with me. There must be so many others like him. This is a simple thing, to my mind, to make sure every person has the same rights as others.
60 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:15 am
One more thing, then I’ll ride off in the sunset today.
We also need to open an intelligent discussion about mental illness. The other ‘do not mention’ condition of the human experience. Past time. Both parties need to address it – so very important to a healthy society and to treat people with these illnesses decently.
61 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:37 am
annie – good story.
You want to know the personal reason why *I* favor gay marriage?
Because we have an (afaik) straight daughter. And I would like to ensure that she avoids the heartbreak that I’ve seen hit other couples.
I’ve known more than one couple who after years of marriage … sometimes even after having children … one partner finally accepts that they really are gay, that they’ve been for reasons of societal pressure living a lie, that they may love their spouse – but that they truly have no sexual attraction for their spouse, because they’re actually attracted to people of their own gender. And it’s not pretty for anyone involved. Particularly, for whatever reasons, when it’s the man coming to grips with his homosexuality when everything he’s been raised to believe teaches him that giving into homosexuality makes him much less of a man – often leading to severe outbreaks as he deals with the stress.
Eventually, for the most part, these couples are doomed. They’re lucky if the male never actually gets involved in homosexual activity before they break up. There’s really not a lot of ways that counseling can resolve the issue in any permanently successful way. From the moment some guy decides early in life that while he’s attracted to men, if he just finds the right woman and marries her and starts a family and makes everyone else happy … he’s a ticking time bomb waiting to make some woman’s life miserable for a period of time.
And I don’t want my daughter to end up being that woman. If some man marries her, I want it to be because he truly and completely wants to spend the rest of his life with her, and not because he’s using her as a means to prove to society and himself that he really isn’t gay.
62 mthen // Dec 4, 2009 at 6:33 am
MI-GOPER
I was referring to Frum and his editorial slant and not the posters.
63 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 8:25 am
balcons: Very true, sadly. I knew a women in my divorce group whose husband finally confessed to her after 25 years of marriage that he was gay, had suppressed his feelings all his life, and forced himself to comply to society’s structure. She was devastated and his two sons were devastated to learn this. He said it was the saddest thing he felt he had to do and say. They had a somewhat happier ending, even though he had found himself another gay partner during the marriage, but this couple maintained their respect for each after their divorce for the sake of their children, whom they both loved. It was, of course, probably an awful situation for all of them.
There was also a study done some years ago that showed this very thing…that there are thousands of men (and sometimes women) who go into heterosexual marriages in a state either of denial, or because societal norms force them to.
Each person must be their authentic God-given self. While I can understand those that are fearful of the change in the basic structure of traditional marriage between a man and woman, as we understand more about our bodies and minds, we have to progress accordingly , not remain static. And fight the fears that have caused so much pain in so many people’s lives.
64 mpolito // Dec 4, 2009 at 8:59 am
So, I’ve been reading through some more comments and have a few thoughts.
This whole abortion and same-sex marriage comparison is interesting, because Roe v. Wade has not settled the issue at all. Some of the posters here believe that it has, but it clearly has not, because even though we were told in the 1970s that the fight against abortion was useless because the youth did not care about it, polls continue to show a solid minority, sometimes a plurality or even a majority, calling themselves pro-life. The vote on the Stupak amendment, which passed comfortably in a House with nearly 260 Democrats, demonstrates that pro-life forces are not going away- not even in the objectively pro-choice Democratic party. Roe v. Wade served only to supress democracy and to, paradoxically, impede social change. The debate over the issue should have been carried out in legislatures and at ballot boxes- some places would have legalized it, some would have not, but it would not be turned into a federal issue.
I think there is a neglected aspect to this whole debate, and that is the threats to religious liberty, which are apparent in the same-sex marriage battle. Religious liberty will be seriously diminished in this country if the left’s premises are accepted. The left often claims that same-sex marriage “will not affect you at all” and then, in the very next sentence, that being able to marry whomever you want is a “basic right” and if you oppose it, you are like people who opposed emancipation, or the vote for women, or interracial marriage, etc. You see the problem here, right? If you really believe that those of us who oppose same-sex marriage are like racists, you will want the state to employ its mechanisms to marginalize us. This includes the entire Catholic church in America, plus a huge number of Protestants, Muslims, and conservative and Orthodox Jews. This is something to be aware of in this debate.
Finally, the obvious point arises about polygamy- the young people support it more than adults. This should not be a surprise: youth are possessed of no unique wisdom by virtue of their youth; on the contrary, they are ignorant and need to educated by culture- they should not be shaping the culture. At least they are consistent, however: once you say “I have the constitutional right to marry whomever I want based on my sexual appetites” you cannot stop people from marrying 3, 4, 10 or 20 people. This is acknowledged by the more radical and less politically savvy elements of the pro-same-sex-marriage movement. Is it right to embrace polygamy because the young people support it more than their parents? (I should make this caveat: I do not mean to say that a majority of young people support polygamy, just that the support in that group is higher than in older age groups). Also, I am not saying we should oppose same-sex marriage because it will lead to polygamy- just that it is easy to speak about a wave of future when you already support the thing; it is less easy when it appears that society is accepting something that you do not like.
65 cpanza // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:13 am
Mpolito:
I made a claim about polygamy above in a response to Chekote, I’ll reproduce here:
Slippery slopes are difficult arguments to run, I think. If, arguably, gays have a just case to pursue marriage rights, then it shouldn’t matter whether, hypothetically, polygamists take it as an opportunity to then argue for marriage rights. If gay marriage is a just cause then it is a just cause. The justice of gay marriage is not connected to the justice or injustice of polygamy.
Honestly, if gay marriage is legalized, and there are honestly polygamists would want to make their own case, then they will have to argue it on the merits. If the restriction is found to be arbitrary and maintaining it appear to lead to more cost than benefit, there’s a case for removing it. However, it should be noted that this approach requires that public opinion is shifting considerably on the issue. If gay marriage is eventually accepted, it will largely be because of shifts in acceptability in society towards it (as I think is slowly happening now). That will lead to a state by state approval, a process of which is likely underway already.
I know of no such groundswell of support for polygamy, so it looks to me like a red herring. However, one day perhaps polygamy will have such a groundswell of support, and the costs of restricting it will be high and benefits few. If so, society will have to cross that bridge when they get to it, but I doubt that day will be coming anytime in the even distant future. But if or when it does, they’ll decide the issue in the same way we are now deciding about gay marriage.
66 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:24 am
anniemargaret:
Leviticus 18:22: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.”
The Bible has nothing to say about abortion, and in fact the idea that personhood begins at conception only took hold in the last 500 years of Christianity.
But the Bible is fairly explicit that homosexuality is a sin.
As others have said, these passages don’t mean Christians should hate gays. They do mean that Christians should not condone the practice.
67 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:25 am
anniemargaret:
That’s not an orthodox Christian view.
It sounds more like a Unitarian Universalist view.
68 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:28 am
mpolito: I didnt’ say anywhere that if people are against gay marriage that are like racists. I truly understand how difficult this is. My own father was adamant about this issue but we debated it. And my father was a good, good man. We can have a healthy debate on this in this country without resorting to finger-pointing or ‘marginalization.’
I was saying I believe that denying homosexuals, who are human beings, the same freedom that heterosexuals enjoy is anathema to our country’s basic foundation of life and liberty. This is food for thought. And…aren’t gay people already marginalized?
Religious liberty is not the issue here. Legal marriage for the gay community is. Churches still can adhere to whatever religious principles they wish. I am a Roman Catholic, although not as church-going as I once was. My basic beliefs in Christ’s teachings has not changed, although I do not adhere to the church’s religious tenet that birth control is wrong, that ‘natural means’ is the best way even though the Church still upholds this. Yet people still go to church every week while not always agreeing with all their tenets.
Women are still second tier in the church even though women have broken through the glass walls in other places in our society. They cannot become priests, although Protestant religions have already adapted through this. This is eminently wrong but churches are loathe to change. I hope someday it changes in Catholicism as well. My religious liberty to go to Mass on Sunday has not changed a bit.
So the argument fails.
I would suggest that young people get their models from the adults in their lives. What I’ve seen is adults, parents, acting selfishly. My boomer generation opened the door to sexuality outside the boundaries of marriage. The ‘who cares about adultery’ attitude has permeated our society by *adults,* and exacerbated by an onslaught of promiscuous and adultery on TV and in the movies and elsewhere. We as parents are the teachers first.
In fact, I would also suggest that many young people are struggling with these things. They have lost faith in old-fashioned principles that served us well and our society well. It’s why we see very young women having babies, but of this ‘who cares’ attitude by the adults in their lives.
And the polygamy issue is bogus. To equate homosexual marrying into a honor their commitment bond to everyone running around marrying 14 wives or husbands is silly. We know this type of behavior is destructive. Or that promiscuous behavior is destructive. My point is that homosexuals marrying is not destructive, unless one wants to believe it so. I dont’ think it hurts society at all, I think it enhances it.
But then again, this is my opinion only.
.
69 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:29 am
annieM offers: “There are many people who have had to hide their sexual orientation because of the fear and hatred it incurred from society. There have been violence inflicted on homosexuals. I would suggest that this very violence is what prevents some people from open disclosure.”
While that might have been true decades ago, AnnieM, in America that’s hardly true for today’s gays as a rule. 3rd world countries like Iran and Somalia, yep. Are there violent bigots out there who act illegally against gays in America? Sure; just like the flip and there are harshly bigoted gays who hate Catholics & GOPers & conservatives.
As a rule, we gays have been given safe harbors in schools, in churches, in neighborhoods, in hundreds of professions and even in political parties. We have banks just for us. We have churches courting our participation. We have Pride neighborhoods filled with carbon copy cookie cutter gay men and women who look surprisingly alike and void of the uniqueness that use to mark us as different and diverse within our own communities. We have special seats on thousands of govt boards just for us. We have an entire culture inside colleges and universities that work to study, document and expose the slightest forms of residual discrimination against us –real or not.
We have strong, vocal, ready-2-pounce civil rights advocacy groups that play pit bull like the best Louis Farakhan or Al Sharpton figures do for black civil rights. We have our own magazines and blogs that cater just to us –and blessedly leave the addiction to porn for others… although it’s still too, too prevalent in our gay culture.
We have our own music niches, we have special resort communities across the US where gays and heteros exist side by side, cheek by cheek and equally dedicated to grubbing for that glorious green dollar of commerce, we even have an entire political party that caters to the worst in us by telling us were still victims of society and society/average people are who we should fear (like you do)… but it flipped about 20 yrs ago.
We aren’t fearful of society as a group… society & some sects of organized religion are fearful of us and our strength for political action. Blacks might have the RaceCard; we’ve got the BigotCard and we play it with a vengenace each time a gay marriage proposal is on the ballot. We might lose a battle because we can’t keep our more spittle draped radical gays buttoned-up and still let them lead the effort, but that’s changing too. It has to if we’re going to be effective… losing battle after battle because our gay left leaders make each ballot issue about “defeating Mormon bigots” ain’t working.
My friends and I aren’t afraid of society, AnnieM.
The thing we’ve learned to fear and respect is the untempered anger from gay left democrat activists in our community who practice intolerance and harassment toward gay conservatives like gay lefties think far Right religious types practice against them. It honestly reminds me of the irrational hate I often see demonstrated in these threads toward anyone who dares question the Wisdom of Obama.
My friends and I have been more often compared to Jewish collaborators helping the Nazi guards by our gay Left brethern than any of us fear society… or random acts of violence by bigots.
For years I’ve listened to my gay brothers and sisters preach that if we could just put more Democrats into Congress, life would be magically different. DOMA is still here. DADT is still here. We were sold the same bill of goods about Obama’s election… despite his anti-gay marriage stance and the fact that neither he nor Michele could name a single gay personal friend. DOMA is still here. DADT is still here. It will be in 2010. It will be in 2012.
My friends and I don’t fear society, AnnieM. We work for greater tolerance within our cities and towns… but the tolerance we really need to work on is with gay Lefites who are still mired in the old, comfortable rhetoric of the Democrat Victim Industry mindset.
You ought to tune into blogs like GayPatriot and others…. you might be able to unshackle yourself from the constraining chains of Victimhood and start looking at society as a reflection of you and your ownership in society.
(Sorry for the off topic flavor. But this is a thread, afterall, about gays and GOPers).
70 Chekote // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:30 am
gays have a just case to pursue marriage rights, then it shouldn’t matter whether, hypothetically, polygamists could then argue for marriage rights.
Again, I don’t see the compelling reason for redefining such a fundamental cultural institution. What are the grounds for arguing for same sex marriage? Equal protection. I don’t see it since gays have exactly the same rights as everyone else: the can marry someone of the opposite sex. So what is the argument for redefining marriage?
I think you made my case about the fact that race and sexual orientation are not the same better than I did.
71 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:33 am
mpolito:
The First Amendment protects all forms of religious expression.
What the First Amendment does NOT protect people of faith from, is government power to force them to comply with secular laws.
The Mormons found that out the hard way, when the Government forced them to abandon polygamy, even though that had been commonplace in their culture.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities found that out, when the courts ordered CC’s adoption service to place orphan children with gay couples, even though Catholic Charities protested that this would be against Catholic teaching.
These are tough issues due to the fact that our society appreciates and even expects church denominations to carry out various secular functions in the community, such as charity work and activism for social justice. But once a church steps into the secular arena, it must comply with secular laws. And once gay marriage becomes legal, the church’s activities in the secular arena will not be able to discriminate against gay couples even if that church does not consider gay marriage as moral.
72 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:36 am
sinz: Absolutely you are correct. The Bible contains many discrepancies that we can both deny and argue against. The Bible also upholds slavery. What I’m trying to say, badly I guess, is that Christians and well meaning people of any faith or no faith, can look at the homosexual issue in terms of fairness and liberty. I believe what Cheney believes. It’s as simple as that – for me. I understand all the associated fears that go with it, including the problems Christians have.
And yes, my own Christian beliefs over the years have morphed into something more closer to a Unitarian type position- not sure where I am sometimes. I think I’m more of a moralist than religious in a organized sense. But this shouldn’t be about religion.
It should be about the moral equivalency of a human being who has a different sexual orientation. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is the American hope for all its citizens. Or does some people have the liberty to marry, and others don’t? That is all I am trying to say…badly!
73 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:37 am
Anyway, I have the day off and I’m going shopping. tada!
74 cpanza // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:38 am
Chekote:
I’m not sure what your point on race was, to be honest.
You said:
“Again, I don’t see the compelling reason for redefining such a fundamental cultural institution. What are the grounds for arguing for same sex marriage? Equal protection. I don’t see it since gays have exactly the same rights as everyone else: the can marry someone of the opposite sex. So what is the argument for redefining marriage?”
I compelling reason is that a large number of people feel aggrieved by the inability to marry the partner they have and believe that they have a right to the practice. The burden is on society to argue why they do not have that right, and that the distinction currently drawn in current ritual (heterosexual marriage) is not an arbitrary one. This was my earlier point: simply pointing to tradition is no more than a prima facie argument for retention. It’s not sufficient as a response.
75 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:42 am
Mi-GOPer: I agree with you. I think Democrats as well as Republicans have been hypocritical. I understand what you are trying to say. I did not explain myself very here, obviously but for me,it is simply a matter of liberty for all. I just cannot see how this issue is a partisan issue either. You have a big problem with Democrats obviously, but surely you can understand that there are many flavors of Democrats? We have our share of hypocrites too.
As far as Obama goes, I can be critical of him, without hating him. I think he’s got a big plateful of mess and as long as those young soldiers are over there risking life and limb, we have to hope and care and do all we can to support them and win – for their sakes and ours.
Have a nice day.
76 BoolaBoola // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:46 am
RE: “Giving a positive status to people who engage in a dishonorable lifestyle will only corrode civilization. If conservatives won’t stand for civilization, it may as well fold its tent and head for the hills.”
I agree! We should immediately stop supporting the dishonorable, anti-civilization lifestyle known as Christianity. It destroyed the Roman Empire (see Gibbon) and it will destroy us too. Let’s start building gas chambers for Christians NOW!
77 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:50 am
And, as an after thought, AnnieM, I’ve heard lots of compelling stories like the ones you’ve brought forward here… gay men living dead hetero marriages because they can’t come out… gay students who drop out of high school because the jocks were too mean.
Guess what, I’ve found that those stories are usually more about weak, insecure, psychologically deficient people who are gay than they are a reflection of society’s adverse effects on all gays. Why is it that most gay crime isn’t Hate Crime… it’s gay partners domesticly abusing their partner? Why is it that gay youth have some of the highest drug abuse rates in our culture? Why is it that the gay community suffers in a 24-31% unemployment rate that rivals black youth? Discrimination or have we taught our gay youth it’s ok to be backsliders and unproductive? Do you really think it’s all about “self-esteem”? Someone will pay your utility bill. Someone will give you a job. Someone will give you free transportation to the new club?
I’m sorry to say that for each troubled gay story I’ve heard in the last 15 yrs, it’s usually been more about a troubled person, not a troubled person because they’re gay. Society isn’t the evil entity… it need not be feared –the problem is our gay community tolerating people who remain unproductive and prize that trait like it somehow proves diversity is good. We aren’t victims; this is our society too.
78 cpanza // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:52 am
“Giving a positive status to people who engage in a dishonorable lifestyle will only corrode civilization. If conservatives won’t stand for civilization, it may as well fold its tent and head for the hills.”
Please explain (a) why it is dishonorable, (b) why gay marriage will erode civilization.
I am also unsure why gay marriage means a “positive status”. What it means is that society takes a non-negative attitude towards it. “Non-negative” doesn’t mean “pro-attitude.”
79 BoolaBoola // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:56 am
David Frum has this tendency to state the obvious about what conservatives SHOULD do. The problem is that conservatives CANNOT follow DF’s recommendations. Before it was expanding beyond the Rove/Limbaugh/Palin-dominance–of course we SHOULD do that, but HOW??? Similarly, the GOP cannot stop hammering the red-meat radical-religious-right issues, because the GOP has no credibility on any other issues!
Fiscal conservatism? Don’t make me laugh. The strong military? After pissing our strength away in two arbitrary, endless wars? Nope. Minimal government? The GOP has declared the entire world a combat zone, in which constitutional restrictions on government do not apply, and, placed all its force behind the religious government-should-dictate-your-sex-life crowd. What else is there for the GOP, except fag-bashing, jingoism, and repression? Nothing.
Please, David, stop telling us WHAT to do and start telling us HOW. HOW do we get rid of the kooks who dominate the GOP? HOW do we break the GOP addiction to fag-bashing and hate-campaigns and whatever increase short-term fundraising power?
80 anniemargret // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:10 am
Mi-Goper: OK…I haven’t left to go shopping yet.
You point out many many troubling aspects for gay people in our society. You feel they are led to believe they are victims. You hate victimology and I would guess you associate this with Democrats, or ‘whiners.’ I hate the victim thing too. Women for decades were taught to be victims of their own sex. We are still struggling with this, recognizing that we are human beings first, then a gender. But the gender thing is upheld in this society. Women are still made to believe that our first and foremost contribution to society is being pretty. Women still buy fashion magazines that dictate how they *must* look to achieve ’success.’ When women stop buying into this crapola, they will achieve real freedom.
So I understand your feelings here about the gay community. Yet…. society is a strong force and every human being on this earth wants respect. Not everyone is strong minded or strong willed. That is why we need people to lead. I don’t think that young man I told the story about was weak. He was hurt. There’s a difference. His father threw him out of the house. Every person wants respect and love from their parents. And that’s why even children that are horribly abused still love their parents. I don’t see him weak at all. In fact, I saw him as courageous. He didn’t hide his real self to his parents. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t hurt by his father’s dismissal. But he went on in his life to teach as an openly gay man. Good for him. Maybe he led some of his own students to a better awareness.
Now…I am really off out the door. I’ll give you all a break from my wordiness. My husband says I am too ‘wordy.’
81 Chekote // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:23 am
I’m not sure what your point on race was, to be honest.
The gay rights movement has compared itself to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. I don’t believe there is a parallel. Race is genetically determined and immutable. The same cannot be said for sexual orientation which may have some genetic element to it but it is also heavily influenced by culture.
82 Chekote // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:25 am
I compelling reason is that a large number of people feel aggrieved by the inability to marry the partner they have and believe that they have a right to the practice.
I think you just made my case about the slippery slope. So as long as a large enough group of people feels aggrieved we need to respond by fundamentally redefining key cultural institutions that differentiate us from other cultures.
83 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:27 am
Boola, masquerading as a conservative, asks: “Please, David, stop telling us WHAT to do and start telling us HOW. HOW do we get rid of the kooks who dominate the GOP? HOW do we break the GOP addiction to fag-bashing and hate-campaigns and whatever increase short-term fundraising power?”
Strange that, Boola. And more than a little fake, too.
I’ve found greater tolerance and acceptance from GOP leaders whether its Dick Cheney or Michael Steele down to the party chair of our local congressional committee. Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, McCain, Palin –acceptance and a willingness to work on issues of joint concern with me and other gays inside the Party.
The only fag-bashing I’ve seen recently is by gay left leaders and advocates trying to tar religion and Christianity as some evil that is silently thwarting gay civil rights.
You either need to sharpen your Hate Pencil point or change your tune: the fag bashing isn’t about bashing fags –as you say. It’s about gays bashing anyone who stands opposed to their political effort to secure gay marriage. The gay lefties I know are the only bigots operating on this issue –and, like you, it’s usually just a mask for their base, deep-seated hatred of religion and Christianity.
People of faith don’t default to a hate of you, Boola… they pity you because your hate is stopping you from true love and connection with all the good in society.
David Frum and his crew aren’t in need of telling a far Left democrat activist like you how to get rid of the mythical evil you think exists in the GOP and society… what you ought to be doing is spending more time on sites like DailyKos and HuffPo trying to get them to end their spittle-draped harsh partisanship that’s holding back real change in America.
Even in all your fakery here, Boola, your bigotry toward religion and people of faith comes through screamingly and flamingly clear in your comments. I think that’s a bigotry you need to work on as much as maybe gay Lefties need to work on their blind allegiance to the VictimHood Industry of the Democrat Party.
84 Chekote // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:30 am
Please, David, stop telling us WHAT to do and start telling us HOW. HOW do we get rid of the kooks who dominate the GOP?
This is the one bone I have to pick with Frum. Throwing up threads that lead to interesting discussions about issues. But his site is about “building” a movement. So how? How will this be accomplished?
85 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:36 am
Chekote notes: “The gay rights movement has compared itself to the civil rights movement in the 1960s. I don’t believe there is a parallel.”
Neither do Al Sharpton nor Jesse Jackson nor Coretta Scott King nor Bayard Rustin, Chekote. That’s pretty good company on any civil rights issue and, I’d say, pretty much authenticates your view.
It’s often lost on my gay Left friends that Obama’s voters in California were actually more responsible for defeating gay marriage than any Christianist, white suburban, Republican voter. It was dual edged sword, California gays were being told that they need to elect Obama but the voters he was attracting to the polls would be decisive in killing another chapter on gay civil rights.
My gay Left brethern have tried hard to frame the issue as one of civil rights and link it to the famous Black Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
But as you point out, the parallel just isn’t there.
86 cpanza // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:46 am
Chekote:
“I think you just made my case about the slippery slope. So as long as a large enough group of people feels aggrieved we need to respond by fundamentally redefining key cultural institutions that differentiate us from other cultures.”
No, I said that society has to provide a justification in such a case when they are presented with this. I also said (above somewhere) that part of a just response to such claims involves assessing claims of damage. Part of such a claim can, legitimately I think, be to argue that an insufficient number of people agree with the change, and so it would be harmful to social cohesion (in some arguable way) in the sense of fragmenting a sense of common goals and aims. Polygamy would fail immediately in this regard, because no one support it (other than polygamists). Gay marriage is very different. Many do support it, in fact more and more each day.
This is my point: I am actually middle of the road here between conservative and liberal approaches. I believe justice matters (liberal) but I also believe that justice has a communitarian social context (more conservative). As a result, I am not in favor of establishing gay marriage by judicial fiat, but rather believe that it includes a necessary element of referendum. It’s pretty clear that such referendums will pass, more and more, in US states in the future. What is contrary to this approach are attempts to make marriage a heterosexual institution by changes to the US Constitution or even state constitutions. If enough people want it, and it cannot be shown to cause harms, then justice demands it because the restriction is now nothing more than arbitrary and oppressive.
Polygamy is not in the same boat by a long shot. Could polygamists use similar arguments in 100 years? Sure. But that makes not one whit of difference to the gay marriage claim. If part of justice is culturally embedded, such that some degree of consensus is required, then the justice of gay marriage is not comparable to a possible hypothetical case for the justice of polygamy. The slippery slope argument only works in abstraction, not in an embedded context.
87 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:01 am
cpanza – you’re making a good point wrt not favoring BLOCKING gay marriage by Constitutional amendment, etc.
Additionally, if you loop back up to Frum, what triggered this discussion is the strong Republican opposition to Gay Marriage initiatives on a state level. This isn’t a Federalist question, as some have been bringing it up to be.
It is a question over whether it will be healthy for the Republican Party in the long run to dig in against Gay Marriage virtually everywhere it appears, and to pop the champagne corks everytime it is defeated. Certainly there are short term political gains to be had – there’s a decent possibility that Bush’s 2004 re-election was facilitated by the gay marriage initiative on the ballot in Ohio, which was certainly a part of Rove’s strategy at the time.
Although in retrospect, one could say that Bush’s 2004 victory was quite pyrrhic for the Republican Party … had Kerry won, does anyone doubt that the RP would be in a much stronger electoral position today?
88 Chekote // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:09 am
OT
I know I am going off topic. I did write to David Frum asking him for an open thread to discuss the headlines. Anyway, Palin has jumped on the Birther bandwagon. How many more stupid things must this woman do or say until the people at the Weekly Standard realize that she is a disaster for the GOP?
89 DFL // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:14 am
Perhaps the best scenario will be a Republican sweep in 2010 of, say seven Senate seats and 40 House seats; an Obama re-election in 2012 but with little change in the Congressional party breakdown; followed by another GOP sweep in 2014 similar in nature to the 2010 sweep. Then, perhaps, an amendment might be passed by Congress defining marriage as being between one man and one woman and forbidding sodomite ‘marriage.”
90 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:22 am
Obama has been trying hard to fulfill Carter’s 2nd Term. Let’s leave him at that legacy and not re-elect him in 2012. I don’t think America or her allies could survive a 3rd Carter Term.
91 marriage equality « unconquerable gladness // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:31 am
[...] 4, 2009 · Leave a Comment frum: As women, blacks, the handicapped, and many others who have been deprived of equal treatment in [...]
92 hamaca // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:15 pm
As one lurking in the shadows of this post, I have to say this has been the most intellectually honest and substantive debate I personally have seen. Maybe someone will say that says more about my own lack of resourcefulness and that may be true, given my tendency to flip back and forth between DKos and Townhall, with a bit of Drudge and RCP thrown in, looking for perspectives and original thought, rather than hysteria–have had to scroll my way through too many happy, barking clapping seals on those first two to find worthwhile nuggets. I only stumbled on this site a few days ago. Thanks especially to MI-GOPer, mpolito, as well as sinz54, but also most of the others. Any tips on other sites where such debate takes place in such a manner would be only too appreciated!
93 PracticalGirl // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Chekote:
“This is the one bone I have to pick with Frum. Throwing up threads that lead to interesting discussions about issues. But his site is about “building” a movement. So how? How will this be accomplished?”
Agreed. I appreciate the short posts designed to generate conversation, but there are 7 million blogs out there that do the same thing. David came close when he listed his points for conservatism in an earlier post. But in those, he did what the entire GOP has been doing-ignore the fact that the GOP leadership hasn’t practiced them in meaningful ways for years.
Not sure what sort of leadership this blog is trying to provide, and patiently wait. What, if anything, is to be proposed?
94 PracticalGirl // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Chekote:
“This is the one bone I have to pick with Frum. Throwing up threads that lead to interesting discussions about issues. But his site is about “building” a movement. So how? How will this be accomplished?”
Agreed. I appreciate the short posts designed to generate conversation, but there are 7 million blogs out there that do the same thing. David came close when he listed his points for conservatism in an earlier post. But in those, he did what the entire GOP has been doing-ignore the fact that the GOP leadership hasn’t practiced them in meaningful ways for years.
Not sure what sort of leadership this blog is trying to provide, and patiently wait. What, if anything, is to be proposed?
95 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:20 pm
hamaca, welcome to the barnyard that some think has a bit too much far Left manure and far too few conservative sweepers… don’t be offended if the far Left types now target you for enjoying the debate and finding utility in a steamed, spirited defense of conservative/GOP positions against an army of democrat activists.
For far too long, the democrat activists here used this site to batter David and others relentlessly, encourage any republican or conservative who would take exception to the Party line and try –hard as they blessed little brains could take ‘em– to push the debate leftward and back to their comfort zone.
A few regulars here entered the fray and fixed all that and the trolls have been bitching daily since.
Glad you’re here. Come back often. Ignore the trolls or else feed em a dead ferret; it matters not.
96 handworn // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:45 pm
The real, historical reason those groups have prevailed has been capitalism. We have simply become so rich, not as against each other but in terms of mastery of the physical world, that we have this level of communication, this level of entertainment, this ability to travel inexpensively, this ability to grow so much food inexpensively, that taking a hard line on things like that seems willfully stodgy, parochial, and needlessly harsh to many people. In this regard, as in others, Big Business is the worst enemy of what The Economist has termed “Southern Fried Moralists.”
This, I think, is why survivalist fiction is popular among a certain type of group on the far right. It would take that kind of nationwide desperation to return to the kind of country in which their instincts would prosper.
97 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Carney,
You’ve argued that a win by Boies/Olsen would be judicial activism because it would result in a decision that goes against the will of the people. This proves the uselessness of the term “judicial activism” and it is sheer lunacy to suggest that the court has no right to side with Boies/Olsen.
The court’s role in this context is to determine whether or not the laws passed by CA prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution. If every court ruling that overturns a legislative act constitutes “judicial activism” and, therefore, should not occur, then the court is unnecessary, which obviously was not the view of the drafters of the Constitution.
98 Carney // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:26 pm
BoolaBoola said that the right caused our country to be “pissing our strength away in two arbitrary, endless wars”
Really? Afghanistan is “arbitrary?” We just up and decided, totally arbitrarily, to go to war in Afghanistan?
You discredit yourself utterly.
99 Carney // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:35 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead, you completely misstate my view.
Judicial activism is NOT a court striking down a statute or making an unpopular ruling.
Rather, it is a court acting outside the boundaries of its properly limited and defined powers, usually in order to mandate or ban a particular policy without such a policy actually having been mandated or banned in the TEXT of the Constitution or its amendments, as such text is known to have been understood in the context of the time of ratification.
Although in theory, judicial activism could be used to implement a popular policy, as a practical matter, it is instead typically employed to set in place unpopular policies that would never have survived a popular vote or a vote by an elected legislature, and is known by all parties involved as the only way such a policy could ever be enacted with the short to mid-term, or at least by far the easiest way.
Such judicial activism is particularly obnoxious, pernicious, and morally illegitimate, although it is no more legally illegitimate than a theoretical act of judicial activism that is broadly cheered by the public at large.
100 Carney // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:42 pm
If “marriage equality” for homosexuals is so wonderful and important as to merit it being constitutionally mandatory, its advocates are certainly free to advocate a constitutional amendment making it so, and shepherding it through two thirds of both houses and three fourths of the states.
But they should not make the obviously untrue and patently dishonest claim that any portion of the constitution, as WRITTEN, already includes such a requirement. None of the men who wrote and ratified the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment meant that by it, and their opinion is the ONLY one that matters. Similarly, a new amendment that is known to be intended to mandate “marriage equality” will not be able, once ratified, to be “re-interpreted” away by conservatives.-
Original intent really protects everyone, and the integrity of the law, language, history, and logic.
101 sinz54 // Dec 6, 2009 at 8:23 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
The Framers of the Constitution weren’t all advocates of judicial review. Some states supported the idea; others did not. The Constitution does NOT specify that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review.
Judicial review–that the Supreme Court could strike down a law as “unconstitutional”–was established in an early landmark SC case, Marbury vs. Madison (1803).
102 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:01 am
Carney,
The implication of some of your earlier posts was that a ruling in favor of Boies/Olsen would be an act of judicial activism. If that is not your view, then I apologize for misstating your posts. However, if that is your view, could you please elaborate on why this would be a case of judicial activism?
103 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:04 am
Carney wrote: “None of the men who wrote and ratified the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment meant that by it, and their opinion is the ONLY one that matters.”
The framers’ unstated intent is relevant only if their written words are ambiguous. The words of the 14th amendment are not, however, ambiguous.
And just out of curiosity, what is the evidence that the framers did not intend for gays to have equal marriage rights?
104 Carney // Dec 7, 2009 at 1:30 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead, I did and do contend that a court ruling in favor of Boies and Olsen’s specious, illogical, and historically unfounded claim that any part of the Constitution forces either the federal government and/or the states to implement “gay marriage”.
As for evidence, in the first place, since it is Boies and Olsen making the claim that the Constitution does so require, and to force such a sweeping and radical change, the onus is on them to prove it. The burden of proof is on those who seek change or make startlingly novel claims.
However to take your bait, anyone with an inkling of historical knowledge about culture, language, and the law at the time of ratification of the original Constitution or any of the supposedly relevant amendments would honestly have to concede that the very idea of “gay marriage” would have been not only an unthinkably repulsive notion on a policy basis at the time, but as far as it is possible to imagine for an intended and agreed-upon meaning of any ratified text. Claiming that anything else is the case is prima facie evidence of gross ignorance or mendacity.
Again, all this is separate from the merits or lack thereof of gay marriage as a lifestyle or a public policy. One can be an honest social / cultural liberal who practices or strongly believes in equal legal recognition of “gay marriage”, while still recognizing that nothing in the Constitution mandates one’s personal public policy preference on this issue to be enacted.
105 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 8, 2009 at 2:20 am
Carney,
When asked for evidence that the framers did not intend for the 14th to be applied to same-sex marriage, you implied that their failure, inability at that time even, to contemplate same-sex marriage is evidence they did not intend to apply the 14th to it. This is a non sequitur. The failure to foresee a specific circumstance when enacting a rule does not mean the rule was not intended be applied when the unforeseen circumstance arises.
If the framers had intended to limit the 14th’s application only to those circumstances they contemplated at the time, they more likely would have used more specific language to identify and address those specific circumstances. The framers did not, however, intend for the 14th to be applied only to those circumstances they contemplated and there is no evidence they intended such. If contemplation by the framers/Congress/States of all the ways in which the 14th could be applied was a prerequisite before applying it, then there would be very, very few circumstances today in which the 14th could be applied.
Moreover, their intent is relevant only when their words are ambiguous. The words of the 14th are not ambiguous.
Lastly, you did not explain why a favorable ruling for Boies/Olsen would constitute judicial activism, and I’m still unclear on why you think the court would have no authority to rule that way. Courts routinely overturn laws that treat similarly situated people differently. There is no more of a basis for believing same-sex couples should be given less protection under the 14th than those who sought to marry outside their race.
You must log in to post a comment.