| Submit your comments on this article |
| On Gay Marriage, A Way Forward |
| 2004-02-29 |
| EFL of a Tech Central Station article. Off topic but consistent with Fred’s stated position on Gay Marriage. The President announced this week that he will support a constitutional amendment to deal with the mushrooming marriage crisis triggered by recent decisions of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. While indicating that the amendment he will support will "defin[e] and protect
marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife," the President’s major focus was on the need to protect democratic processes from judicial overreach. More importantly, he carefully and deliberately indicated that he has not yet reached a decision about the wording of the amendment he will support. The President has two different ways open to him to deal with the matter. The first approach, best described as the anti-gay marriage strategy, will please some conservatives and evangelicals, but will go nowhere and will let Sen. John Kerry off the hook. Unfortunately, the President appears to have cast his lot with this approach. The other approach, best described as the pro-democracy approach, is not yet seriously on the table and is thus still (modestly) open for dramatic Presidential introduction. It will reverse the Massachusetts decision, receive reluctant support from most conservatives and evangelicals, can receive surprising support from gays, libertarians and others favoring gay marriage, and can change the terms of the current debate to the President’s advantage. It will create serious political dilemmas for the President’s opponents. Its prospects for success could be real. An anti-gay marriage amendment will focus debate on the propriety of gay marriage; its alternative will put the focus on how decisions regarding gay marriage should be made. The former would use the United States Constitution to forever bar the American people from deciding some questions regarding non-heterosexual unions, while the latter would "simply" bar judges from substituting themselves in such matters for legislative and referendum processes. An amendment focusing on democratic governance rather than the illegitimacy of gay marriage, would reads as follows: Except for distinctions based on race, color or religion, the establishment of civil marriage in all of its forms, and the benefits thereof, shall in each state be solely defined by the legislature or citizens thereof, and shall have such legal force in the remaining states as the legislatures or citizens of such states shall determine. Do you notice a lot of unlikely people calling for state’s rights lately? You know the people whom I am talking about, the ones who are cheering local officials who thumb their noses at state statutes - and favor judges legislating new rights from te bench. This ammendment would truly flummox that type of "state’s rights advocates. While many localities would posess majorities that favor gay marriage, very few states would be ready for that step. |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #4 I'm still waiting for my right to leave the toilet seat up. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-2-29 7:41:32 PM |
| #3 Badanov- Actually, won't there be far more children raised by homosexuals now? I keep hearing stories, high-profile and not, of lesbian couples using the ol' turkey baster method and gay men wanting to adopt children; plus surrogate breeders for both. Won't this all increase with state-sanctioned gay marriage? In a different vein, was there legal gay marriage 200, 20, or 2 years ago; or even 6 months ago? What changed suddenly? Some people who shape the debate of American culture (like Andrew Sullivan)are all up in arms about how Bush is going to destroy this 'civil right' for gay citizens. It seems to me that the only thing that has changed is that some Massachusetts court and a radical mayor of San Francisco have just DECREED that gay marriage is legal, and poof!... we now have another 'civil right'. Gee, is it too much to ask if the American people have a say in this; through an Amendment or a Defense of Marriage Act or some other debate? |
| Posted by: Les Nessman 2004-2-29 6:51:45 PM |
| #2 The core of the argument is not gay marriage. By law and by custom there is not such thing as gay marriage. But, at the moment, there is a legal power play to redefine marriage to permit same sex couples to be recognized as 'married.' THAT is gay marriage. But, heck, it is altogether possible that gay marriage, once marriage can be redefined to accomodate the concept, will suffer a similar fate as the 'Roe effect.' The 'Roe effect' is a concept that since liberals embrace abortion and most likely use it to their personal convenience, 20 years down the road there are fewer liberals appearing at the ballot box to continue to support abortion. And it appears the Roe effect is about to take effect with numerous state statutes being passed to limit the 'right' to abortion. And so it may be with gay marriage. Those who do support are far more likely to be gay and even more likely to take a gay partner. Thus the gay population will suffer the Roe effect in a diminuation in numbers of available gay folks and their enablers for conventional marriage, and the breeding of children. (aka 'coming out of the closet') This means far, far fewer children raised by homosexuals being admitted to the bar and/or being available to vote will mean an eventual reversal of this shitty excuse for human rights. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-2-29 2:18:34 PM |
| #1 More importantly, he carefully and deliberately indicated that he has not yet reached a decision about the wording of the amendment he will support. Unfortunately, the President appears to have cast his lot with this approach. These statements appear contradictory. That doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the article. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-2-29 1:00:45 PM |