From the Washington Post, an editorial on the latest Massachusetts marriage ruling, titled Why Not Civil Unions?:
When moral certainty bleeds into judicial arrogance in this fashion, it deprives the legislature of any ability to balance the interests of the different constituencies that care passionately about the question. Given the moral and religious anxiety many people feel on the subject and the absence of clear constitutional mandates for gay marriage, judges ought to be showing more respect for elected officials trying to make this work through a political process.
Note, this is an editorial (not an op-ed column) from a major liberal-leaning newspaper, which indicates the scope of the battle before us.
The 'M' Word.
Dissenting justices in Massachusetts,
reports the Boston Globe, said the difference between civil
marriages and civil unions was a largely semantic one. From the
dissenting opinion:
"[W]e have a pitched battle over who gets to use the 'm' word. ...
"Both sides appear to have ignored the fundamental import of the proposed legislation, namely, that same-sex couples who are civilly 'united' will have literally every single right, privilege, benefit, and obligation of every sort that our State law confers on opposite-sex couples who are civilly 'married' ...
"Under this proposed bill, there are no substantive differences left to dispute -- there is only, on both sides, a squabble over the name to be used."
My personal view, not shared by many of our contributing authors, is that if the Massachusetts court had permitted a civil union alternative with the same state benefits given to married couples -- as in Vermont and, arguably, California -- other states would have followed along. This would have afforded the country a "period of adjustment" to legal recognition for gay couples, after which a segue to full marriage rights would not have seemed so radical.
But that is not the path the Massachusetts court took, and full legal marriage will, barring something unforeseen, be a reality. And so we are all called on to do whatever we can to stop the worst outcome of all -- passage of an anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment to enshrine legal discrimination in the U.S. Constitution.
Activist Mania and Bush.
It now appears more likely that President Bush will formally endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. I do not, however, feel any remorse over calling anti-Bush gay activists to account for falsely telling their supporters that Bush had already endorsed the FMA months ago, when his earlier statements were clearly conditional. In fact, by already denouncing Bush for what he hadn't yet done, these activists removed themselves from the political space in which gay moderates, libertarians and conservatives were actively lobbying against such an endorsement. That it may happen nevertheless does not mean that the activists' early surrender -- so that high-pitched anti-Bush fund raising appeals could be made -- was in any way justifiable.
Kerry Wavering?
From the LA Times:
Asked about endorsing a constitutional ban on gay marriage, Kerry said he "would have to see what language there is."
How the Right Sees It.
On the gay ruling in Massachusetts, conservative Fox Newsman Bill O'Reilly makes this prediction:
the law of unintended consequences will definitely kick in. -- there will be a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman that will override any state court decision. -- So all the happy faces over the gay marriage deal may not be so happy one year from today. The polls say that 66 percent of Americans oppose gay marriage.
Can't help wondering: If all the money gay activists spent on
Howard Dean's doomed presidential race (based on the rousing themes
of higher taxes, protectionist trade barriers, and capitulation
abroad) had instead gone into preparing some kind of massive,
professional campaign against amending the federal constitution,
wouldn't that have been a better use of funds?