A Washington Post editorial, "Gay Marriage Overreaction," is spot on. In discussing the ruling by a federal district court judge in Nebraska striking down that state's anti-gay marriage amendment, the Post notes something I had missed - the decision by judge Joseph F. Bataillon does not claim that a gay marriage ban per se would violate the U.S. Constitution, but that the broad sweep of this particular state amendment, voiding civil unions and any partnership agreement - even preventing gay couples from making organ donation decisions for one another - was the constitutional offense.
That hasn't stopped anti-gay advocates from claiming, disingenuously, that the ruling proves the case for a federal marriage amendment. But then honesty never has been their policy.
Another editorial worth noting: The latest issue of the Washington Blade offers what last week's print issue didn't - a discussion by editor Chris Crain, recently bashed by Moroccan immigrants in the Netherlands, of the cultural conflict in a country with the most inclusive gay rights laws, and the most illiberal of immigrant populations.
Crain strives to take a middle path here, criticizing those who
blame the Dutch for being racists who are intolerant
toward immigrants (who are thus provoked into bashing gays), while
also castigating those who would limit the rights of immigrants. He
writes:
The Dutch Culture Wars should not be fought by shutting down the borders or by using the law to silence those who do not share the country's tradition of tolerance. Those are the arm-twisting tactics of the cultural conservatives who control the majority party here in the U.S.
Whether a tougher stand is necessary to preserve their liberal
society, however, will be for the Dutch, not American tourists, to
decide.