IGF CultureWatch

On Thursday, New York's highest court ruled that the state constitution does not require same-sex marriage, while the Georgia Supreme Court upheld that state's constitutional ban on gay marriage and any state recognition of same-sex relationships.

These are defeats, but I hope they serve to wake up judicial strategy advocates that turning to the courts to mandate gay marriage is both bad politics (provoking voter backlash when courts rule our way against overwhelming majority opinion) and not a sure bet.

In New York, advocates asked for a finding of a right to marriage and nothing less, hoping for a Massachusetts-style judicial victory. But Massachusetts is not proving to be a model for anywhere but Massachusetts. If they had asked for a ruling instructing the legislature to grant the statewide benefits of marriage to gays in a fashion to be devised by the legislature (such as through Vermont-style civil unions, now provided in several states), it might have been a happier day.

More. Gay Patriot West observes:

Had New York's Court of Appeals ruled in favor of gay marriage, the decision would have rallied gay marriage opponents and strengthened the case for a federal constitutional amendment. Now that argument is considerably weakened. And the option still remains for advocates of gay marriage to make their case before the legislature-and the people to whom the elected legislators are responsible.

And he's right.

Ryan Sager concurs:

Supporters of gay marriage won a resounding victory yesterday-even if they don't know it yet.

Still more. According to a Human Rights Campaign statement:

The court's archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today. ... The court threw the expert advice of child welfare professionals and years of scientific evidence out the window with its ruling against fairness.

But the court's role is to interpret the state constitution, not to create new law by decree because liberals want it and believe it would be "fairer" and more resonable, but lack the support of the electorate or the legislature.

Meanwhile, as Instapundit notes, Howard the Hypocrite Dean called the reasoning of the New York Court "bigoted and outdated," but just a few months ago, when sucking up to Pat Robertson, he himself trumpeted his party's support for marriage only between a man and a woman. Better watch it, Howard, or you could give shameless pandering a bad name.

Yet still more. A backlash even in Massachusetts?

Voters in the Old Dominion, which already has a sweeping law against recognizing same-sex marriages or anything remotely similar, will vote in November on a constitutional amendment that would not only ban civil unions (again, already illegal in Virginia), but decree that the state will "not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

That language is so broad it's anybody's guess what it might apply to (private contracts to share property?). That means if it passes, the courts will have to interpret it. But wait, social conservatives say we need an amendment because activist courts are inserting themselves into the marriage debate!

Virginia Gov. Tom Kaine, a Democrat, opposes the amendment, saying it could affect contracts between unwed heterosexual couples and "disenfranchises…unmarried people, both same-sex or heterosexual couples." While he opposes same-sex marriage, he says, "We're equal citizens in the state; we ought to be treated equally." But then why does he opposes letting gay couples marry?

Nevertheless, it's interesting that Kaine, the governor of a conservative state, has a view that is at least as gay friendly as John Kerry's, and Kerry was perhaps the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. That may show progress.

But as the Washington Post reports, anti-gay marriage amendments "have passed in each of the 20 states where they have been on the ballot, often by more than 3 to 1." Sadly, it would take a huge breakthrough, or a lot of scarred cohabiting heteros, to reverse that trend.

While at first this blow-up among the parents of first graders just looks silly, it shows how ugly of things can (and, in many cases, will) get.

Maryland's conservative GOP Gov. Robert Ehrlich backs a state amendment barring same-sex marriage. That's insupportable. But it's interesting to note that, in the run-up to the Nov. election, Ehrlich has fired an official for being anti-gay and appointed an out gay judge. These are being viewed (maybe cynically) as attempts to appeal to moderates. In any event, I think it shows how far we've progressed in general, even though marriage equality remains a formidable struggle.

Meanwhile, in California, Gov. Schwarzenegger (who vetoed a legislatively passed gay marriage bill) declared that:

A person should only be limited by his dreams and not by his background, and not by his heritage and not by his sexual orientation. . . .We are united in the values of love, tolerance, and understanding…working together we can create a better future for California where everybody matters and every family counts.

Once the general public moves just a bit more toward marriage acceptance, basically tolerant politicians such as Schwarzennegger and McCain (and perhaps even more conservative ones such as Ehrlich, and maybe even liberal Democrats like Kerry and Edwards) should follow along.

Even in the Czech Republic, gay couples who legalize their relationships under a new registered partnership law that's several steps short of full marriage equality nevertheless refer to their unions as "weddings."

This encapsulates my problem with the argument that we must settle for nothing less than full marriage equality now, court mandated as necessary. Once the hetero majority gets used to civil unions or domestic partnerships that are increasingly seen as marriages, society will more readily accept the step-up to full legal matrimony, without the reactionary backlash that could lead to passage of a federal (and certainly numerous state) constitutional amendments, stopping progress for at least several decades.

More. Washington Blade editor Chris Crain editorializes that conservatives ought to support marriage equality for gays rather than "marriage lite," because the latter is inevitably also made available to heterosexual couples as a weaker alternative to marriage, and thus does serve to weaken the institution.

It's a good point, and I've made it myself before, including here and here. Alas, opponents of marriage equality can't get past their anti-gay animus in order to see that marriage for all should be the conservative stance. That leaves us with civil unions and DPs as less than perfect stepping stones, achievable goals that often have majority support and pave the way for future advances.

As Slate's "Explainer" Daniel Engber notes:

Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen will have to undergo league-mandated "sensitivity training," after calling a Chicago Sun-Times columnist a "fag" last week. Guillen told a reporter on Friday that he wasn't sure if he'd make it to the session, while legendary baseball loudmouth John Rocker described his own sensitivity training as a "farce."

Yes, sounds like it's gonna make the guy real sensitive about gays. But this kind of mandatory session is really about placating those offended (and I count myself among them).

Businesses have a right to force this kind of training on their employees, and doing so allows them to claim they're making good faith efforts to eliminate discrimination should they find themselves being sued. But requiring offenders to endure a bit of multi-culti psychoblather isn't likely to get at the root of anyone's prejudice (though it may provide them with an incentive to keep their bigotries out of public view).

I hadn't heard about the brouhaha that followed when the heavily Mormon town of Kanab, Utah, resolved to promote the "natural family" unit, defined as man and woman, duly married "as ordained of God," with hearts "open to a full quiver of children." The Los Angeles Times has the story.

From Mormons to Muslims, the Washington Post takes a look at how social pressure is pushing some Islamic gays to seek lesbian wives. At least in this case it's not the state doing the pressing, yet.

Fox anchorwoman Julie Banderas stands up to anti-gay crusader-loon Shirley Phelps-Roper in a fiery interview. You can go to YouTube and watch the fireworks for yourself.

On the website of the free-market Ludwig von Mises Institute, Gardner Goldsmith argues Don't Let Government Define Marriage (Or Optimal Child-Rearing Environments). Favorite part: even accepting debatable assertions about the most-advantageous family arrangement for kids, the amendment ought to frighten anyone concerned about liberty:

Proponents of legally or constitutionally codified heterosexual marriage ... claim that by legalizing only "one man - one woman" marriages, they promote the optimal conditions for the upbringing of a child.

But that begs the question: by only legalizing the optimal, do they agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a continuum from the worst (say, being raised by coyotes in the forest) to the possible optimal (being raised by loving, talented, brilliant millionaires) would those who could run government determine that anything below the millionaire level was suboptimal and therefore illegal? Would one have to undergo a wealth and intelligence test before being married, because marriage could lead to childrearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment? The standard is arbitrary, and dangerous to a free society.

"Conservatives," Goldsmith writes, "used to have a reputation for being skeptical of government." Indeed.

The Anglican Communion is considering "temporarily" banning gay bishops and same-sex blessing ceremonies for the sake of "unity" between liberal, western churches and their deeply homophobic, mostly African brethren (who have also found a smattering of allies in Europe and America). Draft church legislation would urge dioceses to refrain from choosing bishops "whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church."

Meanwhile, the American Episcopalians have elected a female presiding bishop, which also is making the reactionaries furious (although, in this case, the Archbishop of Canterbury is pledging his support).

At some point, the Anglicans will have to decide if they prefer unity (that is, communion) over Christ's message of love and inclusion. It really shouldn't be a difficult choice.

Update. Despite some premature reports, the news doesn't sound good. Blogger Father Jake has the story: Episcopal Church Bows to the Idol of Communion: Embraces Bigotry.

Update 2. The Presbyterians, too, affirm they won't ordain non-celibate gays. But the church's righteous lefty leadership urges divestment from Israel in support of Palestinian terrorists.