Friday, February 06, 2004
Massachusetts Ruling Bad for Gay Marriage?
The WaPo had this to say in an editorial today:
By pushing this issue before it was ripe and vocally supported by a large segment of the population, gay marriage advocates and the court itself may be setting themselves up for the other two elected branches of government to pass an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage in any form. There is certainly a compelling argument to pass such an amendment to restrict judicial fiat that can bypass a real discussion of gay marriage; I'm betting that such an amendment will be passed in Massachusetts, although I don't agree with it (yes, I'm changing my stance, which will be explained in a more detailed post later today).
Why Not Civil Unions? (washingtonpost.com): "We support gay marriage. It is, in our view, wrong to deny to people in loving, lifelong relationships the benefits and rights that normally attach to being married. At the same time, we are skeptical that American society will come to formally recognize gay relationships as a result of judicial fiats, and we felt that the 4 to 3 majority on the Massachusetts court had stretched to find a right to gay marriage in that commonwealth's 224-year-old constitution.
Now the same majority has stretched still further, finding that the state constitution not only grants to same-sex couples a substantive right to marry but also dictates the nomenclature of the 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.
The judges' action has increased the likelihood of a state constitutional amendment that could ban gay unions under any name. Politicians at the federal level now more than ever will trip over one another to swear allegiance to traditional marriage and push a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay unions in all states. The case for this noxious proposal rests on the claim that judges are forcing gay marriage down people's throats in an anti-democratic fashion. In refusing to allow the people of Massachusetts to choose civil unions as an alternative, the court seems bent on playing to this caricature."
By pushing this issue before it was ripe and vocally supported by a large segment of the population, gay marriage advocates and the court itself may be setting themselves up for the other two elected branches of government to pass an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage in any form. There is certainly a compelling argument to pass such an amendment to restrict judicial fiat that can bypass a real discussion of gay marriage; I'm betting that such an amendment will be passed in Massachusetts, although I don't agree with it (yes, I'm changing my stance, which will be explained in a more detailed post later today).
Comments:
Post a Comment
