Gay marriage and judicial restraint
Gay marriage may be routine in Massachusetts, but it remains unthinkable in Oklahoma. Thirty-three states ban it, by statute or by constitutional amendment — many of which were adopted by referendum in the past dozen years. …
They also explain why even supporters of gay marriage might not want the Supreme Court to precipitate the matter.
A ruling that the Constitution prohibits defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would be one of the most activist in history, sweeping aside dozens of democratically enacted state and federal laws. …
It does so at a time when democratic politics appear to offer advocates of same-sex marriage opportunities not available to, say, opponents of segregation at the time of Brown. Indeed, the political momentum behind marriage equality is so strong that its ultimate victory seems, if not inevitable, then nearly so. Even in the South, support for gay marriage is 14 percentage points higher than it was a decade ago, according to Pew. Political reality, in this case, may counsel judicial restraint.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Political reality never tempered the rush to find a right to privacy in the constitution and the consequent right to unfettered abortions, even though abortion was legal in some states and probably would have progressed to other states if it were not politicized by Roe v. Wade.
AcidReflux on December 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Gay marriage is not now nr has it ever really been about marriage. It is about forcing the recognition of gay marriage as morally equivalent to normal, biologically natural couplings. It’s also about making those morally opposed to homosexuality into government recognized bigots.
Charlemagne on December 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Yup! This is exactly it.
theblackcommenter on December 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Judicial restraint-what’s that? Nope, judges push this crap on people and then programs go overboard and do exactly what they say they are combating -affirmative action anyone? Nope we know that gay marriage will suddenly become “Constitutional” but what gays don’t realize is that their will be a backlash to pushing it this way.
melle1228 on December 11, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Don’t. Do. It.
petefrt on December 11, 2012 at 11:50 AM
The right on raising taxes, “don’t let the mob rule!”
On gay marriage “A ruling that the Constitution prohibits defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would be one of the most activist in history, sweeping aside dozens of democratically enacted state and federal laws. …”
libfreeordie on December 11, 2012 at 11:56 AM
You’re only a bigot if you want the state to deny other people the right to marry, not if you just think gay marriage is wrong. Thinking vs. demanding state coercion of others are very different things.
libfreeordie on December 11, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Nothing is being “forced on you” by gay marriage proponents…you don’t have to recognize anything. If you are “morally opposed” to homosexuality, then don’t engage in in same-sex relationships. If you’re opposed to gay marriage, don’t get one. It’s that simple.
Not to mention, I’ve know quite a few heterosexual married couples that do far more damage to the institution of marriage than most gay dudes I’ve known. I don’t hear any beeatching about them and their loose morals tho…that’s called “selective outrage”.
JetBoy on December 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM
Proponents of gay marriage are motivated by a number of reasons. To be sure, there’s an element of the “in your face” that wants to use the state to impose their view of justice and fairness.
But a lot of other people see it as just a natural change in the institution of marriage, a reform that is welcome and one that will change gay people more than it will change marriage. Marriage is, after all, a civilizing institution.
People who support this aren’t all trying to force their views anymore than opponents are all bigots. Lots of shades of gray here.
SteveMG on December 11, 2012 at 12:00 PM
I support SSM but we are forcing our views on others. This isn’t private behavior. This would be the state using its power to sanction an act.
If we give the same rights and benefits to gay couples that we give to heterosexual couples then they’ll receive tax benefits, veterans benefits, housing, food stamps, et cetera et cetera. There’s a whole range of benefits that married couples receive that a gay married couple would also receive.
All of it funded by tax payers. They’ll be “forced” to “support” gay marriage.
Again, I support SSM but let’s be honest about what it will entail.
SteveMG on December 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM
Nobody is denied the right to marry. The question is whether they have a right to a marriage license and legal recognition of that marriage.
If the states didn’t give licenses people could still marry. Don’t need a marriage license to marry a person.
SteveMG on December 11, 2012 at 12:13 PM
I don’t care if two gay people are given the same recognition by government , what I oppose is the goal of the gay lobby to force the moral equivalence.
I had a gay boss once. He was the best boss I ever had. I don’t care much about what people want to do. But I will not accept it as morally equivalent to what nature intended nor will I accept the gay goal of teaching our children that gay marriage is morally or naturally equivalent to normal marriage.
I have seen the Gaystapo in action and I guarantee that if gay marriage is forced upon us via SCOTUS that they will start attacking traditional institutions aggressively to force the acceptance of moral equivalence or at least shut down their opponents via threats of lawsuits.
Look at what the radical atheists have been able to accomplish.
Charlemagne on December 11, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Gays are taxpayers too, who fund hetero married couples with all those benefits whilst being denied the same legal recognition to the same.
JetBoy on December 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM
The recognition is codified in a change in the conventional wisdom, of the culture. It seeps down to what we teach our children, which would be an equivalence between “Adam and Eve” and “Adam and Steve”, children who are too young to understand sexual issues.
The signals we send matter. They contribute to the “nurture” side of the “nature/nurture” issue. As I see it, the effect on children of mainstreaming homosexual “marriage” is similar to the “grooming” a pedophile does to children. No, I’m not saying gays are pedophiles. I’m saying the child gets acclimated to something that initially felt wrong to them.
Do kids “choose” to be gay? Red herring. No more than anyone chooses who they are, chooses their identity. The development of identity is a complicated, ongoing process.
Paul-Cincy on December 11, 2012 at 12:27 PM
Sorry, wanted to add…
All the state would sanction is marriage. Not any sexual acts. What do want to do, bring back sodomy laws? Are you against any sexual acts between hetero married couples other than missionary, and only for procreative reasons?
With one statement…“This would be the state using its power to sanction an act” you’ve change the definition of marriage down to sexual acts in the bedroom.
JetBoy on December 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Sure. I don’t see how that negates my point though.
The “act” I’m talking about is the marriage act not sex acts.
Example: A gay couple gets married in a church. The state then recognizes that marriage by giving out a license. The couple receives the benefits. The state is sanctioning the act of that marriage. It’s recognizing it for legal purposes and extending benefits to it.
SteveMG on December 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Amen and well said.
FIFY.
Don’t forget us gals jet.
I know plenty myself too. We all do- or turn on the nightly news or take a cruise down the street-work in the system (I did).
I saw horrors, that will scar my heart forever..what innocent children endure.
I pointed out that selective outrage this past weekend.
Or the many that lack sincere commitment to marriage and THEIR damage to the institution, their “deviance” and children
raised in the streets and by Govt..wondering who daddy is.
To deaf ears of course.
We can have a 1000+ thread on gays and their “evil” breakdown
of society on civilization but their own house is on fire
and crickets. God forbid they check their own house and get it in order. A real crisis they cant seem to muster enough outrage on like they do the gays. Perhaps they see them as sinful..can be forgiven..gays are just evil and immoral. Hard to argue that..
For some-it isn’t about marriage at all-it is that they believe homo’s are evil,sick, and the destruction of mankind. I have been told as much here.
Why we can’t seem to have a real conversation about this.(Every thread dissolves into that each time) If you believe me evil..evil must be destroyed.No? The bible says so and all.. Not much I can do about that.
When I have looked into organizations and the FRC- I see why.
These threads have helped me identify who disagrees with me and my lifestyle vs. those that find me evil and wish me death.Some posters I had long respected.. I just shrug. Those who post honest arguments about marriage itself-I am willing to read and discuss.
We haven’t always agreed on other views but my hat goes off to you on this Jet. Your honest and straightforward.
I have always wondered if you made it here to Fl. Hope you did.
bazil9 on December 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Thanks for being rational Steve.
I agree..many shades of grey.
bazil9 on December 11, 2012 at 12:47 PM
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
djl130 on December 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Gays are being denied nothing – they have the exact same right to marry that everyone else does. They just want an entire institution redefined to accomodate their personal behavorial choices.
tommyboy on December 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM
Look, when the state issues a marriage license and extends benefits it is saying this is an act – the marriage – that we promote and support and want to encourage. Married couples receive benefits that single people don’t.
In recognizing SSM the state is sanctioning gay marriage. It’s saying that this is a good thing that we support by extending a license and benefits.
Opponents think that SSM shouldn’t receive this status, a status that should be reserved only to opposite sex couples.
It’s not all bigotry. It’s the view that heterosexual marriage deserves a unique place, a unique role, that shouldn’t be changed. And that by extending this recognition to SSM that heterosexual marriage will be losing a special place.
I respect that view but don’t think that SSM will harm this special status. And as others have noted, heterosexuals have done more harm to the institution of marriage than recognizing SSM would do.
But again: recognizing SSM is indeed “forcing” a view on others.
Of course, just about everything government does is forcing a view on others.
SteveMG on December 11, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Your words are protected by the government. If you put those words in a book, the government will enforce the copyright.
Regardless of how offensive your words might be, they are not “forced” on others by the recognition that government gives to your work.
dedalus on December 11, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Well, not all words; some words are not protected (libel, slander, grand jury hearings, classified information, et cetera). Second, yes it will “force” me to honor the property rights or words of the author.
But the government is forcing me to let another person express those words. If I find them offensive or evil, I am still “forced” to allow them to be made. I can’t prevent them from being disseminated.
In any case, I’m not sure what this has to do with the issue of gay marriage.
SteveMG on December 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM