How can the Supreme Court help gay rights? By staying out of it
I bow to no one in my support for marriage equality. I have been fighting for it since 1996, when the cause seemed crazy and only the courts offered any hope at all. As part of that fight, the hardest thing I have done is to counsel my gay friends and allies that litigation was necessary, but that real civil rights—durable, deeply rooted civil rights, as opposed to what James Madison called “parchment barriers”—come from consensus, not from courts. …
Gay Americans are now, at long last, winning the battle for marriage equality where it counts: in the hearts and minds of our straight fellow citizens. Only recently, polls began showing a narrow majority of the public supporting same-sex marriage. That trend broke through into politics in 2012, our annus mirabilis. The president and the Democrats embraced gay marriage after years of opposing it; so did some of the country’s leading conservative thinkers. …
Gay Americans are in sight of winning marriage not merely as a gift of five referees but in public competition against the all the arguments and money our opponents can throw at us. A Supreme Court intervention now would deprive us of that victory. Our right to marry would never enjoy the deep legitimacy that only a popular mandate can bring.
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
I wish everyone would “stay out of it”.
Live and let live,,,
,,, but I wonder if these folks realize that with the gift of marriage – inevitably comes the burden of divorce. That will be ugly to be sure.
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Gay marriage is states right issue. Period, end of story.
peter_griffin on December 13, 2012 at 3:26 PM
+1
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 3:28 PM
…I suppose you could say that. You could also say you’re “winning” by demonizing the opposition as haters and bigots. You could also say opponents of gay marriage are not opponents of Gay Americans, but I bet you don’t believe that. And you’re not hurting for cash, as you’ve got all Hollywood.
alwaysfiredup on December 13, 2012 at 3:29 PM
The states’ rights conflict with the full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. The circle cannot be squared without DOMA.
alwaysfiredup on December 13, 2012 at 3:30 PM
It’s not a right, pal, no matter how big a percentage of the people eventually approve of it. And THAT’s the reason the courts should stay out of it!
But it’s also the big reason why the activists are insisting on involving the courts. They want it declared a right. If it’s a right, then they can force churches to perform their marriages and rent their reception halls to them, they can force bakers and photographers and florists to provide their services to them, they can force schools to recognize them. In other words, they can force other people to violate their own consciences in the name of their newfound right.
rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM
Pretty well said
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM
I wish people would take a good look at what’s really going on here. This is a fight – more by the Left than the gay community, which is being used as so many minorities are – to deny religious liberty to others.
And it’s working. And conservatives are going along.
capitalist piglet on December 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM
+100 – you GET it. So many don’t.
capitalist piglet on December 13, 2012 at 3:34 PM
An individual’s right to speech or marriage doesn’t currently compel any US church to support the exercise of those rights through its worship.
dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 3:36 PM
And that is why the Left is so invested in it. Undermining religious liberty, along with other REAL rights, is one of their goals. How else to achieve it but to force a confrontation, and for the loser to be the First Amendment?
capitalist piglet on December 13, 2012 at 3:37 PM
NPR in 2008: Gay Rights, Religious Liberties: A Three-Act Story
Armed with those legal protections, same-sex couples are beginning to challenge policies of religious organizations that exclude them, claiming that a religious group’s view that homosexual marriage is a sin cannot be used to violate their right to equal treatment. Now parochial schools, “parachurch” organizations such as Catholic Charities and businesses that refuse to serve gay couples are being sued — and so far, the religious groups are losing. Here are a few cases:
capitalist piglet on December 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Good lord, wake UP.
capitalist piglet on December 13, 2012 at 3:40 PM
Religion and its expression do not end at the church door. For many, it is a way of life.
alwaysfiredup on December 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM
People who aren’t religious don’t care about this – but they will regret it.
capitalist piglet on December 13, 2012 at 3:41 PM
I stand by my opinion that the left doesn’t give a crap about any of these pet issues or the people involved. They see one thing and that is useful idiots for the leftest cause. As soon as the gays become useless the left will abandon them without second thought or a thank you for letting us abuse you. If it doesn’t fit the narrative, advance the cause or provide money the left just doesn’t care. Attacking the liberal useful idiots doesn’t do any of that and that is why BO gets a pass on everything he does.
Frank Enstine on December 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM
It’s not about “currently”. It’s about the goals. If you doubt the goals, you apparently missed it when Obama told Catholic institutions they must offer birth control.
The Rogue Tomato on December 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Jonathan Rauch, do you truly support marriage equality? Do you support everyone’s right to marry as they desire, or do you only support marriage rights for one specific group that you like?
blink on December 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Hide and watch. It is not going to be a free speech issue, it will be an equal protection issue. Very different jurisprudence there. There will be an immediate court challenge to the federal tax exemption for any church that refuses to marry a same sex couple. And if there are enough votes on the SCOTUS now to overturn Prop. 8 and declare SSM a right, there will be enough votes to decide that equal protection requires the end of the tax exemption unless churches perform all weddings. Only the biggest mega-churches could survive without the tax exemption. So this will effectively force most churches to agree to perform same sex marriages. And the liberals will be able to have it both ways – sure, you can still be bigots, we’re not really forcing you to do anything against your conscience, you just can’t get a federal tax exemption for your bigotry anymore.
A lot of liberals like to say that churches really care more about their tax exemptions than about their doctrine. We’re about to find out if they’re right.
And please don’t fool yourself, this IS part of the agenda and it will happen if the Supreme Court declares SSM a right.
rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 3:47 PM
BTW, for all you homos who want to get married in a church after all this happens, the Episcopal Church USA has already decided to welcome you and perform your marriages. But I know that isn’t going to stop the activists from suing every other church and synagogue in the country that doesn’t.
rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Well, interracial marriages were not accepted by a lot of states till the Supreme Court ruling in 1967 I believe. So, while legally DOMA ruling by the Supreme Court makes things cleaner, the full faith clause by no means tries to enforce uniformity in family law. I think Supreme Court getting dragged into cases like these are in direct contradiction to state rights – and should be opposed instead of supported by conservatives.
peter_griffin on December 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM
You’re good. Thank you for your posts today – I learned something.
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 3:55 PM
“homos”?
Really? – just when I thought you were intelligent enough to engage in an solid discussion – you drop “homo” into the mix?
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 3:57 PM
They are homosexuals, aren’t they? And they certainly aren’t “gay”, i.e. happy, all of the time. Not politically correct, but extremely accuragte.
kingsjester on December 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM
Nailed it.
Kataklysmic on December 13, 2012 at 4:02 PM
I hear ya.
In my opinion – calling people names is just juvenile. It represents a serious weakness to talk to people, and engage in dialog.
Whenever someone calls me a name – I know there is no use talking to them anymore – they simply cannot discuss – so they result to name calling.
It’s weakness.
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Especially since we know the gay community, the Obama Party and Barack Obama have already stated that gay sex trumps the First Amendment in every respect.
This is reality. Churches will be forced by the government to perform gay-sex marriages or be punished.
northdallasthirty on December 13, 2012 at 4:03 PM
This is either hilarious or sad, I can’t decide which. This couple wants to live in Virginia, no doubt to enjoy that state’s low taxes and rational government in comparison with the expensive kleptocracy that is the DC government, but feels “demeaned” because that state won’t recognize their marriage. Talk about your First World Problems.
And just for the record, I am fine with DC granting them a marriage license. This was decided democratically by the DC city council, as it should be.
rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 4:11 PM
It’s sad AND selfish, because you know the whining Rauch’s response to our not wanting to live in a state with gay-sex marriage would be for us to move.
What it boils down to is that Rauch is a pathetic, spoiled little brat who wants everything given to him based on his need to have sex with men and for everyone else who doesn’t agree with him to be ignored.
northdallasthirty on December 13, 2012 at 4:14 PM
That’s odd. I thought 32 states have voted it down when it was on the ballot. I don’t call that winning the battle.
TxAnn56 on December 13, 2012 at 4:15 PM
Ok – just for the record – in the future I will read every post you submit – you are clearly someone I can learn from.
Just wanted you to know that you are the type of person I come to HotAir to engage with.
SMART
jake-the-goose on December 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM
rockmom on December 13, 2012 at 3:31 PM
And you know that instead of going to florists, bakers, photographers and churches who would be more than supportive, they will shop around till they find those who are not and sue them. These people do not have a live and let live attitude, rather they have a support us or suffer attitude.
Rose on December 13, 2012 at 4:23 PM
Why does marriage, which is not a constitutional right, have to be equalized under full faith and credit, but gun ownership and carry laws, which are protected under the 2nd Amendment, don’t? There are all sorts of things that are different from state to state, like whether or not you can marry your cousin, and that’s the way the founders of this country wanted it.
Socratease on December 13, 2012 at 4:25 PM
Of course it won’t. Actually getting married was never the goal, it was to force approval of their relationships from anyone who declined to do so. Tolerance will not be tolerated.
Socratease on December 13, 2012 at 4:33 PM
It’s not as though Clintoon and Obama appointed their activists to the court to not stay out of it.
Who knows what Just-Us Benedict Roberts’ sleazy marketable motivations will be this time?
Mandate or tax?
viking01 on December 13, 2012 at 4:44 PM
In the case of Hosanna Tabor SCOTUS found 9-0 that religious freedom from the state superseded the state’s equal protection arguments. That was a hiring decions. When church doctrine regarding its sacraments are at issue, equal protection has even less weight. Otherwise the RCC would have lost in court to the feminists over the male criteria for priesthood.
Churches haven’t been forced to ordain women. They aren’t being forced to marry gays.
dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM
And yet Catholic charities refused to adopt to single moms and they weren’t put out of business. It was only the gay lobby and their refusal to adopt to same sex couples that put them out of business. The difference is that women’s group haven’t pushed the ordain issue. Gay groups will SUE and will PUSH the religious issue.
melle1228 on December 13, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Women have pushed and when they do they lose in court. One example being EEOC vs Catholic University, brought by a Catholic nun in 1992 who was excluded from a canon law position. The Court found against her on 1st Amendment grounds. Gays would lose as well.
dedalus on December 13, 2012 at 6:15 PM
No one ever filed suit arguing that their interracial marriage in one state had to be recognized in another. That norm no longer exists, and the suits have already been filed, which was the impetus for the 2004 wave of constitutional amendments.
alwaysfiredup on December 13, 2012 at 6:57 PM
Gun carry laws always depend on your physical location: you either are present here in possession of a gun or you are not. Whether you are married or not based on your geographic location is far more abstract a concept.
alwaysfiredup on December 13, 2012 at 7:00 PM