Democrats & Liberals: Archives

“The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate.”

Those words came from our “compassionate-conservative”, “uniter, not a divider” president yesterday. On the same day he visited Topeka, Kansas to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling outlawing segregation in the schools.

I am pretty sure that were that ruling put to a popular vote at the time, such a measure would have been defeated. I’d be willing to bet even today such a referrendum would not pass in a number of southern states. But the point of the court system is to do what is right, not what is popular. That’s why Supreme Court justices are appointed and not elected, and once appointed hold their positions for life. That insulates them from weighing job security vs. rulings. Therefore, it is the job of the courts to be “activist.” Yet Bush portrays activism as a negative.

Bush additionally tries to inject religion into the government by his comments. While there is a sacred union recognized by various religious bodies, the marriage recognized by the government is not a sacred institution. As are all government-recognized legal entities, marriage is a secular institution. Bush is trying to merge the two.

Because a lot of politicians are too scared of losing an election over this issue, they tip-toe around it by favoring “civil unions.” As far as the state is concerned, how should these differ from the “traditional marriage?” Or is it simply a game of semantics? Are we going to create a new “seperate but equal” system? Or should we learn from our mistakes of the past and do the right thing from the start and recognize all unions the same.

Blip- are you seriously saying that Bush is wrong that americans dont have a right to be HEARD on this issue? How would you feel if, for example, the Supreme Court outlawed abortion because they said that unborn children were human beings worthy of full legal protection under the 14th amendment. I have a feeling we would hear the president of NARAL or NOW or John Kerry get up and declare:

“The sacred right to have control over one’s body should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate.”

Currently, the left has control of much of the judiciary and can force their opinions on gay marriage (which i agree with them on, by the way) and abortion (which i disagree with). The problem will come for you guys if more conservative judges get appointed. I look foward to the left rediscovering is belief in democracy over rule by the judiciary at that point :).

Obviously judges must serve their role and sometimes overrule legislation, but politicals who disagree with those decisions must oppose those judges- lest we become a country where all the tough decisions are made by judges with no say by the people. I disagree with Bush on this- but if he made the same statement about Roe v. Wade I would stand up and applaude. Its not about the scared institution of courts, its about whether the particular decision is correct.

are you seriously saying that Bush is wrong that americans dont have a right to be HEARD on this issue?

Heard, yes. Get their way? Not necessarily.

More than 90% of Americans opposed interracial marriage in the early 1900s. Luckily, we don’t have an amendment in the Constitution to forever remind us of that bigotry. I’d like to keep it that way with gay rights, too.

A democracy must protect the minority against the tyrany of the majority, after all.

Currently, the left has control of much of the judiciary and can force their opinions on gay marriage (which i agree with them on, by the way) and abortion (which i disagree with).

Control of much of the judiciary? Why did the Supreme Court - the only one that matters, ultimately - give the election to Bush instead of Gore, then?

ceejay- what do you think would have happend if the supreme court in 1900 had required interacial marriage and desegration? I will give you just one guess- i think you know the answer. This is why Courts need to act very carefully in their power of judicial review. By 1950s the country was more or less ready to move foward- so the court made a very calculated decision and it worked out. had it done so in 1900, the results could have been an ammendment to the contrary (which would have resulted in segregation for even longer!)

The right just needs to realize that two people deciding to commit their lives to each other is nobody else’s damn business. Nobody’s saying that the church has to perform or even recognize such marriages—so whatever religious objections people might have can persist—but what business does the state have making distinctions between straight and gay?

Not long ago I spoke with a lesbian who hopes to be able to marry her partner of 14 years—it’s not a matter of sticking it to “the right wing agenda” or destroying the institution of marriage. If anything, I detected more respect for the institution of marriage from her than most straight people show. That’s why I was pissed off when Rosie O’Donnell, after her wedding in SF, had nothing to say to reporters about her love for her partner, her desire to simply be an equal member of society, and instead used the occasion to scowl and rail against “the current President.” Down with Bush, and toss the rice. This is how the left bears part of the blame for the impasse on this issue, I believe— in casting it in adveserial terms and linking it to other issues. And I think there’s more support for gay marriage on the right than commonly believed. Andrew Sullivan’s writings on this topic are wonderful, in my opinion. He argues that there’s nothing more conservative than reinforcing the institution of marriage. And hey, it would be nice if more gay people could be convinced to vote Republican—then we could really join together in the cause of defeating the worst gay-haters in the world, the mullahs and Islamic terrorists who declared war on us on 9-11.

Misha wrote:
> By 1950s the country was more or less ready
> to move foward - so the court made a very
> calculated decision and it worked out.

Misha, you are right: sometimes it can be the wrong time to do the right thing. I can buy that.

But many Americans who deeply and fundamentally support equal rights for gays and lesbians, including myself, think that now is, in fact, the right time to start letting gays and lesbians get hitched up. Some think that no time will ever be the right time (i.e., homophobes and bigots). Some (like yourself I am inferring) think that while it may in the long run be the right thing to do, perhaps it is still the wrong time to do it.

The thing I like about the situation in Massachusetts is that it has all the hallmarks of a positive historic milestone that may actually stick, like Brown. The odds are tough, but the momentum is right, the players are courageous and ready, and the cause is just. It has the advantage of occurring incrementally, in one already-pretty-liberal state with a convenient “no out-of-state weddings” law. We will be able to debate the “equal protection” clause of the Constitution for the next decade without conservatives being able to fear a rapid domino effect. We will be able to debate and perhaps eventually compromise with a nationally-acceptable civil unions approach, or even the abolition of state marriage. I think we will have these debates and, I am hopeful, they will be sincere and not irreparably clouded by ignorance, cowardice, and hatred. I also think that The Family Marriage Amendment will be defeated — but, again, not without hard work and not without moral strength and bravery.

The alternative to this progress, to extend Misha’s logic, is the gay rights equivalent of Tiannenmen Square, a moment of premature exuberance followed by a terrible backlash — a situation where the right thing happens at the wrong time. If the FMA passes, for example, gays will be worse off legally than they have been for decades, and America will find itself with a historical scar on par with Plessy or Dred Scot.

So yes, I do think that in many ways the events in Massachusetts are an act of ambitious brinksmanship on the part of gay rights activists. It’s a kind of “Hail Mary” play, that’s for sure.

Misha, to that possibility I can only say to you: Yes the odds are close but they actually look pretty even, and maybe you can be part of the little difference that tips the scales to the side of what is right - instead of being part of the little difference that tips America into an embarassing insult to liberty itself, an insult of truly historic signifigance.

The cat is out of the bag now. As much as you may frown upon the radical tactics of the gay rights activists, you can’t dodge the issue by castigating their prematurity. It’s too late: not to sound like an ultimatum, but it truly is time to choose sides.

As my grandfather says: if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

In 2020, will you want to tell your grandchildren that you didn’t speak out on behalf of the rights of gay and lesbian couples to have equal rights in marriage, or that you didn’t stand up alongside those who opposed the FMA? Will you really want to tell them “I thought it was too soon, analogous to the situation with American blacks in 1900?”

I want to be the grandfather who is able to say “I stood up for what was right in 2004”.

-Cf

I sense from everyone’s comments, the belief that in the future (but, maybe not ours), gay marriage will be legal. That is reflected in a recent Gallup poll where majority support for Gay Marriage is found in one age group: 18-29 year olds (58%).

As Ceejay has done here, I’ve previously made comparisons to the Interracial marriage ban. In fact, when the ban was lifted in 1964, there were still 3 states with this law on their books.

Here in Chicago, the Sun-Times has one of the most Conservative editorial boards in the country. Thats why Tuesday’s editorial on Gay Marriage was that much more significant!

A marry celebration of legal equality - Chgo Sun-Times 5/18

> when the ban was lifted in 1964, there
> were still 3 states

Actually the ban wasn’t lifted until 1967, at which time the ban on interracial marriage was still in effect in sixteen states, all of them in the South.

the New York Times had a great article about interracial marriage as a legal and cultural precendent for today’s gay marriage situation. It’s a great article, in particular in light of how it totally discredits the “full faith and credit” argument that fears that gay marriages in State X will be required to be recognized in State Y (i.e., the core logic behind Bush’s disgusting and hateful Family Marriage Amendment). An interracial marriage conducted in, say, California was routinely considered null and void when those couples would enter, say, Alabama. There was no Constitutionally-mandated uniformity in marriage licensing then, and there is no such uniformity now.

I’m not saying this patchwork approach to basic morality is right, but the interracial marriage story is a precedent that tells me that the “full faith and credit” clause isn’t so binding that conservative Americans need to see Massachusetts’s actions as somehow a threat to the rest of the country’s slow pace to, well, to modernity.

By the way, where I wrote “equal protection” in my last post I meant to write “full faith and credit”.

-Cf

Christopher- I am with you. Plus I think i am a pretty good ally to have on your side on this because I run in mostly conservative circles and dont let my conservative friend get away with saying negative stuff against gay marriage. It does make it harder to defend because it came from 4 judges rather thant he people of massachusetts, but I still whoop conservatives on principle on this issue. Just because I am being the devil’s advocate on this MA supreme court issue doesnt mean that I dont argue for gay rights forcefully when people try to say that gays shouldnt have equal rights….

ceejay- what do you think would have happend if the supreme court in 1900 had required interacial marriage and desegration? I will give you just one guess- i think you know the answer.

If the Supreme Court had acted sooner to forbid segregation and interracial marriage bans, we’d be a lot further along in creating a society without prejudice.

There will always be those who oppose change or who personally have irrational prejudices, but laws should be changed to push society forward towards a better tomorrow rather then just codifying the practices already in place. Otherwise, we’d still be waiting for the last slaves to be freed so we could outlaw slavery.

As long as the fundamental institutions of society promote or allow prejudicial views, they create a situation where others feel compelled to support the position in spite of possible personal feelings. While there are some who may stand up and take the abuse and attacks that result from fighting for change, many more will sit silently for fear of personal harm.

But to change the laws gives those fighting for change a sense of empowerment and support. Prior to Brown vs. Board of Education, a family would probably have been lynched for trying to send their child to a white school. But having the law on their side allowed for it to happen, even if it required the assistance of national guardsmen. Sure there were some tense and difficult moments early on, but in the end society moved on. The same needs to happen now with the gay marriage issue.

I think we miss the fundamental point when speaking of “the people.” The people of the state of Massachusetts have their voice heard in the Constitution of that state. The Constitution is representative of ALL the people; it reflects their principles and values. Freedom and liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not principles to be gained only be the majority, they are right to be enjoyed by all. The decision of the MA Supreme Judicial Court reflects that.

Newflash: the country was not ready for desegregation in the 1950’s, and if it were not for Brown v. Board the American society might well rest where it did in 1954 with black American still unable to enjoy the full flavor of American citizenship. The conditions at the turn of the century were pretty much as they were in 1954 as far as the American black citizen was concerned. I find the notion that the minority should have to wait for fundamental freedoms until the majority is ready to accept them as equal citizens offensive, and abhorrent to the founding principles of this nation.

In summation, the President’s declaration “The sacred institution of marriage should not be redefined by a few activist judges. All Americans have a right to be heard in this debate…” is fundamentally flawed because Civil Institutions—of which marriage as administered by the many states is, are not sacred, they are governed be the rule o law!

Misha, that’s awesome. Thanks.

-Cf

Newflash: the country was not ready for desegregation in the 1950’s, and if it were not for Brown v. Board the American society might well rest where it did in 1954 with black American still unable to enjoy the full flavor of American citizenship.

V Edward Martin,

I would somewhat disagree with this assertion! The Southern half of this country was not ready for desegregation in the 1950s’, as states such as Alabama still had Jim Crow laws on the books.

It was for this reason that my father, his 2 brothers and one sister, moved from Arkansas to Chicago in the Great Industrial migration of Blacks seeking jobs up north, in the late 1950s’. In addition, because there was no Interracial Marriage ban in Illinois, my mother (who was half White) was able to marry my Black father.

Thanks for the correction, CF!

I’m 100% for gay marriage, but have serious reservations about it coming about through judicial fiat instead of a legislative process. Just because it’s the right thing doesn’t mean that it should be rammed down people’s throats. There are serious problems with comparing this to racial desegregation—a main one being that acceptance of gays is increasing like crazy, and in Massachussets especially it could have about by normal legislative processes. The judiciary is not supposed to be a body invested with a moral superiority to the population—they’re not kings. I want to see gay marriage—I don’t want to see a backlash against gays.

martin:

ok, i need some clarification.

Bush keeps calling these judges “activists”..however…if you look at the constitution of the state of massachusettes, their interpretation is fair and balanced…..and, completely unbiased.

how does that interpretation make them activist?

i really hate the double standards……a great judge if they rule against abortion….an activist leftist if they rule for equal marriage rights….

can you give me some insight on this?

Just because it’s the right thing doesn’t mean that it should be rammed down people’s throats. There are serious problems with comparing this to racial desegregation—a main one being that acceptance of gays is increasing like crazy, and in Massachussets especially it could have about by normal legislative processes.

Honestly Martin,

Can’t you hear someone making the same argument about Jim Crow, intergration and Civil Rights in the 50s’ and 60s’?

At that point in history, Blacks enjoyed equal status (and treatment) in most parts of this country, except the South. There, they were intimidated from voting, the KKK and White Citizen Councils were at the peak of their power and most Southerners decried desegregation ‘being rammed down their throats’ by outside agitators, coming down and stirring up complacent Negroes.

How long do you think the ‘normal legislative process’ would’ve taken then?

And, you are wrong to claim that a body like the Mass. Supreme Court’s decision is based on an activist-like, ‘moral superiority’. The crux of the majority opinion rested on not reducing my community to second-class status. If you can produce examples from the opinion to back up your assertion, I’d welcome it.

Again, I sense the belief in the inevitability, in your argument. If that is true, why don’t we settle this now, and get on to more pressing issues we face.

Finally, you are one of the dwindling few I’ve encountered, insisting there is a coming backlash. I hoped my entry would be a convincing ‘heads up’, that the entrenched opposition of social Conservatives, for example, will be far less impactful and galvanizing than predicted.

As a friend of mine quipped, the opposition to Gay Marriage among middle America is like a puddle of water, a mile long and less than an inch deep.

Heck Martin, 45% of NASCAR dads are against a Constitutional Amendment ban!

Bert—

While I will admit that in the North there were more opportunities for Black Americans to excel in the 1950’s, the playing field was far from level. Racism and discrimination in the North certainly existed it was just more institutionalized and overt then in the South. Chicago in the 1950’s was not paradise for Black American, they were segregated like all races; indeed Chicago remains of the most segregated cities in America. Blacks Chicago today live mostly in (very) impoverished west Chicago, or on the Southside.

In my hometown of Newport RI, Blacks were segregated, but we lived in a working class white neighborhood, and caught hell the first month we moved in with neighborhood boys throwing rocks at our house, calling my sister all sorts of vile name, it didn’t stop until my brother faced then down; the year was 1975. Along that time there were serious busing related race riots in Boston, and racially motivated shootings in Providence and NY. The only job my mother could find was that of housekeeper, and my father despite his years of military service and experience ended up driving a cab when her retired in 1976.

No racism and hatred of Blacks was alive and well in the North in the 1950’s…

V Edward Martin,

From what I remember of my parents lives in late 50s’ and the 60s’, Chicago was paradise for most Blacks who previously lived in the South. True, there was still racism and discrimination, but like many families living on the West and South Side areas during that time, my parents were solid Middle class - my father worked at International Harvester and my mother worked for the State Unemployment office.

Today, you are correct that there are very impoverished sections of the West and South Sides. However, I disagree that this is a reflection of those areas as a whole. More than half of these neighborhoods are still inhabited by working class Black families, exactly like my parents, before them.

acceptance of gays is increasing like crazy

Oh no! Look out Martin, they’re coming for you! I think I see a gay sneaking up behind you right now! Booga-booga-booga!

Hahahahaha!

Oops. I think I misunderstood your post, Martin. Sorry. It was still funny, though. :)

Pundit, you did misinterpret Martin, but it was hilarious!

Still, Martin: I know that it’s terribly premature to read the effects of the events in Massachusetts, but now that a couple of days have passed, I’m already getting the feeling that Americans are likely to realize quite quickly that the gay marriages in Massachusetts aren’t going to change a damn thing in Alabama, that the institution of heterosexual marriage isn’t suffering as a result, that being against the marriage means being against all those happy people in the pictures in the news, that the anti-gay marriage voices are usually profane, disgusting, and hateful and not really good role models to follow, and that maybe it’s not such a big deal after all.

I am hopeful. I hope the backlash is feeble.

-Cf

Pundit, you did misinterpret Martin, but it was hilarious!

Still, Martin: I know that it’s terribly premature to read the effects of the events in Massachusetts, but now that a couple of days have passed, I’m already getting the feeling that Americans are likely to realize quite quickly that the gay marriages in Massachusetts aren’t going to change a damn thing in Alabama, that the institution of heterosexual marriage isn’t suffering as a result, that being against the marriage means being against all those happy people in the pictures in the news, that the anti-gay marriage voices are usually profane, disgusting, and hateful and not really good role models to follow, and that maybe it’s not such a big deal after all.

I am hopeful. I hope the backlash is feeble.

-Cf

PS: If this post appears twice, it’s because I posted it once and got an error and the post didn’t appear so then I posted it again. This happens a lot, actually. And even if I wait for hours to see if the first “failed” post finally appears, only posting a second time does the trick and the second post seems to dislodge the first like they were chocolate bars in a vending machine. Weird.

The gays do keep creeping up behind me (and my boyfriend gets pretty jealous about it) so there’s no need for you to apologize. I don’t think there will be a backlash against gays, really, but potentially a backlash against gay marriage if it comes about as the result of non-democratic process. Which would be a shame, and unnecessarily set the cause back by years. How much better would it be if people VOTED for it—which they very well might in Massachussets of all places? It would be a huge win for equal rights and hard to argue against in the same way as having it come about because the robes on the bench think it’s a good idea.

Hey Cf.

The secret is: when you get the error page, go back. All your text should still be there. Then hit the ‘Preview’ button. That seems to make the comment appear without multiple copies.