Centerfield

Your article begins with a flawed premise -- that "Under current law, no state has to recognize another state's marriage."

The exact opposite is true -- under current law, every state must recognize another state's marriage.

Which law is this? The highest law in the land, known as the U.S. Constitution -- the "full faith and credit" clause.

Article IV: "Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. "

It is quite likely that the federal "defense of marriage act" and various similar state statutes will not survive court challenge on constitutional grounds. These statutes say states don't have to recognize gay marriages in other states, but they are trumped by the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. That means gay marriage in one state would rapidly result in gay marriages being recognized nationwide.

You say you want gay marriage to be up to the states. If so, you should be in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that says so.

The end of your article suggests that a federal constitutional amendment would somehow trample constitutional protections. Which specific constitutional protections did you have in mind?

If you somehow believe that a federal ban on gay marriage offends the constitution (I don't), then how can you support leaving the issue "up to the states"? Isn't this contradictory? Why would a statewide ban offend the constitution less than a federal one?

Posted by: Susan at June 8, 2006 02:26 AM

First off, I said it offends the federal Constitution, because the U.S Constitution has always left marriage up to the states. Perhaps a more accurate thing to say is that it offends federalism.

Secondly, if your claim that states must recognize other states' marriages due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause is true, then what purpose does DOMA have?

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at June 8, 2006 05:16 AM

"this issue is being brought up now, right before an election, and the last time this issue was brought up was 2004, right before an election. Both times, supporters knew it wouldn't pass."

Very interesting indeed. Things are going so well in Iraq, I'd be shocked if the administration wanted to distract us with some incendiary issue they knew would bring out the conservative vote. ;)

Really, the answer is it "will force candidates to answer for their votes on the campaign trail." All that means is, candidates have been briefed to bring that topic up in every race across America, because they know it's supremely divisive.

I'm so disgusted with this pandering GOP strategy, I can't even find the words to say it.

Posted by: JP at June 8, 2006 07:45 AM

The DOMA has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court, Rafique. It was primarily intended as a boost to individual states' efforts to avoid having to recognize Massachusetts gay marriages. No one is entirely sure whether Congress has that much wiggle-room around the Full Faith and Credit clause.

Historically, Susan is quite correct. A relatively common issue is the marriage of first cousins. Some states allow it, some don't. But if you went to Arkansas (not picking on them, it's just true) and married your first cousin under Arkansas law, then your home state had to recognize it. There are some judicially-created execptions based on "but state X's law really, really, really offends us", but their status hasn't been tested much lately, either.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2006 08:01 AM

But this amendment sought to do more than that. I agree with the Wall Street Journal's editorial yesterday, which said that this amendment does violence to a lot of principles of federalism and might well be read to prohibit both gay marriages and civil unions even in states that want them. Because no court has overturned DOMA or required one state to recognize a gay marriage from another state, it's not necessary yet. If that does happen, then we can revisit the idea of the amendment.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2006 08:04 AM

Many believe on moral and religious grounds that homosexuality is wrong, and marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. These people aren't bigots, and it demeans them and the debate to say that they are.

I read a column Tuesday by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe saying much the same thing , at greater length. But I'm not sure how persuaded I am about the ultimate utility of this, or the actual goal of Jacoby's column.

I'm all for civility, and "bigot" is certainly a loaded word, one that we all recognize as a pejorative. So on those grounds it makes sense to say that it ought to be avoided, simply for the sake of not pumping up the acrimony.

But lets not lose sight of the fact that (per the American Heritage Dictionary) a bigot is someone who is strongly partial to one's own group and intolerant of those who differ. Those who wish to preserve marriage as an public civil institution that precludes homosexuals from participation are doing precisely that, and there's really no rational way around it. They're stating a strong preference for their own kind, and stating their unwillingness to tolerate the inclusion of a group that's markedly different.

Right now, today, in 2006, it sure seems to be the case that a substantial portion of the public, probably a majority, wishes to preclude homosexuals from participation in a public institution. In their view, it ought to be reserved for heterosexuals only, and they believe that allowing gays to participate is intolerable.

Now it's quite true that the basis of these views is indeed moral and or religious. But this simply does not speak to the notion that such views express an unwillingness to tolerate the inclusion of a different group.

It's an uncomfortable thing for folks to come around to, but even though many of us are quite ready to recoil in horror at an ugly word like bigot, the simple fact of the matter is that, bottom line, a majority of folks think that some forms of social exclusion are ultimately for the good. In other words, not all bigotry is actually bad.

So on this issue, there an awfully high level of cognitive dissonance:

Hi, my name is Joe, and I'd like to exclude homosexuals from the public institution of marriage, which I believe on religious and moral grounds ought to be reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. But I'm definitely NOT a bigot.

I believe it's time for people who hold such views to acknowledge that they believe that some forms of social exclusion are good, and then sketch out the boundaries under which its fine to exclude some citizens from public institutions.

And bear in mind that nowhere here do I say that I myself quarrel with the notion that some forms of social exclusion might be desirable. It's simply that I have no good ideas about what sorts of civic guidelines we should follow if we step back from the trend of the last 3 or 4 decades of doing our best to fairly include as many decent, law-abiding, taxpaying folk as we can in our public institutions.

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2006 08:16 AM

Your article begins with a flawed premise -- that "Under current law, no state has to recognize another state's marriage."

The exact opposite is true -- under current law, every state must recognize another state's marriage.

Which law is this? The highest law in the land, known as the U.S. Constitution -- the "full faith and credit" clause.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=899385

Although the Full Faith and Credit Clause is often assumed by the popular press and some legal commentators to impose a mandatory duty on states to recognize same-sex marriages validly celebrated in another state, this common assumption is clearly false. States have always retained the power to refuse to recognize some out-of-state marriages that violate their expressions of public policy. This has happened with, for example, marriages involving underage spouses or marriages that violate a state's consanguinity rules. Marriages do not stand on the same constitutional footing as litigated judgments. As a result, whether a state chooses to recognize a same-sex marriage celebrated in another state is a function of the recognizing state's law and its conflict-of-laws principles and not a matter of constitutional compulsion.

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 08:58 AM

I'm all for civility, and "bigot" is certainly a loaded word, one that we all recognize as a pejorative. So on those grounds it makes sense to say that it ought to be avoided, simply for the sake of not pumping up the acrimony.

I would think the obvious argument is that "bigot" only applies to someone who discriminates against a person on grounds of what they are - something that is against a person's control - rather than what they do. Bigotry would be something applied against race or gender. The applicable term here, they would argue, is "intolerant". Most people who are opposed to homosexuality, it seems to me, regard it as a choice, and therefore, while they may be intolerant of that choice, they are not bigoted (so they would say) any more so than they would be "bigoted" rather than "intolerant" if tey wanted to ban people from public nudity.

I'm not saying I buy that (personally, I couldn't care less), but I think that's the argument.

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 09:04 AM

Simon, wouldn't that imply that there is therefore no such thing as religious bigotry, since religious affiliation is, after all, a choice?

The argument you state is a clever and even a defensible distinction to make. But based on the fact that it's not part of what I've always know as the accepted general meaning of bigotry, which DOES apply to things such as religion, I'm very tempted to claim that this argument is weak-sense critical thinking, indeed little more than sophistry. In other words, the distinction is becoming highlighted due its attractiveness to folks who are especially disinclined to examine any reasoning which suggests that their deeply held views are not especially rational, but rather are primarily visceral, and only clothed in reason.

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2006 10:02 AM

Brian, how do you distinguish the bigotry you describe from bigotry against, say, polygamy?

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2006 10:09 AM

Brian,
You're almost certainly right; I'm not defending it, I'm just saying that's how I think they rationalize it to themselves.

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 10:10 AM

If being against polygamy makes one a bigot, I guess I'm a bigot! ;)

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 10:12 AM

There ya go Simon, which brings us to the sensible point. Ultimately people actually do generally believe that in some cases it is OK or even desirable to socially exclude some groups. In other words, even though we think that bigotry is something that is always wrong, in practice we only truly oppose some forms of bigotry.

What's left to do is the hard work of deciding as a culture which instances of exclusion are sensible and which ones are not.

So Pat, in answer to your question...I don't. But then polygamy doesn't especially trouble me in theory. I do know that in practice it seems troublesome, troublesome enough that I'd be reluctant to have the state ratify and expedite such contracts. This due to the suspect claim that any or most such contracts were indeed freely entered into by all parties. The state shouldn't provide an expedited contractual process to ratify any relationship unl;ess there's very good reason to presume that such relationships are entered into quite freely.

We know that it's common for 2 people to fall in love and wish to establish a permanent legal bond, so granting such a presumption in 2-person contracts seems sensible to me. But in my experience, its exceedingly uncommon for more than 2 people to all fall in love with each other and wish to establish a permanent legal bond.

This view is bolstered by the facts that 1)loving 2-person relationships show long-term sustainability in many cases (if not all) and 2)often are able to endure over a long-term even without the benefit of contractual sanctification. Can the same be said of 3+ person relationships?

With 2 people, there's a presumption of love, which if you ask me is ultimately what we have always been seeking to sanctify/ratify/expedite. That presumption is suspect when there are more than 2 people involved.

My basis for supporting state recognition and expedition of contracts for 2-person homosexual unions is that there's a demand for it, the practice shows viability and sustainability comparable to the sorts of unions now allowed, and there doesn't seem, at least to me, to be any concrete credible evidence of harm to other citizens not directly involved in the contract. [this latter point is debatable, but I don't wish to here, I'm just describing my perception while noting that mileage varies.)

Now if polygamous relationships met these same tests, that there seemed to be substantial demand for expediting such contractual unions, and that the history of such relationships had shown long-term viability in freely entered into relationships, and there did not seem to be good evidence of harm to uninvolved others, then I think the state would be bound to consider any petition on the matter fairly, maybe even favorably. But really I don't think such conditions can or will be met. IMO, a 2-person relationship is challenge enough.

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2006 11:01 AM

THese people aren't bigots, and it demeans them and the debate to say that they are.

Of course their bigots. Let's not be absurd.

It's also absurd to think it's a choice. Could you choose to be attracted to men? I know it doesn't work that way for me.

Posted by: rob at June 8, 2006 11:12 AM

Brian, perhaps the lack of polygamous stable relationships is due primarily to the approbation with which the practice is held by the state. Maybe if the state would recognize polygamous relationships and sanction them, make them harder to get into and get out of, then they would be more stable.

For that matter, how many actual long-term stable homosexual relationships do you know of? Are there some? Sure, no question. But how many, in percentage terms? More or fewer than successful polygamous relationships? You say:

This view is bolstered by the facts that 1)loving 2-person relationships show long-term sustainability in many cases (if not all) and 2)often are able to endure over a long-term even without the benefit of contractual sanctification.

Is that a true statement for homosexual 2-person relationships? I'm not saying it's not, I'm just asking whether you have any data to support it.

It's a moral judgment call. The distinction between gay marriage and polygamous marriage and marriage of cousins (or closer), all these things are moral judgment calls, nothing else. I believe that society is allowed to structure its laws around the moral judgment of the majority... especially when that moral judgment is based on several thousand years of human history. There are times when I might think the moral judgment is wrong, even evil, in which case I would strive mightly to change my society's mind, and might even engage in civil disobedience.

I wouldn't call it bigotry, however, to support a definition of marriage which has been followed by almost every major religion and civilization since the dawn of human civilization.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2006 11:46 AM

Pat I don't much disagree with everything you say except the last part. You may not wish to call it bigotry, but you've yet to explain why you think it does not fit the definition. You seem to be implying that if the privileged moral view is predominant and longstanding enough, then the partiality for own's own group and concurrent intolerance for those who differ is for some reason not bigotry. Do you believe that bigotry is determined by calculating a ratio, so that the percent of those who differ from the predominant group must reach a certain proportion before intolerance of them can be accorded the status of bigotry? This does not strike me as a very rational argument, that bigotry is not in fact bigotry if it has been the overwhelmingly predominant fashion for a long time.

As far as data goes, I don't have any numbers, but I know of many stable long-term homosexual relationships and I don't know of any stable long-term relationships between 3 or more adults. ( FWIW, however, I would not for a second deny that the presence of children in a relationship may serve to sustain a relationship or extend its duration.)

Polygamy may indeed be illegal in the sense that no one may marry two others. But so far as I know, in most instances 3 or more adults may engage in a long-term polygamous relationship that is unacknowledged or ratified by the state. Yet such occurences are either quite rare, comparatively speaking, or quite secret. Or both. My point here is that it's not very often that someone falls in love with 2 other people at once and they both love the other two as well. My suspicion is that if the state ratified polygamous relationship contracts, such relationships that were established would endure primarily on the basis of things other than love. I have no data on that either. :-)

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2006 01:00 PM

I believe that society is allowed to structure its laws around the moral judgment of the majority... especially when that moral judgment is based on several thousand years of human history.

I agree, but I'd add that it isn't readily apparent what other basis there is for laws than morality. Even if one was to buy into unfettered Benthamite utilitarianism, the judgement that the criterion on which to evaluate a law is whether or not it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, that presumption still rests on fundamental moral judgements as to what is important and whether a given law achieves it.

This is precisely why it's asinine, in my view, to bemoan religion and politics. Church and state can, should be and are separate, but faith and politics are deeply intermingled, and cannot be denied to be so unless one seriously believes that either (a) there is an amoral basis for politics, or (b) a person's religion and their sense of morality are separable. There being no such alternative basis, and there being no faith that does not involve a moral basis, it seems impossible.

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 01:40 PM

This is all hash anyway. Our kids are way more tolerant of gay marriage and will unfortunately be stuck with the messy business of repealing a set of laws that confer second class citizenship amongst 5-10% of our population.

In Feb 2004 the opposition towards gay marriage was 65%-28%. That figure has fallen drastically to just over 51%-39% accoring to Pew.

BTW I agree with bk here. Orrin Hatch doth protest way too much. It is bigotry. You are what you do.
What you say is just contributing to global warming. Kudos to the GOP Senators who voted nay - fie upon the democrats who voted yea.

Posted by: Marcus at June 8, 2006 01:47 PM

Doesn't matter whether it is bigotry or not. Some racists might have argued that we aren't against black people, we just think the races should be separate. I happen to agree that many people that oppose gay marriage are not bigots in the sense that they hate gay people. I understand that they oppose gay marriage for what seem like perfectly reasonable reasons. But the fact is that they are placing restrictions on people's choices for no good reason. I don't see how in the hell a gay marriage affects me or anyone else. Sorry, I just can't abide by the idiotic arguments I see from the GOP Senators. And, by the way, if you want to know why people are partisan, here's a good reason.

And, if you don't think this is a cynical, election-year ploy designed to get the base out, you need to stop smoking whatever you are smoking.

Posted by: Marc at June 8, 2006 02:14 PM

Brian, based on the definition you seem to be adopting, ALL moral judgments would appear to be based on some type of bigotry.

Shall we say that proponents of abortion rights are bigoted against those whose only wrong is not being born yet? It just doesn't add anything to the debate. It's only name-calling.

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2006 03:01 PM

Shall we say that proponents of abortion rights are bigoted against those whose only wrong is not being born yet?

Given that pro-lifers are routinely bewailed as being bigoted against women, it seems only fair.

I don't share the conclusion that there are any circumstances in which I would not object to polygamy. That makes me prejudiced and intolerant, but I'm not sure it makes me bigoted. As I see it, marriage is an institution with certain fixed paramters. Now, I actually think that there are a bunch of heterosexual marriages that do not fall withini those parameters, and even if there were not, my view of what marriage isn't offended by two gays or two lesbians getting married. But even though I don't agree with those who say marriage is only for heterosexuals, I share their view that marriage IS something, and that it is something that you enter into on its terms not yours, and consequentially, I can understand and even to some extent sympathize with those who oppose it.

Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 03:28 PM

Besides, didn't Unity '08 say this isn't a "crucial" issue facing the country? That means the status quo stays the same while we go and fight about the more crucial issues, right?

Posted by: PatHMV at June 8, 2006 03:33 PM

Pat, I didn't write the definition. If you don't like it, why don't you craft an alternative meaningful definition that encompasses your view but is still rational.

Marc, that's an interesting thought that bigotry implies hatred. Clearly there's bound to be variance beteen what a word has been officially declared to mean, and what people take the word to mean. Bogotry has indeed acquired a fair amount of baggage. But I still maintain that strictly speaking, its meaning is based on a desire to exclude those who are different, because you don't feel they belong.

Posted by: bk at June 8, 2006 03:48 PM

I think BK is substantialy correct.... folks try to use the term "bigot" to describe any sort of intolerance they don't agree with.... but lets face it, if you are a human being and breathing you are "bigot" in one way or another.

Me, I'm bigoted against....

- stupid, mean people

- serial killers

- Nazis

- Stalinists

- Terrorists

- Anyone that owns a Barbara Streisand album.

It's ok to be "bigoted" ....what matters is what you happen to be "bigoted" against and how you seek to express that "bigotry" (which I think is the crux of BK's point).

Now in addition to the above list, I am also mildly bigoted against homosexuals..... I'll admit it. I find the concept of homosexuality more then a little creepy. That doesn't mean I think they are evil or bad people.... nor do I want to see thier rights restricted nor do I want to prevent them from being/expressing who they are. However, I am not particularly keen to hang out with them.... and if there is alot of that type of activity going on someplace, I'll generaly try to find someplace else to be.

Furthermore, I'm not particularly bothered or troubled by that aspect of my bigotry. I am a human being, I'm subject to human foibles... just like the rest of us. We ALL are subject, in part, to that gut level animal/emotional part of our brain. If we could just learn to accept that truth and move on, I think we'd all be alot healthier and saner.

Now that we've gotten past the scarlet letter buzzwords maybe we can move on and decide what laws are neccesary to allow us to function as a society. Personaly, I think we'll be able to survive just fine if 2 individuals of the same sex are able to enter into the same sort of contractual agreements as 2 individuals of the opposite sex..... just don't ask me to attend the ceremony.

Posted by: cengel at June 8, 2006 03:50 PM

Besides, didn't Unity '08 say this isn't a "crucial" issue facing the country? That means the status quo stays the same while we go and fight about the more crucial issues, right?

I think technically, 22% of their poll voters said that it was a crucial issue, which they took to mean something other than 11% think banning it is crucial while the other 11% think legalizing it is crucial. "Unity"! Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2006 03:52 PM

The distinction between gay marriage and polygamous marriage and marriage of cousins (or closer), all these things are moral judgment calls, nothing else.

Fuzzy. ALL such distinctions are "moral judgement calls" in one sense or another. So is the prohibition on murder. There is sound historical basis for laws against siblings marrying--namely sheer genetic caution. Similarly with polygamy, which as practiced in the American west often amounted to the enslavement of women, statutory rape, etc. Not to mention the propensity of male elders to expel male children during adolescence to reduce the competition for the adolescent girls.

Mor to the point is the ingrained fear of the Other, which is endemic to the race. And is also well-grounded in history and evolution. That we may have moved beyond the reflexive historical/evolutionary usefullness of the trait (and I'm not saying we have, or have not) does not change the fact that it's an ingrained trait, seen in a lot more species than just ours.

Posted by: Tully at June 8, 2006 04:23 PM

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a bigot is "one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

Since all partisans are not bigots, the key term here is "intolerance." It seems to me that the test of tolerance, beyond mere semantics, is the willingness to allow someone else to engage in an activity that doesn't affect their interests. So, a Catholic who believes a Muslim is theologically incorrect isn't a bigot until he refuses to allow the Muslim to practice his faith.

In the same way, someone who objects to homosexuality isn't a bigot until they refuse to allow someone to practice homosexuality. In some cases, say, advocating a law criminalizing homosexual activity, bigotry is clear. In the case of allowing gay marriage, which isn't a traditional practice in most cultures, it doesn't seem that bigotry is necessarily involved, although pardon me if I intuit that many of the people who protest most loudly against gay marriage have an agenda which *is* overly bigotted.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 9, 2006 01:19 PM

Greg that might make sense if marriage were not a public institution involving governmental approval. Clearly a majority is currently unwilling to tolerate any participation in this public institution by people who aren't like them. And the only criteria for this exclusion, apparently, is definitional and leads to tautological reasoning. Marriage may only be between one man and one woman. That's the beginning and end of any "civil" discussion from the majority's viewpoint.

Now if marriage were a private/non-governmental institution, then i'd agree. We wouldn't force the a synagogue to admit as members muslims who refused to convert, or force the catholic church to ordain female priests because it's THEIR club. But a public insitution MUST have fairer admission standards under the presumtpion that we're created equal and have the same rights under the law.

I continue to believe that the best resolution is for the state to recognize only civil unions for all couples and leave sanctifying marriage to the various clubs.

Posted by: bk at June 9, 2006 02:48 PM

Marriage may only be between one man and one woman. That's the beginning and end of any "civil" discussion from the majority's viewpoint.

I think that's a little too narrow a statement. Are you saying that the majority's definition is a tautology because they say "marriage is between a woman and a man because marriage is a woman and a man"? I don't think that's really what they're saying. I think they're saying that marriage is a social and religious institution, one posessed of certain defined parameters which to a great extent predate reliable recorded history, and that this definition should continue to prevail. Posted by: Simon at June 9, 2006 04:08 PM

I think untangling marriage from civil union is the key, here. What a given faith allows as a marriage is their own business -- the Catholic Church should be able to ban marriages between redheads, or allow marriages between underage bell hops and German kitchen appliances.

The question is, what does civil society recognize as a marriage -- and thus allow the accrual of the legal benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage.

The latter is, in my mind, not a civil rights issue. People have the right to get married if they can find an institution willing to marry them, and God (or whatever) bless them. But I don't think people have a fundamental right to the benefits of a civil union. That can be restricted to whatever the political traffic will bear. I have little doubt that my daughters' generation will allow it in a heartbeat, and think of us as backward and benighted in the same way we think of the generation that pontificated gaianst miscegenation.

Now, as for amending the Constitution, I think pretty much any advocation for an amendment is prima facie radical and not centrist.

Posted by: Greg63 at June 9, 2006 04:44 PM

If the Catholic Church banned marriages between redheads, Ireland would be Protestant overnight! The Troubles would be over!

(Sorry, I know it was a facetious example, but I couldn't resist....)

Posted by: Tully at June 9, 2006 05:26 PM

I think it's a tautology because of the following to flavors are often used to reinforce one another:

Marriage has always been between a man and woman, therefore it should always be between a man and a woman.

Marriage is between a man and a woman, and that's the way it should be.

You make the definition the way you believe it should be, and then use the definition to prove you're right, even though the discussion is sjupposed to be about the nature of the definition. If that's not a tautology in fact, it's a virtual tautology in spirit.

But I don't think people have a fundamental right to the benefits of a civil union. That can be restricted to whatever the political traffic will bear.

True in practice, yes. But is it proper in constitutional spirit, or in the spirit of civil rights laws proscribing discrimination? Quite a different question.

Posted by: bk at June 12, 2006 10:33 AM

In practice, the identification of a desire as a "right" is not guaranteed by the letter and spirit of the Constitution -- the broad concept of rights being (mostly) protected from infringement by government is what is guaranteed. Specific rights, outside of those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, are so called only after (frequently unpleasant) political debate. (They can even be retracted. Once it was a right to own other people, now it isn't.)

It's true that there has been a trend towards the expansion of the set of rights, but the opponents of a given behavior can make a good argument that this still doesn't mean that anything goes -- the littany of High Weirdness in Scalia's scare opinions -- incest, polygomy, pederasty -- can always be hauled out. So, the question is, if a given desire isn't prima facie a right, what's the decision rule? And that has been popular opinion, tempered by the occasional foray into activism (e.g. desegregation) since otherwise you get a legal structure which alienates the population, and which is inherently both anti-democratic (which is fine) and unstable (which isn't).

Posted by: Greg63 at June 12, 2006 06:03 PM

Greg, I don't think that description is especially inaccurate, but it doesn't speak to the question of how defensible a given policy may be when it is compared to the legal progression of civil rights laws and rulings.

I'm fine granting that any expansive ruling that legitimizes gay marriage is bound to alienate and even cause instability, certainly over the near term. I never said that popular opinion is necessarily a match with the spirit of civil rights laws proscribing discrimination.

I don't disagree with the notion that popular opinion generally acts as a either a blunt or a driver of civil rights trends, and to a substantial point it should. This is a democracy after all.

the broad concept of rights being (mostly) protected from infringement by government is what is guaranteed

True in theory. That begs the question of how far guaranteed protection from governmental infringement really is from the granting of additional privileges to A but not B when such granting ruins plausibly into the issue of equal protection.

And I don't have a good answer, I'm just pointing out the connection.

Posted by: bk at June 13, 2006 11:19 AM