SurveyUSA poll of California shows that Californians favor gay marriage 56%-41%. The numbers get tighter once you get into the nitty gritty of amendments and whatnot, but the overall idea sells. I’ll say again: 15 years from now we’re going to laugh about how this was even an issue.
I don’t think we’ll quite be in “laughing about it” territory in 15 years, but I do think the fight will be won.
I see a definite sea change coming in the Republican Party. Every self-described Republican I know who’s under the age of 30 is Libertarian-leaning, and I think once our generation is running the country both major parties are likely to be socially liberal by today’s standards.
Of course, there’s the question of where the fundamentalists will go. Ironically, Bob Barr’s nomination suggests they may wind up drifting toward the Libertarian Party.
America will laugh about this in 2013, when CBS produces a sitcom starring a fat, stupid man married to a much hotter and smarter gay man. Each week, the fat guy’s schemes will engender wacky hijinks, but his better half will regularly save the day. Cue laugh track.
Well, it’ll probably be a big hit on the coasts, anyway:
http://www.hickpolitics.com/?p=494
I think 15 years is a bit optimistic, but I think it’s coming — and it’s a good thing.
But moves like this and the one in California are not helping the situation.
When it’s bulled through by a few activists and sympathetic judges, though, it galvanizes the hell out of the opponents — and demonstrates a contempt for the democratic process. In Massachusetts, the gay-marriage proponents did everything they could to prevent a vote by the electorate on the issue, even violating the state’s Constitution (but in such a way that can’t be enforced), all the while proclaiming polls and surveys like this one that said they had the support of the majority — and never admitting that if they really did have that much support, they should have welcomed a statewide referendum to prove it.
But even armed with these numbers, watch the California gay marriage lobby continue to fight against letting the people collectively express their opinion on the matter at the ballot box. They seem to have a phobia of actually trusting the people to do the right thing.
J.
I hope too that it will not be an issue in 15 years. However Jay is right, when it gets done the way it was in CA, it will awaken the idiot wing of the party.
Respectfully,
The Squid
When it’s bulled through by a few activists and sympathetic judges, though, it galvanizes the hell out of the opponents — and demonstrates a contempt for the democratic process.
So the civil rights of a minority are to be entirely decided by the whims of the majority? Interesting.
“When it’s bulled through by a few activists and sympathetic judges, though,”
This is where I call you a moron.
The legislative branch passed the bill but the governor refused to sign it. So no, this was not brought on by ‘activist judges.’ Try and get your facts straight.
Moron.
“So the civil rights of a minority are to be entirely decided by the whims of the majority? Interesting.”
Misconstruing the argument I would say.
“The legislative branch passed the bill but the governor refused to sign it. So no, this was not brought on by ‘activist judges.’ Try and get your facts straight. ”
How does this make him a moron? The legislature passed a law, the court made a hazy legal opinion, it gets the base riled. All of these are reasonable assertions.
Respectfully,
The Squid
I still wonder if the next President would be well-served by allowing gays in the military early in his first term. Maybe he’d have to wait until late in a second term, but in the not too long term it’s a winner.
So no, this was not brought on by ‘activist judges.’ Try and get your facts straight.
You call him a moron and then inaccurately quote what he had written. He didn’t write anything about “activist judges”. He wrote, “activists and sympathetic judges.” As has been pointed out before, the decision was split and controversial with dissenting justices saying the court was overstepping its bounds and taking a position in a political debate.
Unless I am mistaken, the state’s domestic partnership laws already gave the gay couples in the state all of the civil protections afforded to those who were legally married.
If you don’t think these court decisions have any effect, one only needs to look at the 2004 Massachusetts Supreme Court decision. In the wake of that one, 23 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Don’t think just because of this poll, that can’t happen in California either.
“So the civil rights of a minority are to be entirely decided by the whims of the majority? Interesting.”
Haven’t they always?
I live in California. My brother is gay.
In the future, no one will care about the legislative path to equality. You get there however you get there.
Jay Tea, the kerfluffles that galvanize the opponents are temporary. Passing gay marriage and other civil rights issues is like ripping off a bandaid– there’s a brief flash of more pain than there was before, but then it passes after you get it over with.
All this exciting warning about how “moving too fast” will just create more enemies and wake up the opposition is just fearmongering.
There was already enough popular support for gay marriage to have it pass the CA legislature; it was simply vetoed. The courts were effectively just ratifying an already-established will of the people and eliminating a political impasse.
Actually, I had Massachusetts in mind when I wrote that — and that is exactly how it played out in the Bay State. The pro-gay-marriage side used every legal (and a few illegal) tactics to stall any sort of vote in the legislature, then got the Courts to rule it by fiat. Then they thwarted every single move to bring it to any kind of a vote, anywhere, even violating the state’s Constitution. The only reason they weren’t called on that one was that there’s no enforcement mechanism to get the Legislature to fulfill their Constitutional duty. It says that measures MUST be voted on, but if they refuse, there’s nothing anyone can do to make them.
And aw — the same body that gave us Brown v. Board of Education also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. On the other hand, it was popular votes that bulled through the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act.
Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing?
OK, that was unfair. As Winston Churchill once said, “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”
I support gay marriage, have (vocally) for a very long time, but I want it done RIGHT. Not just for moral reasons, but pragmatic — when it’s done like it was in Massachusetts, all it does is galvanize the HELL out of the opponents and provoke a lot of nasty fights, often causing more problems and more crises than need be — and circumvention of a lot of laws, rules, and principles.
And that ALWAYS works out so well, doesn’t it?
J.
Trying to get your political will imposed via the Court instead of going through the legislative process always leads to peace and harmony. Just ask the Abortion lobby.
all it does is galvanize the HELL out of the opponents and provoke a lot of nasty fights, often causing more problems and more crises than need be
I respect your opinion on this, JT, but I don’t see how doing this the “right” way is going to prevent the galvanization you speak of. The people opposed to gay marriage have no truly logical reasons, merely emotional ones, and their opinions are unlikely to change just because all the proper channels were obeyed to reach the conclusion they want never to happen.
There are still going to be people who bemoan the day mixed-race marriages became legal. You can’t convince such people that the old ways were nonsensical and that the path to mixed-race marriages was a righteous one, properly handled. All you can do is hope they change their minds on their own…or shut up, or die off.
Spider,
I see this debate as fundamentally different than the race debate. First of all, mixed race marriages are still biologically able to procreate, gay marriages can not (obviously). Also, there was no real religous grounding in opposing mized race marriage, there is some here.
I am not saying any of these are really valid, but you are adding alot of new dimensions which are not present in the old mixed marriage debate.
Respectfully,
The Squid
Spider, it will take a bit of wind out of their sails once it’s demonstrably proven that a majority do, indeed, support it. Also, with a proven majority in support of a measure, it takes a hell of a lot more energy to rally the opponents — you strip them of their “defending democracy and freedom” rallying cry. Instead, we can tell them “you tried, you failed, you lose, get over it.”
Eventually, it’ll be reduced to a small band of muttering malcontents, and everyone will wonder what the hell the big fuss was over. But if it gets ramrodded — er, stampeded; bad choice of words there — and shoved down everyones’ throats — damn, another bad choice — without going through the established process for fundamental changes, without giving the opponents their chance to speak their piece and persuade people to take their side, then they can argue — with considerable justification — that it was done improperly, illegally, and unethically, and not only can be overturned, but must be overturned.
Americans, at their core, are fundamentally fair people. And I think that if we don’t keep that in mind, if we do run roughshod over the established process, then we wreck the chances it’ll be done in a way that will last.
J.
Also, there was no real religous grounding in opposing mized race marriage, there is some here.
Of course there were. Mixed-race marriages were seen as against God’s order. See also: Bob Jones University.
Jay,
I feel you are correct, look at Roe V Wade. All that has done is given them a rallying cry. Brown, Miranda and Gideon were all accompanied and supported with growning public support for such measures.
I feel if this gets to the SCOTUS, we are headed for another Roe.
Respectfully,
The Squid
First of all, mixed race marriages are still biologically able to procreate, gay marriages can not (obviously).
They cannot procreate without outside help, you mean.
That can be said about a significant number of heterosexual marriages as well.
The “marriages are for procreation” argument is a tattered flag and has no place in a reasoned debate of this topic.
…when it’s done like it was in Massachusetts, all it does is galvanize the HELL out of the opponents and provoke a lot of nasty fights,…
There’s a reason they’re called Massholes around here.
Squid,
Have you yet read the California court opinion? From a lawyer’s perspective, what did you think about it (leaving aside the merits of the position)?
when it gets done the way it was in CA, it will awaken the idiot wing of the party.
Which party?
Spider, the comparison to mixed race marriages in this instance does not hold up. As I said earlier (and have confirmed), California’s domestic partnership laws already give gay couples the same rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples. You simply cannot compare that to the plight of mixed race couples who faced jail time for being married to each other. And again, even though it is a mixed race, we’re still talking about a man and a woman.
It all comes back to the false notion that marriage is a protected right and requires the court’s intervention. It is not, and the court in this case, overstepped their bounds and got themselves involved in a political issue. It’s something that could have repercussions. Again, it’s no coincidence that after the 2004 MSC decision that over 20 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
“The “marriages are for procreation” argument is a tattered flag and has no place in a reasoned debate of this topic.”
Neither did any of the arguments for mixed race marriages.
However, this “tattered flag” adds a whole new dimension to the argument.
Parthenon,
I have only read the brief, not the full decision. On the surface I think it was not terribly good. I liken it to the Bush v Gore argument, another one I agreed with in principle but not in the actual reasoning.
The 9th Circuit and Cali Supreme Court are notorious for issueing weak decisions.
Respectfully,
The Squid
“Of course there were. Mixed-race marriages were seen as against God’s order. See also: Bob Jones University.
However there was no actual case to be made, it was all conjecture. There is a much better religious case for gay marriage opponents. I am not saying the nmixed race religious argument wasnt tried, I am just saying that it was alot less sound than the one against gay marriage.
Respectfully,
The Squid
One of the main reasons for having a judicial branch is to prevent the majority from trampling on the rights of minorities. Under the “Wait until a majority approves it” plan, gays will be able to marry at about the same time the Republicans remove our troops from Iraq-Say 2108 or so.
I could not agree more. But I think it’ll be more like 50 years until gay marriage is legal everywhere because it’ll take that long for people my age to take over the government and change the law. As everyone knows by now us younger people are more open to gays and less racist.
What dimension does it add, when it has no legs to stand on? If somebody opposes gay marriage because gay relationships do not, in the basic fashion, produce a child, then they must also be vocal in denouncing the marriages of straight couples with fertility problems. Since they do not, the topic is a distraction, nothing more.
There is a much better religious case for gay marriage opponents.
And? The “religious case” should have nothing to do with the rights of citizens under the law.
If somebody opposes gay marriage because gay relationships do not, in the basic fashion, produce a child, then they must also be vocal in denouncing the marriages of straight couples with fertility problems.
Or older couples past menopause.
Good thing we don’t live in a theocracy, huh?
“And? The “religious case” should have nothing to do with the rights of citizens under the law.”
I could not agree more, but I do not speak for everyone else.
Respectfully,
The Squid
If somebody opposes gay marriage because gay relationships do not, in the basic fashion, produce a child, then they must also be vocal in denouncing the marriages of straight couples with fertility problems.
Nah, you just go Old Testament and pray for another wife in addition to your “barren” one.
I forget, is that before or after you give your wife to Pharaoh, pleading with her to tell the God-King that she is your sister, not your wife?
Maybe she’ll just let you bang the maid.
“You call him a moron and then inaccurately quote what he had written. He didn’t write anything about ‘activist judges.’”
You are joking, right?
Two points…
1.) ‘Activist judges’ has been a term thrown around by the right whenever the court makes a decision they don’t like.
2.) I didn’t quote him. Single quotes (’) do not mean the same as double quotes (”). Single quotes mean you are paraphrasing. … or you are quoting a quote as part of a larger block of text. The wonderful world of grammar.
Me: “The legislative branch passed the bill but the governor refused to sign it. So no, this was not brought on by ‘activist judges.’ Try and get your facts straight.”
Squid: “How does this make him a moron?”
Because the bill wasn’t bullied through by the judges. It was supported by the democratically elected legislative branch.
And aw — the same body that gave us Brown v. Board of Education also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson. On the other hand, it was popular votes that bulled through the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, and the Civil Rights Act.
Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing?
Why didn’t you respond to my point?
“You call him a moron and then inaccurately quote what he had written. He didn’t write anything about ‘activist judges.’”
No, he wrote “activists and sympathetic judges”, i.e. judges who help activists, which is what the phrase “activist judges” refers to.
Single quotes (’) do not mean the same as double quotes (”). Single quotes mean you are paraphrasing…
I’ve never heard of such a system.
Nor have I, and I’ve spent time as a book editor.
Single quotes are for quotations within quotations.
Ex: “Wasn’t it Patrick Henry who said ‘Give me liberty or give me death’?”
Why do you not trust the American people to do the right thing?
Two words. American Idol.