Just over a month ago in making the case for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, President Bush said, “An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice.” Like the president, many other supporters of this gratuitous amendment believe it is necessary to prevent state courts from requiring their jurisdictions to accord same-sex unions the same status as traditional marriage.

Well, that argument became less compelling this morning when New York’s highest court ruled “that gay marriage is not allowed under state law.” In a statement, New York Governor George Pataki said, “I am also pleased that the court has reaffirmed that the Legislature is the appropriate branch of government to initiate and make any changes to existing law governing marriage.” He’s right; the legislature, rather than the courts, is the appropriate forum to decide such issues.

While gay groups are reacting in a juvenile manner with Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese calling the court’s reasoning “archaic” and “rooted in ignorance,” they also seem to have heard the words of the Empire State’s Republican Governor. They are vowing to work with the state legislature. In a release a little less shrill than HRC’s, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Executive Director Matt Foreman, for example, calls on the Democratic gubernatorial candidate and the State Assembly Speaker to take action.

Kudos to these two for looking to the elected state legislature to pass what they call “marriage equality” legislation. While Solomonese is right to cite the numerous child welfare and psychological organizations which support same-sex marriage, he’s wrong to fault the court for ignoring their findings. It is the job of courts to interpret the law, not set social policy.

(more…)

Since writing for this blog in October 2004, I have, from time to time, had second thoughts about pieces I have posted. Sometimes, I wondered if it had been appropriate for me to post them, other times, I find I may have posted in haste — or my views had shifted since I first put metaphorical pen to paper.

While I have corrected errors (and misunderstandings) in some posts, of the 600-odd pieces I have posted, I have pulled only two, one because I had misrepresented an article which I had criticized. That time I was right to do so. Several months before that, I pulled a piece because four readers savaged in it the comments (while none came to its defense). On later rereading (an archived version of) that post, I learned that I needed to develop a thicker skin, as it was an even-handed piece. I should have let that one stand.

In some ways, I now wish I had not posted the piece I had written on Monday, faulting Log Cabin’s spin on the Governor’s speech. That said, after re-reading the piece, I stand by the points I made. I also appreciate how some of the criticism has enabled me to expand upon/clarify my points. It is, in part, out of respect for those critics, some of whom, despite their tone, made some very valuable points that I’m keeping that post up. If I pulled the post, I would also be pulling their comments.

I first considered blogging on the topic when I read Log Cabin’s press release. While Log Cabin claimed the Governor made a strong case of equality, the coverage of the speech, including Log Cabin’s own release, indicated that his theme was tolerance. I tried to get a copy of the speech. On Monday, I called the Governor’s campaign and learned that Schwarzenegger, like the Gipper when he served in the Golden State, spoke off the cuff; they did not have a written text of the speech.

So, I read a few blogs and online articles about the speech which confirmed my initial evaluation — that its theme was tolerance, not equality. I wondered why Log Cabin would so spin the speech. Not only that, I kept reading stuff which I felt was important to include in the post — hence its length. While I stand by my arguments, I should have adopted a different tone so that I could have better made my point. And should have kept it brief.

The reason I write this post now is that last night, after returning from the movies with a good friend, I read Dale in LA’s comment to my followup post to the post in question. He wrote:

GPW’s latest beef with Patrick is a small thing, but it’s based on a history that Patrick has made for himself and that GPW has pointed out repeatedly on this blog. In a vacuum, it would be a silly argument over semantics, but it’s not in a vacuum.

In fewer than fifty words, Dale said what I had failed to say clearly in more than ten times than many. It was just another example of Log Cabin adopting the same rhetoric as the left-leaning gay national groups.

One of my biggest problems with Log Cabin is, as I have expressed repeatedly on this blog, that it defines its agenda on gay issues in the same terms as those of the gay left, focusing on the word “equality.” I believe Log Cabin should use different language in order to distinguish itself from those groups, which are frequently allied with the far left and just as frequently at odds with the GOP on any number of issues, not limited to those directly affecting our community.

The Governor’s speech, with a strong appeal for tolerance and understanding, gave them a chance to do that — to use different language on gay issues than that of the gay left. I should have made that observation and left it at that. I apologize for not having been more succinct in my prior post.

-B. Daniel Blatt (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com