I’ve largely refrained from commenting on the recent decisions by the High Courts of Georgia and New York, both of which are a setback to same-sex marriage. About all I have said in reaction on my own blog is the following:
I was going to comment on this yesterday, but I really didn’t have anything to say then and I don’t really have anything to say now. While I do prefer this being handled by the legislatures and not the courts, all I can say about these rulings is that I’m a little disappointed and not surprised at all. Our generation will have to lay the groundwork for the next.
I agree with Dan that liberal gay groups have overreached and instead of settling for something like civil unions for now and building upon this, we have seen a backlash which is taking even this option away and leaving us nothing in return. Thus far about 40 states have some kind of legal prohibition against same-sex marriage. As of this moment 20 states have amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriages, with many extending this to civil unions as well, and the numbers of states doing this is only growing. The strategy and tactics employed by these groups have proven to be a spectacular failure. Having said this, the reaction of many to these most recent court rulings leaves me somewhat puzzled at the fuzzy reasoning being used. I have seen this around the blogosphere and one finds them throughout the comments to Dan’s posting. Yesterday I posted an ‘update’ to my original remarks on this and would like to put them here as well:
Ok, I can’t resist this one. I’ve seen this reasoning on a number of blogs that marriage isn’t a “right”, which I actually agree with to an extent, along with the admonition that legislatures should not be bypassed by “activist judges”, something that generally annoys me as well. Yet I have to wonder sometimes if the epithet “activist judges” is mainly employed when one’s own ox is being gored. Typical of what can be found on many blogs is this from The Bullwinkle:
I don’t care one way or the other if gays marry but I do care about people trying to demand rights and trying to bypass the legal system using activist judges. Claiming to have rights nobody has won’t help your case one bit and the backlash from it probably hurts it.
One question for this blogger and the others whom have taken this approach: Do you believe the Lovings were wrong “to demand rights” and “bypass the legal system using activist judges”?
I’m not asking about the prudence, or lack thereof, of seeking redress through the courts, but just what the difference here is? At the present time I see very little. Any thoughts?