With Courts Upholding Bans on Gay Marriage, Issue Loses Punch at Ballot Box
I don’t often read the New York Times, but have observed that despite that paper’s bias, it occasionally produces some very solid reporting. A Friday the Thirteenth article on gay marriage shows that the Old Gray Lady seems to “get” the reality of one aspect of the gay marriage debate. In that piece, “Gay Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue,” reporter Kirk Johnson notes that this year this issue “has largely failed to rouse conservative voters.”
While he notes that some “of the proposed bans are struggling in the polls,” I would expect most, it not all of them to pass, given the track record of such referenda. But, we’re not hearing so much about the issues as we have in the past. Johnson notes that the momentum has shifted:
The momentum against same-sex marriage at the ballot box has also been hurt by court cases that have upheld bans on same-sex marriage– notably rulings by the highest courts in New York and Washington this summer — by removing some of the urgency for constitutional amendments.
Exactly. As long as state courts stay out of this issue, most Americans won’t see the need for referenda defining marriage as it has long been defined — as the union of one man and one woman.
In this new environment, advocates of gay marriage need to focus on developing means to make their case the American people. This strategy will require not only solid arguments, but also patience. In the short term, we will likely have to accept a number of defeats as the American people don’t yet seem ready to expand the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. In some cases, we will have to settle for civil unions. Indeed, I recommend looking to last year’s legislation in Connecticut as the appropriate strategy for now.
As long as the courts stay out of this, I believe we will be able to convince the American people — and their elected representatives — to support legal recognition of (and benefits for) same-sex couples. The victory may not be as swift as a court decision, but a victory harder won could provide longer-lasting benefits and less social division.
-Dan (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
20 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
At the risk of sounding partisan — because I really don’t have a preference between Democrats and Republicans; they’re both appalling in slightly different ways — I must make a comment about my home state of Maryland. And that comment is: if Martin O’Malley is elected governor, I think there’s a 75 percent chance that some form of civil unions will be enacted legislatively in Maryland in the next few years. If Bob Ehrlich is re-elected, this most certainly will not happen.
On the other hand, if Martin O’Malley is elected, an even greater level of state socialism will be imposed on Maryland citizens — a bit more than under Ehrlich, where there has been plenty of it. As I said, this is all so appalling that I won’t be making a choice between them.
Comment by kdogg36 — October 15, 2006 @ 6:23 pm - October 15, 2006
I have long believed that the Massachussette’s court decision paired with the actions of Gavin Newsome is what started the huge “marriage protection amendment” craze in the various states.
I think people were scared that the courts were going to force something they weren’t sure about or comfortable with. There is always going to be a certain percentage of unpersuadables on this issue, but there is a logical argument and case to be made, it just needs to be made at the legislative level and to the people, not the courts.
Comment by just me — October 15, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - October 15, 2006
Well said, just me.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 15, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - October 15, 2006
The reason for the difference in reaction is because there are more issues to worry about now than in 2004. Terrorism, Iraq, Katrina, immigration, what have you. Gay marriage was mainly a big issue in select states like Ohio, and people in Ohio have had a lot else on their mind since 2004.
The downside of all this is the idea that 1 court ruling can cause some kind of horrible backlash. There is always a good chance that some court somewhere will rule in favor of gay marriage or strike down a draconian amendment against civil unions, marriage, wills, etc. Even if all gay organizations and strategists stop going to the courts, some random person could go and cause the ruling. So it’s important to try to work to get people to support gay rights on a basis where their support won’t vanish because of 1 court ruling.
Comment by Carl — October 15, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - October 15, 2006
I just realized that it’s been ages since I’ve typed the words “sheep marriage” here.
But seriously, I agree with “just me” that the actions of Gavin Newsome were incredibly irresponsible and led directly to the anti-gay marriage referenda in 2004.
Comment by Frank IBC — October 15, 2006 @ 9:28 pm - October 15, 2006
Like most conservative social ideas…anti-gay marriage is going to be on the wrong side of history, conservative evangelicals will lose,lose,lose,lose,lose…..their wins are temporary and the case in Massachusetts will prove that gay marriage didn’t send the world into a tailspin… Every day there are a thousand victories (people who oppose gay marriage die of natural causes and more who support it are born)…change is coming…maybe it will be slow and maybe it will come in an instant…but we will win the day.
Comment by James — October 15, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - October 15, 2006
”I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace, which is the absence of tension, to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice.” – Martin Luther King Jr.
Wait 40 years and console yourself with a capital gains tax cut and sending a bunch of poor kids to die in Mesopotamia. “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!”
Comment by Sydney Talon — October 15, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - October 15, 2006
I agree with the posters above that it is through the actions of the people on a legislative level that will have the most long lasting effects. But let us remember that the courts are usually called “activist” when they decide against certain people’s perspective. And they are usually considered “doing their job” when they decide for that perspective. When the legislative and executive branches of government fail to do their job (per certain perspectives) then we all have access to the courts to try to get our way (lefties and righties all do this). Gavin Newson as Mayor of San Fran was obviously not a member of the court, but a part of the legislature. And he was playing his role as representative of a large part of his city’s population. Yes, there was a backlash but there always is when resistance to an idea is spearheaded by a bold brash action like what he did. Many times it is bold action that stirs up the pot and can produce a bad reaction but turns out to be beneficial in the long run. I think what he did was brave and tremendous.
Comment by Jim G — October 15, 2006 @ 11:16 pm - October 15, 2006
Gavin Newson as Mayor of San Fran was obviously not a member of the court, but a part of the legislature. And he was playing his role as representative of a large part of his city’s population.
Same could be said for George Wallace, Ross Barnett etc.
Comment by TGC — October 16, 2006 @ 12:27 am - October 16, 2006
This block is just sick!
You can’t be gay and a conservative the same time. Being gay is offensive to God! Shame on you!
Shelley Goodman
Comment by Shelley Goodman — October 16, 2006 @ 3:42 am - October 16, 2006
That’s not what He told me.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 16, 2006 @ 6:00 am - October 16, 2006
Gavin Newson as Mayor of San Fran was obviously not a member of the court, but a part of the legislature.
Um, mayors aren’t part of the legislature, they are the top of the executive branch of whatever town they are a mayor of.
Comment by just me — October 16, 2006 @ 6:22 am - October 16, 2006
#2. Right. As if conservative groups hadn’t been planning for all of this years ago… (And those preparations didn’t include the “activist judges” framing.)
And are you advocating for special legislation, special laws for gay people? I don’t see why we should need special legislation or special laws when the Constitution already claims that we are equal and that flies in the face of the reality before us. What more could be said to pull us out of second class citizenship? Why would you want legislatures to cater to us and make laws just for us? Oh, that’s right: because people are so easily duped and fail to see that anti-gay people can then claim we are clamoring for “special rights” again…
And good luck with all the convincing work that gets talked about so often here. Especially in those states where there are now amendments, amendments disproportionately supported by self-described patriots who love God, guns, and country and hate liberals, Leftists, media, Hollywood, gays, lesbians, Democrats and everyone else this blog attacks repeatedly.
Comment by sean — October 16, 2006 @ 6:46 am - October 16, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under other names he uses.]
Comment by Frank Felcher — October 16, 2006 @ 11:25 am - October 16, 2006
The New York Times article has confirmed my suspicions. All those court rulings against same-sex marriage is taking a toll on the anti gay marriage movement. The fire in their bellies has cooled somewhat. Taking our case to the legislative process & ultimately to the American people is the only way to go about this.
#10- Ms. Goodman: lady, why in heaven did you go to this site? This is America, I can be as gay as I please. Go on some other blog & get a life. Jeez.
Comment by Jimbo — October 16, 2006 @ 11:59 am - October 16, 2006
[Comment deleted. This commenter has been repeatedly banned under other names he uses.]
Comment by Frank Felcher — October 16, 2006 @ 12:00 pm - October 16, 2006
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Condi referring to a gay man’s partner’s mother as his mother-in-law http://tinyurl.com/ykxq7a during a swearing in ceremony. While I don’t think much of Condi’s competence, I have to give her kudos for this public acknowledgement of a gay couple and what is, in effect, their marriage. Of course, the homohaters are not happy about it http://tinyurl.com/y8bz6k
as for lessening the reliance on the courts for SSM progress, I would definitely agree. I believe we are nearly at a point where some legislature somewhere will pass civil marriage for gay people. The courts have given us Vermont civil unions and then Massachusetts civil marriage. The sky has not fallen and even though there have been a rash of state constitutional amendments, those can eventually be undone. On balance, I believe we’re better off with gay marriage in Massachusetts and a host of state amendments than no gay marriage anywhere and fewer state amendments.
Comment by Ian — October 16, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - October 16, 2006
I stand corrected. The mayor is the senior executive official of a municipality.
Comment by Jim G — October 16, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - October 16, 2006
When the legislative and executive branches of government fail to do their job (per certain perspectives) then we all have access to the courts to try to get our way (lefties and righties all do this).
Bullshit.
When the legislative and executive branches decide not to do something, that’s often part of “doing their job.”
If the law requires the gov’t to do something, and it doesn’t, then it might be appropriate to get the courts involved.
Getting the courts involved just because you don’t like what the other branches are doing, OTOH, is just anti-democratic, and evil.
I’m mildly opposed to “gay marriage”, mainly because all I hear its supporters talking about is “rights”, and that’s utter bullshit. If you think marriage is all about you, or just you and your partner, then you’re not qualified to be married.
OTOH, I’m entrely opposed to anyone who wants to get their legislative agenda enacted via the courts. If the gay marriage crowd gives up on that, a lot of my enthusiasm for opposing gay marriage will go away.
Comment by Greg D — October 19, 2006 @ 3:17 pm - October 19, 2006
[...] Courts fail to mandate same-sex marriage, holding that is the province of the legislature, the impetus for such ballot propositions diminish and those already on the ballot generate less support. In some cases, such judicial defeats lead to [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Gay Groups: Ill-timed Lawsuits set fight for Marriage Back — June 10, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - June 10, 2008