Dan… ya gotta love it when James Taranto sounds a lot like us!
The history of this issue is a striking example of the power of the judiciary to shape American politics and culture. In 1999, when the Vermont Supreme Court issued a similar decision, it seemed revolutionary. Gov. Howard Dean, confronted at town meetings by angry traditionalists, defensively said that the ruling didn’t redefine marriage, which remains a union between a man and a woman. Dean nonetheless said he favored civil unions, and he signed the bill the court had ordered the Legislature to pass.
Five years later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated same-sex marriage, in name as well as in effect. And just over two years after that, the Vermont approach is the “conservative” one, or at least the “moderate” one, at least in New Jersey. Yesterday’s vote among the justices in Lewis v. Harris was 4-3, with the dissenters asserting, à la Massachusetts, that same-sex couples have the “right to the title of marriage” as well as to its material benefits.
Two years ago the New York Times reported that President Bush–frequently vilified by gay-rights supporters for backing the Federal Marriage Amendment–endorsed the idea of civil unions:
In an interview on Sunday [Oct. 24, 2004] with Charles Gibson, an anchor of “Good Morning America” on ABC, Mr. Bush said, “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so.” . . .
According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.
“Well, I don’t,” Mr. Bush replied.
So the country has traveled a long road since 1999, when Vermont’s ruling seemed revolutionary. Of course, one should not overstate the case: Only a handful of states afford legal recognition to same-sex unions, and all of them are in the Northeast save California and Hawaii. Most states have enacted laws or constitutional provisions preventing same-sex marriage, and some bar civil unions too.
These provisions resulted from a backlash after the courts’ rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts–a backlash that has probably served the electoral interests of Republicans, who, despite the president’s liberal views on civil unions, remain the party less eager to expand gay rights. In the long run, though, the move toward legal same-sex unions may prove inexorable. All those state restrictions on same-sex unions could be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.
We have mixed feelings about all this. We sympathize with both the traditionalists’ resistance to redefining marriage and gay couples’ desire to enjoy both the tangible benefits of marriage and the affirmation that comes with legal recognition. We guess we’re with President Bush in thinking civil unions are a reasonable compromise. But we’d also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.
We’ve been saying that for over two years right here!
[Related Story – Same-sex marriage now becomes political dispute in New Jersey – Advocate.com]
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Support for Civil Unions is now considered hate speech, which demonstrates what I’ve been saying all-along: the push for marriage is less about ‘legitimizing committed relationships,’ and more about gay activists winning an ‘in your face’ over the Religious Right.
Support for Civil Unions is now considered hate speech, which demonstrates what I’ve been saying all-along: the push for marriage is less about ‘legitimizing committed relationships,’ and more about gay activists winning an ‘in your face’ over the Religious Right.
Well, I don’t think support for civil unions, per se, is anything other than laudable.
If someone says that marriage must be defended from me and my boyfriend, it’s still not hate speech, but it means that person has lost any chance of earning my respect.
I think that’s an unwise position, kdogg.
Lots of people worthy of respect are social conservatives: that is, people deeply and instinctively skeptical of changes to social institutions. That’s life.
If you want to cut yourself off from them: you have every right – I am NOT telling you what to do – but I do think it’s dumb, intolerant, and unnecessarily fearful.
I don’t fear social conservatives, or the Religious Right. They disagree with me, but, unlike the Left, they really aren’t after my life or my pocketbook.
#3: First, it’s more the wording than the political orientation. “The institution of marriage must be protected from” some group that includes me and my boyfriend — that’s the phrasing that triggers this reaction in me, because it’s just so silly. Something along the lines of “we should go slowly in considering changes to the institution” is much more palatable.
Second, I didn’t say anything about fearing or being intolerant of people. I just said they won’t be people I respect. I should probably have made it clear I was mostly talking about politicians, not necessarily the man on the street or the woman next to me on the plane, because I understood that to be the context.
Always nice to see how easily the GOP leadership can scare the social conservatives into the voting booth by holding out gay relationships as the scourge of society. It just gives you warm fuzzies, doesn’t it?
#5 – Sort of like the “warm fuzzies” that went hand-in-hand with the Foley non-scandal, when the Dhimmicrats were all concerned about “the children?” As if 17-year-olds could be considered children to these people. Any group that wants 16-year-olds to have abortions kept from their parents certainly has those concerns…
Also, doesn’t this backfire big-time for the Dhimmi’s “outrage” over the Boy Scouts excluding open gays as scoutmasters? Well, if you won’t trust your boy with Foley or Kolbe on a camping trip, why should you trust Frank or Studds if they were scountmasters?
Hypocrisy, thy name is liberalism.
Checkmate.
Regards,
Peter H.
OMG Bush said he supported civil unions!! There has to be a Haliburton connection somewhere.
The problem with saying that Bush supports civil unions is that the federal constutional amendment he has championed will ban not only civil unions, but also domestic partnerships, and possibly even hospital visitation rights or wills.
What he says and what the law he wants to pass does are different, I think.
So how do you all respond to President, who is now stumping and using the hatred against gays as a unifying point to garner more support for next week’s election. Bush said that it was a problem of “morals”. So much for the all back-pedaling you all do to make excuses that Republcian party is the party for gay freedom.
So how do you all respond to President, who is now stumping and using the hatred against gays as a unifying point to garner more support for next week’s election.
Where were you two weeks ago when the Dems were trying to use homophobia and linking gays to pedophilia to try to keep potential Republican voters from going to the polls?
10 What a copout response. I’ve sat and read not only on this site, but the same thing on other conservative blogs and it’s a load of BS. The point is not demonizing gays here. The point is that Republicans, all the way up to the speaker of the house, knew that this guy was was engaging in inappropriate conduct with underage pages yet they ignored it. So much for the party that claims to protect America. Seriously, where is there any proof of your claim about how much liberals are trying to hurt gays? From what I see on these blogs, you only seem to use other conservative blogs as reference to this.
Interesting how you simply say “well they’re doing it too” when you have nothing to back it up and you won’t respond to the question I posed.
-Where were you two weeks ago when the Dems were trying to use homophobia and linking gays to pedophilia to try to keep potential Republican voters from going to the polls? –
So both sides use gays for political convenience. That isn’t a ringing endorsement to go vote GOP.
Good for you Bruce!! Many people conveniently forget that President Bush said that about gay unions.
Which means…TADA! HE ISN’T HOMOPHOBIC! As “they” would have you believe.
The point is that Republicans, all the way up to the speaker of the house, knew that this guy was was engaging in inappropriate conduct with underage pages yet they ignored it.
Hearing the party of Gerry Studds whine about “inappropriate conduct” is entertainment all its own.
But I will simply point out that these emails hardly indicate “inappropriate conduct”; furthermore, Republican leadership repeatedly admonished Foley to cut off contact with former pages when they requested it.
The fact that you and your fellow Democratic puppets chose not to make public the instant messages you held in your possession does not make Republican leadership guilty of coverup; it only makes you look like hypocrites.