Five years ago, when the highest court in New York State refused to mandate state recognition of same-sex marriage, I disagreed with gay activists who criticized the decision, writing, “It is the job of courts to interpret the law, not set social policy“, adding
Despite the unfortunate rhetoric of the releases of HRC and NGLTF, I am delighted to see that their leaders are now looking to these legislators to make that case. Let’s hope this defeat convinces them to spend more time promoting gay marriage in legislatures and other popular fora rather than in courts of law.
Now that they have done so; they have finally achieved the result they wanted. Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.
The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.
We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.
It’s amazing the speed with which our elected legislatures have moved to consider state recognition of our (gay) relationships. Just six years ago, the Connecticut legislature voted to recognize civil unions, without a court mandating it to do so. (more…)
While, as you can guess, I quibble with the title of Cynthia Yockey’s post that Glenn linked earlier today, she offers something which bears consideration and conversation:
. . . in the name of family values, we are forced out of our own families. However, gays have responded to discrimination by becoming entrepreneurs and professionals, which makes gays a natural constituency of fiscal conservativism and explains why 31 percent of gay voters voted for Republicans in 2010 (including me). Gays are the most getable demographic in 2012 for Republicans because there’s no voting bloc Obama and the Democrats have screwed over more than gays and they are furious and looking for a new home.
(Read the whole thing. While I don’t agree with everything she has to say, she does raise some important issues and make some thoughtful observations.)
Now, while I do believe gay people are a natural constituency for a fiscally conservative GOP, I wonder how many have become so politicized by our overly political (gay) culture that they can’t see how free market policies benefit creative types, particularly the creative entrepreneurial types. And gay people do seem to succeed in such professions, in numbers disproportionate to our representation in society at large.
As I learned in my conversation with Palin-effigy hanger Mito Aviles, state and local regulations on small business place unusual burdens on creative small business folk. Their desire to scale back intrusive regulations correspond with the very principles of the Tea Party movement.
The question is: how do we break them from their prejudiced view of the GOP, particularly given how the media dwell on social conservatives’ (alleged) dominance of the movement — and the ignorance of many gay leaders of the underlying philosophy of the Republican Party as it has evolved since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the election of Ronald Reagan sixteen years later.
Commenting to my New York gay marriage post which I only hacked out in a few minutes, having learned the news while noshing on some yogurt after returning from a date, Jim Treacher offers another wonderful window in the liberal worldview:
It’s always funny when a lefty assumes he knows your opinion and condemns you for it. Because YOU’RE the prejudiced bigot.
It’s always fun noting the prejudices of the left, rushing to conclusions about our posts, based upon assumptions about our opinions, assumptions often at odds with the very content of the posts to which they attach them. Some just must assume that so political am I that on a Friday evening, instead of socializing with friends or going to the movies, I will assiduously follow the news, able to write up a thoughtful and incisive blog post the moment big news breaks.
Sorry, fellows, politics isn’t all there is to my life. I don’t sit at the computer waiting for news to break or constantly checking for updates on my Smartphone.
Do find it amusing that our first commenter must needed to comment critically, just minutes after I posted while I was getting ready for bed.
ADDENDUM: Sometimes our critics refuse to appreciate that we have passions not related to political blogging and, unlike some web-sites or news outlets, don’t have staff who monitoring the news 24/7 and able to blog on a matter at a moment’s notice. I was bone-tired last night when I learned the news and realized I needed to blog on the topic (even though I was beginning to fade). I had planned to spend today reading (as is my wont on Saturdays when I don’t go to shul) before heading out to an afternoon barbecue, but because of the events in New York, will be devoting a (far) greater part of the day to blogging than I had initially planned. (more…)
Just caught this via Instapundit:
CHANGE: Gay marriage legal in New York State after Senate passes historic bill 33-29. I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.
Ditto what Glenn said about being passed by the elected legislature. And to note that it passed with Republican votes — and in a legislative chamber run by the GOP.
May have more to say on this tomorrow, but Glenn pretty much summed up what I had to say (though I may add something about the religious amendment added during the final debate).