Local Weblogs Parse Same-Sex Marriage Decision
Both Paul Nickell and Isaac Laquedem offer their own attempts to breaking down today's ruling into its constituent parts.
We don't want to detract from their traffic by responding to their points here on COMMUNIQUE, so interested readers should click through and join the conversations on each respective site.
April 21, 2004 at 12:53 AM
It would be nice to have our legislature settle the same-sex marriage issue as quickly as possible. However, knowing the pathetic level of comity in both houses, I'm not sure whether we have a better chance to settle the issue positively before or after the next set of elections...if at all. In fact, if there is no legislative session in the near future, same-sex marriage will likely be a campaign issue in a few of the districts (only a few because there are so many safe seats).
I figure there are several interesting debate topics on their way.
- Governor Ted, do you want to have a special legislative session soon or wait, and why? He'll probably wait, and he's got lots of safe reasons to use as excuses.
- What's the best strategy for the pro-same-sex marriage forces...push for a special session and hope it gridlocks (as victory is likely impossible with the current personalities), or try to influence a few key races (wherever they may be) and then push for victory--or at least gridlock next year? If they were willing to step back and push for civil unions (and they're won't), they could put a couple conservative Republicans in a trick from a populace (in some areas) which would support unions but not marriage.
- Pro- forces go back to court and try to take the issue from the legislature and give it back to the supreme court? I'm sure they'll do this, regardless of other strategies.
- Pro- forces wait for the legislature to act or gridlock, then go back to the courts as necessary? Doubtful...not enough people support same-sex marriage, so they'll need the courts to overcome social views.
- Anti- forces will ready themselves for interminable court battles plus the specter of the legislature being unable to come to a decision in 90 days. They'll target moderates and smear the heck out of them should they even hint at supporting any change in marriage laws. They don't want to allow any compromise, and that's both their strength and weakness...the "easy" way out for the legislature is civil unions, which is a fairly substantial victory for homosexuals and makes sense to the public...even if it doesn't satisfy the more activist types.
I'm sure there are other options, but ultimately I think it all ends up in the Supreme Court anyway. No matter what the legislature does or doesn't do, the loser sues...if this latest court ruling even stands.
Ultimately (and it will take awhile), I still think government gets out of the marriage business and goes just to civil unions with equal access for all. Marriages will be left to the churches (which will sync nicely with the separation of church and state), and homosexuals will be harassing churches for decades for equal rights under God.
April 21, 2004 at 10:27 AM
and homosexuals will be harassing churches for decades for equal rights under God
Interesting. I think that gay men and lesbians are the least likely to be taking this issue to churches that don't support them. Why would they? There are plenty of mainstream churches that support us as partners in the human experience.
April 21, 2004 at 02:51 PM
Keith, conceptually I agree with you--there are plenty of accepting churches to support homosexuals folks looking for a place to worship as equals in the eyes of God and the congregation. But for homosexuals raised in a religion in which they believe and want to continue their faith--that rejects them, many are not willing to go quietly...and understandably so. In faiths ranging from the Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics (note Andrew Sullivan's laments), etc., homosexuals are fighting for equal rights, whether it be to worship there as equals or to be able to be ministers, priests, etc. There wouldn't be much of a fight if there weren't a fair percentage of the congregations who supported gay equal rights. The traditionalists won't give in easily or quietly, and many homosexuals and their supporters would rather fight than switch...that's why I see the battles lasting a long while.
April 21, 2004 at 03:16 PM
The debate between progressive and traditionalist elements in curches -- which certainly is older and broader than the debate over homosexuality -- is a good thing, I think.
April 21, 2004 at 03:33 PM
Earlier I asked whether the plaintiffs could show that the societal benefits of marriage are tangible by showing all the special deals and discounts offered to married couples in the private sphere.
PanchoPdx answered my question by saying that the courts can't prevent private citizens and companies from discriminating. See the Boy Scouts or the Masters.
It's a good point, and while I still think I could squabble over it, I won't for now.
But would this argument then extend to the federal government and the international community? That we can't force them not to discriminate? Because a marriage license means a lot to the federal and to international governments, while a civil union certificate means practically squat.
April 21, 2004 at 05:12 PM
Let's suppose the legislature takes the state out of the marriage business altogether (unlikely but not impossible) and says that the state will license civil unions, and it's up to couples to get married by whomever will marry them. To follow up on M's point above, what would the federal government do if one state simply stops marrying people altogether, and for those government benefits that depend on a couple being married, Oregonians bring in private documents: ornate church certificates, funky wood panels with initials carved into them, and so on? Bureaucracy would have a collective heart attack.
April 21, 2004 at 06:48 PM
Perhaps we should just scrap marriage licenses and come up with legal partnership contracts for all that grant exactly the same legal benefits as marriage. That way, gay couples would neither be legally married nor treated as second-class citizens.
I think that solution is totally unnecessary, but it might work.
In the mean time, to our south, the California State Assembly's Judiciary Committee today became the first state legislative body in US history to vote in favor of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.