Very disappointing vote in NY

The New York legislature voted down Gov. Patterson's same-sex marriage bill. Especially disappointing was the way it collapsed, given expectations it would pass.

There is a good article on the event here.

Prop 8 ruling

Today, the CA Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage, after it had been established by the the very same court. 

As much as I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, this ruling strikes me as reasonable.  The actual question being considered did not directly address same-sex marriage – instead it was a question about whether a too-significant change (a "revision") was being made to the CA constitution by the method of propositions.  (Propositions are not allowed to make radical changes to the CA constitution, only minor amendments; the system is pretty obscure as as I can tell.)  If the court had held that the change was too big, it could have invalidated the proposition.

I am not expert enough on the CA system to comment coherently on what constitues a too-radical amendment to their constitution to be passed via the standard proposition system, but this strikes me as a case where the political forces advocating either side of the argument are largely addressing the merits of Prop 8, not the actual legal question.  Both sides have a result they want to achieve more than wanting to preserve the CA constitution.

So, I am disappointed with the result, but not surprised by it, nor do I view it as a setback to the same-sex marriage movement.

Instead, I take heart in the other part of the ruling.  Some 17,000 couples or so were married during the short window.  The court found no reason to invalidate those marriages, since the language of Prop 8 did not address retroactivity directly.  After all, it was this same court, that ruled 4-3 that same-sex marriage should be available in CA.

Things are changing.  Just not overnight.

Progress in New York

Paterson Unveils Same-Sex Marriage Bill


Another politician with a bit of courage on this. It's time for those who have played the "I don't want to discriminate but I'm not in favor of the world 'marriage'" game to get over it and stand up in favor of equality and civil rights for all. Can you hear me Barack?

Vermont, DC, a rock, and a hard place

A couple of days ago, the Vemont legislature overturned a veto of a same-sex marriage bill by their governor.  That is, the legislature affirmatively passed a pro gay marriage law, saw it vetoed, and then raised a 2/3 majority to override the veto.  This is a big deal, because it is the first time this has been done by vote of an elected group, rather than by the (common sense of the) courts.

Meanwhile, Washington DC's city council voted to recognize same-sex marriages that originate from the states.  That's the closest they can do.  (Hypothetically, congress can overturn this law.  We'll see.)

This is all fantastic, but it starts to put some of our weak-kneed Democratic politicians in an awkward spot.  Two among them are the governor of Iowa (Chet Culver) and our president (yeah, that one, Barack Obama).  These guys have historically wimped out on the issue (much like some do with the death penalty) saying something like, "I personally think marriage is between a man and a woman, but I'm for civil unions" or something to that effect.

Personally, I think most of these guys have been disingenuous.  I think they think there should be gay marriage, but can't be  "out" in that position.  Now, they are in an awkward position:  I don't think any of them wants to be against same sex marriage, but they're being called out by the very people they tried to reassure with their public "opposition" to it.

Time to get on board.  Full out.  "I was wrong."  Get right with the world and with common sense, people.  Read the Iowa decision to get some clarity and join us out of the closet on this one.

SarahPac

Paid for by SarahPAC
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee 

www.SarahPAC.com

So reads the disclaimer on the entry page of Sarah Palin's new PAC web site.  I suppose this is true as a technicality:  Sarah Palin is not an official candidate for anything right now.  But this is a bit of a joke, isn't it?

Two points:

1. As a strictly partisan matter, could the Democrats ask for a better candidate to contrast against Obama, assuming he manages to get through his four years remaining as thoughtful and calm as he has to this point?  On the other hand, what does it say that she thinks she is viable among the Republican primary electorate?  Ouch.
2. This web site shows the horror of our political contribution laws.  Sarah Palin is not doing anything a million other potential candidates haven't done.  Completely legal and completely disingenuous.  I don't blame her.  But this silly facade that people have to put on is stupid.  I tend to think that the first amendment arguments against restricting political donations are pretty strong, but either we should loosen some of these laws or tighten them.  This is ridiculous.

Here's the text from the next page.  Not affiliated with a "candidate"?  Right.

Sarah Palin's Official PAC

Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.

• SarahPAC believes America's best days are ahead. Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination.
• SarahPAC believes energy independence is a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.
• SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals. Join us today!

Prop 8 and the impasse on same-sex marriage

I picked up this video clip from Andrew Sullivan's blog. I'm completely with Savage on this one, and I think some of Perkins' arguments are specious. But that said, it seems to me that this is one of those times that your preconceptions completely predetermine who you think "wins" this exchange. If you come from a world view that civil gay marriage should be banned because of your religious convictions, then Perkins' arguments will ring a lot truer. Stuff like "using the court to overturn the will of the people." (Again, Savage is right that this is exactly one of the things that the courts are for, but most people don't see it that way when it's their will that's being overturned.)

As to the content, Savage makes two excellent points. First, he notes that we straights are the ones that have redefined civil marriage over the years in response to societal changes, so doing so is hardly unprecedented. Second, he gives the excellent and rational reply to the usual polygamy/slippery-slope objection to redefining marriage: that each such proposed change should be weighed on its own merit. Disliking polygamy has no bearing on any decision regarding same-sex marriage.

But again, if you think both same sex marriage and polygamy are abominations, does that color how you view that retort?

We will win this in time, but it will take a while.

An election disappointment

There are people who know who their gay friends and relatives are, or at least most of them. There are people who don't know. And there are people who pretend they have none.

The case for gay civil marriage is simple and compelling, and can be summarized in two sentences: There is no compelling state interest in denying equal civil rights to gay couples and straight couples, and the benefits to those gay couples who choose to marry are paramount. Religious institutions already restrict the marriages that they recognize and sanction, and civil marriage has no impact on that fact.

The benefits of marriage need not be expounded here. We all know them.

But what is so frustrating is the pretense that civil gay marriages would somehow be an unbearable assault on the religious sacrament of marriage (to use the Christian term). Catholic doctrine already does not recognize second marriages. Many religious groups, orthodox Judaism being only a single example, do not approve of cross-religion marriages. Yet these marriages are, of course, sanctioned by the civil states.

Many, including our president-elect, pretend that the solution is to have a new word for gay marriages, i.e., "civil unions". This would be sensible, as long as all civil weddings were "unions" and homosexual and heterosexual unions were held on equal terms. We could leave the word "marriage" to religion, if we wanted to. However, that is not what is proposed: Civil Unions are always a lesser option.

Thus, I find it crushing that California, the state I grew up in and arguably the most progressive state in the Union, has found it necessary to constitutionally enshrine civil discrimination. What a chance they had.