Comments on: Gay Marriage Is Here http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/06/15/gay-marriage-is-here/ "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Brad http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/06/15/gay-marriage-is-here/comment-page-1/#comment-2271 Brad Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:36:15 +0000 http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=798#comment-2271 I think Sullivan would say, to your second paragraph, that people can have their own PERSONAL opinions on the matter so long as they don't legislate it. We don't need to win people over to <i>like</i> gay marriage, but they needed winning over to allow it to be legalized. You and I have disagreed before on the judicial fiat point. I think popular legislation is obviously the best way to go, but where legislation is in violation of the constitution, the judiciary has every right, indeed obligation, to strike it down, and then it falls to the people to figure out what they want to do about that (rewrite the law, amend the constitution, forget about it and go home). I agreed with the MA Supreme Court decision on its merits (if you accept "separate but equal" as unconstitutional, there was no other ruling to make), you disagreed, and fair enough, but the ruling was certainly in their purview, and not "judicial fiat". And, I don't view the judicial branch as somehow inherently "lesser" than the legislative branch, in terms of the value of its work to changing society. But, we're past that argument now. What you're absolutely right about is the third paragraph. I still have no idea why Democratic politicians in particular were so mealy-mouthed on gay marriage. I think it's been a case, as many things are these days, of the public being way, way ahead of its representatives. What national politicians WERE good on gay marriage, circa 2004? Surely there were some. I think Sullivan would say, to your second paragraph, that people can have their own PERSONAL opinions on the matter so long as they don’t legislate it. We don’t need to win people over to like gay marriage, but they needed winning over to allow it to be legalized.

You and I have disagreed before on the judicial fiat point. I think popular legislation is obviously the best way to go, but where legislation is in violation of the constitution, the judiciary has every right, indeed obligation, to strike it down, and then it falls to the people to figure out what they want to do about that (rewrite the law, amend the constitution, forget about it and go home). I agreed with the MA Supreme Court decision on its merits (if you accept “separate but equal” as unconstitutional, there was no other ruling to make), you disagreed, and fair enough, but the ruling was certainly in their purview, and not “judicial fiat”. And, I don’t view the judicial branch as somehow inherently “lesser” than the legislative branch, in terms of the value of its work to changing society.

But, we’re past that argument now.

What you’re absolutely right about is the third paragraph. I still have no idea why Democratic politicians in particular were so mealy-mouthed on gay marriage. I think it’s been a case, as many things are these days, of the public being way, way ahead of its representatives. What national politicians WERE good on gay marriage, circa 2004? Surely there were some.

]]> By: Rojas http://thecrossedpond.com/2007/06/15/gay-marriage-is-here/comment-page-1/#comment-2269 Rojas Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:08:23 +0000 http://thecrossedpond.com/?p=798#comment-2269 As I've said before, I think there's a whole lot more permanence to this sort of change when it's validated by the people's elected representatives as opposed to when it's imposed by judicial fiat. That's the true significance of this event--it signifies that the gay marriage movement has achieved the foothold necessary in a democratic republic. Good for the people of Massachusetts. I do have one pretty significant objection to Sullivan's analysis, though. I have no idea why he thinks that gay Americans "need" to win over people who think that gay marriage is a threat to the institution. It truly isn't necessary for everyone to like or approve of people's lifestyle choices, provided that those choices are recognized as legitimate under law. People who think gay marriage is a threat to the institution are now in the position of hardcore segregationists after the 1964 Civil Rights Act--it's regrettable that they exist, but more or less irrelevant in concrete terms. It's going to be fun to watch politicians formally change their mind on gay marriage as the tide of public opinion increasingly turns against them. Let's make a point of remembering those who were right on this issue from the beginning--there weren't very many of them, and to my knowledge there are no Presidential candidates among them. As I’ve said before, I think there’s a whole lot more permanence to this sort of change when it’s validated by the people’s elected representatives as opposed to when it’s imposed by judicial fiat. That’s the true significance of this event–it signifies that the gay marriage movement has achieved the foothold necessary in a democratic republic. Good for the people of Massachusetts.

I do have one pretty significant objection to Sullivan’s analysis, though. I have no idea why he thinks that gay Americans “need” to win over people who think that gay marriage is a threat to the institution. It truly isn’t necessary for everyone to like or approve of people’s lifestyle choices, provided that those choices are recognized as legitimate under law. People who think gay marriage is a threat to the institution are now in the position of hardcore segregationists after the 1964 Civil Rights Act–it’s regrettable that they exist, but more or less irrelevant in concrete terms.

It’s going to be fun to watch politicians formally change their mind on gay marriage as the tide of public opinion increasingly turns against them. Let’s make a point of remembering those who were right on this issue from the beginning–there weren’t very many of them, and to my knowledge there are no Presidential candidates among them.

]]>