Those guys are by far in the minority among conservatives and by the time it’s over, some of them will probably have changed their minds. Goldberg is already wobbling and Cheney will probably flip before it’s over. If the choice is having gay marriage imposed by activist judges and having the Federal govt block it via constitutional amendment, and it is, the latter is a better option and more in line with what the American people want.
In a choice between the tyranny of the minority (the courts trying to expand an existing right), and the tyranny of the majority (a Constitutional amendment to restrict that right), you’ll find me on the side of the minority.
Which is where you also found people like desegregationists.
I agree with John. he has no other option, and the amendment process will fully (I hope) explore all the options. As I have repeatedly argued on my blog, government’s role in “marriage” is merely the enforcement and preservation of fairness and equity of property rights, including child custody. It doesn’t do that very well right now, and judicially imposed changes in the definition of marriage won’t improve the matter.
Vodkapundit spent a few minutes on Google and came up with some choice statements concerning gay marriage and amending the Constitution. Bob Barr, Jonah Goldberg, Ward Connerly, Chuck Muth and Dick Cheney all are quoted. Take a guess on their…
By far the minority amongst conservatives? I think not! Look at the polls which show the only age group demographic in favor of the FMA being the over 65 crowd. I’m a conservative and I am not if favor of the FMA.
If one believes that the war we are in is the most important issue, and to prosecute that issue one must get elected, then it would be irrational to use political capital on issues of lesser importance.
It is entirely conceivable, is it not, that Bush’s support for an amendment is an issue of principle with him, in which case he is making the same error that many of those on the other side of the gay marriage issue are making – namely subordinating the war to the issue of gay marriage.
The issue of a gay marriage will be entirely moot if we lose this war.
1. For Vodka, what is the “existing right” to gay marriage of which you speak??? Not a single state recognizes gay marriage. On the other hand, 38 states — including California — have specific laws refusing to recognize gay marriage. If left-wing activist judges simply will not enforce state statutes banning gay marriage (in fact, will disobey those directives), by what process can the will of the people who passed those statutes be heeded?
2. The Consitutional amendment process already has a built in component of pure federalism. Three quarters of the states must ratify such an amendment before it can become effective. So, not only in theory but in actual practice, the states ultimately are responsible for determining whether the FMA becomes the law of the land.
3. Even at the Congressional level, pure notions of federalism are part of the amendment process. Keep in mind that 67 members of the U.S. Senate must vote for a proposed amendment before it even gets out of Congress. Also keep in mind that states have equal power in the Senate; disproportionate to their relative share of the nation’s population. If the good people of Rhode Island, for example, do not favor a federal Consitutional amendment barring gay marriage (either because they support gay marriage or because they feel the issue should be left exclusively to the various states, or both), then it should follow that BOTH Senators from that state would vote against the proposed amendment. The same holds true for Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, etc. If the FMA gets out of the Congress, however, that means that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators voted for it. Since Senators represent states — equally in the power of their vote, regardless of the population of the state to which they are beholden — the states indeed would have spoken on the issue.
4. Constitutional amendments themselves can be amended or discarded. Remember prohibition? Didn’t think so.
If the FMA passes Congress and then is ratified by the states but, over time, opinions on the issue change, then the law can be changed. Either way, the people’s will is effectuated. But not by judicial fiat. By LEGISLATIVE action. Among ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES who must stand for re-election. In a fashion that is consonant with principles of federalism.
In a choice between the tyranny of the minority (the courts trying to expand an existing right), and the tyranny of the majority (a Constitutional amendment to restrict that right), you’ll find me on the side of the minority.
So, given a choice between rule of law, and rule of whim, you go with rule of whim?
You appear to have forgotten Plessey v. Fergusen (sp?). The Supreme Court isn’t always going to rule the way you want. What do you do when the minority is wrong?
For example, what, in principle, is the difference between what the courts are doing with “Gay marriage” here, and what the Iranian Courts did striking down the reformists laws there? Both, after all, are displaying the tyranny of a minority.
BTW, when did God tell you the One True Way about homosexuality? Lacking that, on what grounds do you so rabidly insist that you are right, and everyone else is wrong?
Thank you for responding so intelligently to points I never made.
Marriage is an existing right. I said I join with those in favor of “expanding” it to include gays. How you interpret that to mean I think gay marriage is an “existing right” is laughable.
When did I ever say that the amendment process is anti-Federal? Just because I am against a particular amendment hardly means I don
The problem here Stephen, as I think you may realize, is that the conservative majority in the country has been driven up against the wall to resort to a constitutional process nobody really wants. The sole benefit of this constitutional sledge hammer will possibly be to act as a remedy to the abuse of power thru the judiciary that liberals have resorted to.
With regards to the federalism issue, reasonable may differ on this with regards to marriage, but short of overriding the “full faith and credit” section of the constitution there is no easy or necessarily principled solution to this issue. Gay marriage proponents want to have their cake and eat it too. Kind of like those slave owners using Dred Scott to take their institution to all fifty states. Short of secession, there’s no good way for San Francisco or Massachussetts to experiment on this. In fact, it seems to me the Interstate commerce could be legitimately invoked here as well.
Your words: “It’s a shame our President has less respect for our Constitution . . . ”
Stated directly after you quoted several Republicans who oppose the FMA on federalism grounds.
I just connected the dots. But, incorrectly, it appears.
So, how is it that proposing a federal Consitutional amendment shows disrespect for the Constitution. And, please, don’t say the Tenth Amendment. That’s something I would expect, er, Bob Dole to say.
Anway, since you accuse me of setting up straw men, how about if you knock down your own straw man regarding the putative judicial “expansion” of the “existing right” of marriage, okay?
Again, 38 states have laws that say ‘No” to gay marriage. One of those states is the Golden State. Mr. Progressive in San Fran decides, hey, I don’t want to obey that law. (On a different point, he’s also violating the clear law which says that the State, not municipalities, have the exclusive right to grant marriage licenses; but that’s an issue for another day). The state courts in California are petitioned for an injunction to stop the illegal issuance of gay marriage licenses, and thereby to effectuate state law. The courts say “No.”
Without a federal amendment to the Constitution, by what process can the will of the people in California — who voted overwhelmingly, by the way, to define marriage as being between one man and one woman — be effectated? Should President Bush dispatch federal troops the way Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce federal desegration rulings in Arkansas? Should Governor Arnold dispatch California National Guardsmen?
See, this is the problem that arises when psuedo-intellectuals are faced with reality clashing with theory. Talk is cheap. Actions are necessary. If you can come up with a better action than a federal amendment banning gay marriage, I’m sure everyone would want to hear it.
Finally, how would you respond if all 50 states voted to enact laws that granted legal and equal status to gay marriage; but an activist conservative slate of U.S. Supreme Court judges struck down those laws? Hmmmm. A federal Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage? Say it ain’t so.
Marriage has never been a Full Faith & Credit matter — much less one covered by the ICC. Hence the need in the old days for a “Nevada divorce.”
Southern states, during segregation, refused to recognize black-white marriages performed in northern states, and refused to perform them themselves.
Marriage is not, never has been a Federal matter. And would remain so, were it not for idiots on the left (see my original post) like the mayor of San Francisco or idiots on the right who want to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution.
Even the Massachusetts case was based, not on the US Constitution, but on protections promised by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
If all 50 states were to ban gay marriage, then the fight would simply continue. Laws are mutable, as you’ve already noted.
As for Bush’s disrespect of the Constitution, see my above comments to Lloyd — which also applies to the various court- and California-related matters.
I’m not sure how many times I have to say the mayor of San Francisco is acting illegally before you stop putting me in the same camp as those who think his acts are some sort of noble civil disobedience.
I’m sorry, but tell me again how trying to use constitutional means to change the constitution is somehow disrespectful of the constitution? Just because you don’t like the proposed amendment in no way makes it disrespectful of the constitution. In fact, I would say that the president is doing is highly respectful of the constitution as a process defininbg document.
At some point, we are going to have to wake up and realize that the blogosphere is substantially more libertarion that the populace as a whole, and calling them bigots or morons or racists because they are not as “enlightened” as the rest of us is somewhat counterproductive.
You skirted my last point. I asked what your reaction would be if all the states passed laws ALLOWING gay marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down under federal law. Would you then support a federal Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage? And, if you say “yes,” then you’re revealing your liberal hypocrisy on this point.
In fact, this whole issue reeks with liberal hypocricy. Social liberals want women to have the right to abortion. Okay. But, on that point, of course, we don’t hear any complaints about the exercise of federal power. You see if we left that issue up to the states (as it was before 1973), we might have (gasp!) elected state representatives enacting state laws on behalf of their state constituents outlawing abortion. In that context, federalize the issue, the left demanded (and won).
Now, the social left not only is speaking out of both sides of their collective mouths, they can’t even keep their ideology straight. They want gay marriage. Okay. But, of course, they don’t even have the intellectual honesty to take that issue to the ballot box in the various states. They would lose disgracefully.
So, they turn to the state courts. Even, ahem, in state in which current state law outlaws gay marriage. But, then, in the next breath, they don’t want the specter of federal power to be exerted. Ah, I get it. Whether or not a traditional state law issue should be federalized depends on whom controls the highest federal court, right? In 1973, federalization of a traditional state law issue was okay, because the result was what the social left wanted. But not now.
Now, a federalized result would be against their views, so not only the result, but the means by which elected representatives from all 50 states might effectuate that result, is verboten.
The topic of the afrenoon is clearlt gay marriage. I have numerous posts on the subject below, and here are some Blogospheric responses Stephen Green has numerous posts on the subject mad up of mostly negative reponses and links…
Your point seems to be, if I am against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, then it’s hypocritical to support one favoring it (on grounds of federalism).
You make a point here, but I won’t be boxed into a corner where I have to defend a position I haven’t taken.
Instead, let me turn it around on you. If 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4ths of the states were to support an amendment to promote gay marriage, then how could you, based on your previous statements, be against it?
How, exactly is beginning the legal procedure to change the Constitution disrespect for it?
I find it seriously disturbing that people seem to have more to say about this than the mayor of San Franscisco openly defying the California state constitution. What if he had started handing out guns in support of the second amendment?
Regardless of the issue, people who call themselves conservative or claim to have respect for the Constitution should have much different opinions here. It’s disappointing and more than a little disturbing.
If a federal Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage were passed and then ratified, I would disagree with the result, but wholehartedly support the process. Shit, if 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states agree that something should be the law of the land, then it should be. The framers were very wise to set an extremely high bar for the amendment of the Constitution, but, if that bar is crossed, so be it.
My real point is assailing the duplicity of those who laud federal power in the context of traditional state law issues on the one hand — e.g., abortion — when in the next breath they oppose federal power on this issue. If state law matters should be left to the states, then ALL state law matters should be left to the states. Let the chips fall where they may. We shouldn’t go around cherry picking which matters are ones for which federal power is necessary or appropriate.
Ultimately, the real issue here, in my view, is how to deal with judges that won’t obey the laws with which they are entrusted. Frankly, I think that gay marriage should be left to the states. But if a state speaks out on the issue of gay marriage, e.g., California, and local officials and state judges literally refuse to obey the state electorate’s wishes, what else can be done? Send in the troops? Jail the local officials?
So, THAT is why I’m supporting the FMA. As Bush alluded to a few months ago, it has become “necessary” to assert federal power here. Given what we already have seen in California and New Mexico, the alternative is, frankly, anarchy.
“you’ll find me on the side of the minority.
Which is where you also found people like desegregationists.
Choose your company wisely.”
I enjoy your writing, agree with you most of the time, and agree with you that this amendment would be a mistake. And I don’t want to insult you here.
But if you want take on those of us who oppose judicial activism even in the service of a good cause by suggesting that we’re keeping company with segregation holdouts, I’ll have to point out that by the same token, you’re keeping company with Roger Taney.
Mr. Green,
With all due respect to your position on this issue, how should Bush have reacted to what SF did?
Do judges really have the right to arbitrarily overturn state law?
Yes, I read your post. I know you thought what they did was wrong.
But what are you willing to do about it?
What could CA do about about it?
Pass another law?
Send in the National Guard?
Shoot them?
SF ruled that prohibitions against gay marriage are unconstitutional. I’d say that was a strike against federalism.
As I see it Bush had two choices:
1) Do nothing and acknowledge that we are a country ruled by judges.
2) Answer the SF judges with the FMA, settling the matter.
Too much all or nothing? Sorry, I waited desperately for the gay rights community to condemn this. If they had, Bush would not have had to get involved. But there was no condemnation. They thought it was just sooo cute.
Now, they have no one to blame but themselves.
I wish it could of been otherwise. You’re directing animosity in the wrong direction. The fault is with SF and those who cheered them on. They are the ones who removed a federalist solution to this dilemma.
Oh BTW, you’ve set the bar for being for respectful of the Constitution pretty high. Bush merely believes that it is necessary to pass an ammendment in order to the change the Constitution. A notion many find outdated and too conciliatory towards the Constitution.
What is your position on Roe v. Wade?
I see some of the comments have skirted around this, but it’s worth reviewing.
A little under a third of the electorate considers Christian and other religious issues vitally important. Among those, opposition to gay marriage is part of the bedrock of their beliefs. For a small but important minority of those, it’s not “belief” — it’s “ralph on the rug at the idea.”
The Mayor of San Francisco just told all forty million or so of those people to fuck off and die — their views will not be considered, their beliefs will not be tolerated, they will not even be thrown a sop to ease themselves with. And nobody spoke up against that for days. Oh, ok, stunned non reaction for a day or so is expected. But half a week?
I don’t think the FMA will pass; the bar’s too high. But before the San Francisco incident, I would have said it was fifty to one. Now it’s two to one against, at best, and a lot of people had better be working hard to mute the effect of the FOAD message over the next little while, or it could get down to evens.
One thing I would put money on, though: George Bush, in the privacy of the family quarters at the White House, is praying that it not pass. But religious people are a huge part of the coalition that keeps him in office. He had literally no way to go, no action he could take, to keep those people in the system, except this. If the Mayor of San Francisco escapes any sort of meaningful sanction, and no action is taken against this “protest,” the religious will be taking the most vigorous political action they can manage to bring the FMA into the Constitution.
I think that would be a mistake. I believe that GWB thinks it would be a mistake. But unless you can find some way to dull the effect — some way to convince the religious that their input is in fact considered, even if it doesn’t control; some way to convince them that arbitrary action against their hopes and beliefs isn’t the norm rather than the exception — the resulting shitstorm is going to make hurricane+earthquake the preferred alternative.
This is _dangerous_, folks. In pulpits and prayer meetings across the country, there are people seriously proposing violent solutions. For now, they’re being slapped down, but unless somebody takes positive action to let the religious know that they have not been expelled from the American community — as a friend who’s a Baptist preacher put it to me just yesterday — we are all in big, big trouble.
With all due respect to your position on this issue, how should Bush have reacted to what SF did?
How about by ignoring it.
A renagade mayor of one city pulls a publicity stunt and Bush reacts as if the future of Planet Earth were at stake!
How about letting the executive branch of California deal with the violation of California state laws by a California mayor? How about letting the California attorney general and governor do their jobs? How about letting the California courts do their jobs?
They mayor of my small town is violating state law by not letting a Wal-Mart set up shop in my city, which has resulted in a court case — I eagerly await Presidential attention to this matter.
Instead, let me turn it around on you. If 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4ths of the states were to support an amendment to promote gay marriage, then how could you, based on your previous statements, be against it?
If that were to happen, then we’d be done. There would be Gay marriage, and life would go on.
But what we’re now seeing is nothing like that. NOWHERE are gay marriage advocates putting the issue to a vote. There are a bunch of states with initiative processes. None of them have passed an initiative in favor of Gay marriage (and many have passed initiatives against). I can’t even think of any place where a chance to vote in favor of it has been put on the ballot.
You seriously want to rethink that affection for “tyranny of the minority.” That’s one of the most appalling things I’ve heard in a while.
While “tyranny of the majority” is a very bad thing, and an essential point for democracies to deal with and avoid, “tyranny of the minority” is the very definiton of totalitarianism. Don’t defend totalitarianism.
Less respect for our Constitution? Stop it Stephen. It is Bush’s opponents lack of respect for that fine document that has caused this. For a libertarian, you are surprisingly cavalier about having things imposed on us by judicial fiat.
You are looking for the cheap way out. You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and think it should be legal, which is perfectly fine and reasonable. But, since it cannot be passed legislatively, you see nothing wrong with judicial fiat. I am disappointed in you on this subject.
Those guys are by far in the minority among conservatives and by the time it’s over, some of them will probably have changed their minds. Goldberg is already wobbling and Cheney will probably flip before it’s over. If the choice is having gay marriage imposed by activist judges and having the Federal govt block it via constitutional amendment, and it is, the latter is a better option and more in line with what the American people want.
John,
In a choice between the tyranny of the minority (the courts trying to expand an existing right), and the tyranny of the majority (a Constitutional amendment to restrict that right), you’ll find me on the side of the minority.
Which is where you also found people like desegregationists.
Choose your company wisely.
Leave it up to the states. Look at how imposing abortion has divided us over these past 30 years.
Besides, it could fall into the same black hole as the ERA – Equal Rights Amendment.
Anyone remember that?
I agree with John. he has no other option, and the amendment process will fully (I hope) explore all the options. As I have repeatedly argued on my blog, government’s role in “marriage” is merely the enforcement and preservation of fairness and equity of property rights, including child custody. It doesn’t do that very well right now, and judicially imposed changes in the definition of marriage won’t improve the matter.
And is it me or is it coincidence this comes up during an election year?
Don’t jackup the Constitution
Vodkapundit spent a few minutes on Google and came up with some choice statements concerning gay marriage and amending the Constitution. Bob Barr, Jonah Goldberg, Ward Connerly, Chuck Muth and Dick Cheney all are quoted. Take a guess on their…
By far the minority amongst conservatives? I think not! Look at the polls which show the only age group demographic in favor of the FMA being the over 65 crowd. I’m a conservative and I am not if favor of the FMA.
If one believes that the war we are in is the most important issue, and to prosecute that issue one must get elected, then it would be irrational to use political capital on issues of lesser importance.
It is entirely conceivable, is it not, that Bush’s support for an amendment is an issue of principle with him, in which case he is making the same error that many of those on the other side of the gay marriage issue are making – namely subordinating the war to the issue of gay marriage.
The issue of a gay marriage will be entirely moot if we lose this war.
Four points:
1. For Vodka, what is the “existing right” to gay marriage of which you speak??? Not a single state recognizes gay marriage. On the other hand, 38 states — including California — have specific laws refusing to recognize gay marriage. If left-wing activist judges simply will not enforce state statutes banning gay marriage (in fact, will disobey those directives), by what process can the will of the people who passed those statutes be heeded?
2. The Consitutional amendment process already has a built in component of pure federalism. Three quarters of the states must ratify such an amendment before it can become effective. So, not only in theory but in actual practice, the states ultimately are responsible for determining whether the FMA becomes the law of the land.
3. Even at the Congressional level, pure notions of federalism are part of the amendment process. Keep in mind that 67 members of the U.S. Senate must vote for a proposed amendment before it even gets out of Congress. Also keep in mind that states have equal power in the Senate; disproportionate to their relative share of the nation’s population. If the good people of Rhode Island, for example, do not favor a federal Consitutional amendment barring gay marriage (either because they support gay marriage or because they feel the issue should be left exclusively to the various states, or both), then it should follow that BOTH Senators from that state would vote against the proposed amendment. The same holds true for Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, etc. If the FMA gets out of the Congress, however, that means that the overwhelming majority of U.S. Senators voted for it. Since Senators represent states — equally in the power of their vote, regardless of the population of the state to which they are beholden — the states indeed would have spoken on the issue.
4. Constitutional amendments themselves can be amended or discarded. Remember prohibition? Didn’t think so.
If the FMA passes Congress and then is ratified by the states but, over time, opinions on the issue change, then the law can be changed. Either way, the people’s will is effectuated. But not by judicial fiat. By LEGISLATIVE action. Among ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES who must stand for re-election. In a fashion that is consonant with principles of federalism.
In a choice between the tyranny of the minority (the courts trying to expand an existing right), and the tyranny of the majority (a Constitutional amendment to restrict that right), you’ll find me on the side of the minority.
So, given a choice between rule of law, and rule of whim, you go with rule of whim?
You appear to have forgotten Plessey v. Fergusen (sp?). The Supreme Court isn’t always going to rule the way you want. What do you do when the minority is wrong?
For example, what, in principle, is the difference between what the courts are doing with “Gay marriage” here, and what the Iranian Courts did striking down the reformists laws there? Both, after all, are displaying the tyranny of a minority.
BTW, when did God tell you the One True Way about homosexuality? Lacking that, on what grounds do you so rabidly insist that you are right, and everyone else is wrong?
JTJ,
Thank you for responding so intelligently to points I never made.
Marriage is an existing right. I said I join with those in favor of “expanding” it to include gays. How you interpret that to mean I think gay marriage is an “existing right” is laughable.
When did I ever say that the amendment process is anti-Federal? Just because I am against a particular amendment hardly means I don
The problem here Stephen, as I think you may realize, is that the conservative majority in the country has been driven up against the wall to resort to a constitutional process nobody really wants. The sole benefit of this constitutional sledge hammer will possibly be to act as a remedy to the abuse of power thru the judiciary that liberals have resorted to.
With regards to the federalism issue, reasonable may differ on this with regards to marriage, but short of overriding the “full faith and credit” section of the constitution there is no easy or necessarily principled solution to this issue. Gay marriage proponents want to have their cake and eat it too. Kind of like those slave owners using Dred Scott to take their institution to all fifty states. Short of secession, there’s no good way for San Francisco or Massachussetts to experiment on this. In fact, it seems to me the Interstate commerce could be legitimately invoked here as well.
Vodka:
Your words: “It’s a shame our President has less respect for our Constitution . . . ”
Stated directly after you quoted several Republicans who oppose the FMA on federalism grounds.
I just connected the dots. But, incorrectly, it appears.
So, how is it that proposing a federal Consitutional amendment shows disrespect for the Constitution. And, please, don’t say the Tenth Amendment. That’s something I would expect, er, Bob Dole to say.
Anway, since you accuse me of setting up straw men, how about if you knock down your own straw man regarding the putative judicial “expansion” of the “existing right” of marriage, okay?
Again, 38 states have laws that say ‘No” to gay marriage. One of those states is the Golden State. Mr. Progressive in San Fran decides, hey, I don’t want to obey that law. (On a different point, he’s also violating the clear law which says that the State, not municipalities, have the exclusive right to grant marriage licenses; but that’s an issue for another day). The state courts in California are petitioned for an injunction to stop the illegal issuance of gay marriage licenses, and thereby to effectuate state law. The courts say “No.”
Without a federal amendment to the Constitution, by what process can the will of the people in California — who voted overwhelmingly, by the way, to define marriage as being between one man and one woman — be effectated? Should President Bush dispatch federal troops the way Dwight D. Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne to enforce federal desegration rulings in Arkansas? Should Governor Arnold dispatch California National Guardsmen?
See, this is the problem that arises when psuedo-intellectuals are faced with reality clashing with theory. Talk is cheap. Actions are necessary. If you can come up with a better action than a federal amendment banning gay marriage, I’m sure everyone would want to hear it.
Finally, how would you respond if all 50 states voted to enact laws that granted legal and equal status to gay marriage; but an activist conservative slate of U.S. Supreme Court judges struck down those laws? Hmmmm. A federal Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage? Say it ain’t so.
Lloyd,
Marriage has never been a Full Faith & Credit matter — much less one covered by the ICC. Hence the need in the old days for a “Nevada divorce.”
Southern states, during segregation, refused to recognize black-white marriages performed in northern states, and refused to perform them themselves.
Marriage is not, never has been a Federal matter. And would remain so, were it not for idiots on the left (see my original post) like the mayor of San Francisco or idiots on the right who want to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution.
Even the Massachusetts case was based, not on the US Constitution, but on protections promised by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
JTJ,
If all 50 states were to ban gay marriage, then the fight would simply continue. Laws are mutable, as you’ve already noted.
As for Bush’s disrespect of the Constitution, see my above comments to Lloyd — which also applies to the various court- and California-related matters.
I’m not sure how many times I have to say the mayor of San Francisco is acting illegally before you stop putting me in the same camp as those who think his acts are some sort of noble civil disobedience.
I’m sorry, but tell me again how trying to use constitutional means to change the constitution is somehow disrespectful of the constitution? Just because you don’t like the proposed amendment in no way makes it disrespectful of the constitution. In fact, I would say that the president is doing is highly respectful of the constitution as a process defininbg document.
At some point, we are going to have to wake up and realize that the blogosphere is substantially more libertarion that the populace as a whole, and calling them bigots or morons or racists because they are not as “enlightened” as the rest of us is somewhat counterproductive.
Vodka:
You skirted my last point. I asked what your reaction would be if all the states passed laws ALLOWING gay marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court struck them down under federal law. Would you then support a federal Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage? And, if you say “yes,” then you’re revealing your liberal hypocrisy on this point.
In fact, this whole issue reeks with liberal hypocricy. Social liberals want women to have the right to abortion. Okay. But, on that point, of course, we don’t hear any complaints about the exercise of federal power. You see if we left that issue up to the states (as it was before 1973), we might have (gasp!) elected state representatives enacting state laws on behalf of their state constituents outlawing abortion. In that context, federalize the issue, the left demanded (and won).
Now, the social left not only is speaking out of both sides of their collective mouths, they can’t even keep their ideology straight. They want gay marriage. Okay. But, of course, they don’t even have the intellectual honesty to take that issue to the ballot box in the various states. They would lose disgracefully.
So, they turn to the state courts. Even, ahem, in state in which current state law outlaws gay marriage. But, then, in the next breath, they don’t want the specter of federal power to be exerted. Ah, I get it. Whether or not a traditional state law issue should be federalized depends on whom controls the highest federal court, right? In 1973, federalization of a traditional state law issue was okay, because the result was what the social left wanted. But not now.
Now, a federalized result would be against their views, so not only the result, but the means by which elected representatives from all 50 states might effectuate that result, is verboten.
Can you spell: D-u-p-l-i-c-i-t-y?
Gay Marriage Round-Up
The topic of the afrenoon is clearlt gay marriage. I have numerous posts on the subject below, and here are some Blogospheric responses Stephen Green has numerous posts on the subject mad up of mostly negative reponses and links…
JTJ,
I misread your last post, hence the confusion.
Your point seems to be, if I am against a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, then it’s hypocritical to support one favoring it (on grounds of federalism).
You make a point here, but I won’t be boxed into a corner where I have to defend a position I haven’t taken.
Instead, let me turn it around on you. If 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4ths of the states were to support an amendment to promote gay marriage, then how could you, based on your previous statements, be against it?
How, exactly is beginning the legal procedure to change the Constitution disrespect for it?
I find it seriously disturbing that people seem to have more to say about this than the mayor of San Franscisco openly defying the California state constitution. What if he had started handing out guns in support of the second amendment?
Regardless of the issue, people who call themselves conservative or claim to have respect for the Constitution should have much different opinions here. It’s disappointing and more than a little disturbing.
Vodka:
If a federal Constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage were passed and then ratified, I would disagree with the result, but wholehartedly support the process. Shit, if 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states agree that something should be the law of the land, then it should be. The framers were very wise to set an extremely high bar for the amendment of the Constitution, but, if that bar is crossed, so be it.
My real point is assailing the duplicity of those who laud federal power in the context of traditional state law issues on the one hand — e.g., abortion — when in the next breath they oppose federal power on this issue. If state law matters should be left to the states, then ALL state law matters should be left to the states. Let the chips fall where they may. We shouldn’t go around cherry picking which matters are ones for which federal power is necessary or appropriate.
Ultimately, the real issue here, in my view, is how to deal with judges that won’t obey the laws with which they are entrusted. Frankly, I think that gay marriage should be left to the states. But if a state speaks out on the issue of gay marriage, e.g., California, and local officials and state judges literally refuse to obey the state electorate’s wishes, what else can be done? Send in the troops? Jail the local officials?
So, THAT is why I’m supporting the FMA. As Bush alluded to a few months ago, it has become “necessary” to assert federal power here. Given what we already have seen in California and New Mexico, the alternative is, frankly, anarchy.
Stephen, you wrote:
“you’ll find me on the side of the minority.
Which is where you also found people like desegregationists.
Choose your company wisely.”
I enjoy your writing, agree with you most of the time, and agree with you that this amendment would be a mistake. And I don’t want to insult you here.
But if you want take on those of us who oppose judicial activism even in the service of a good cause by suggesting that we’re keeping company with segregation holdouts, I’ll have to point out that by the same token, you’re keeping company with Roger Taney.
Mr. Green,
With all due respect to your position on this issue, how should Bush have reacted to what SF did?
Do judges really have the right to arbitrarily overturn state law?
Yes, I read your post. I know you thought what they did was wrong.
But what are you willing to do about it?
What could CA do about about it?
Pass another law?
Send in the National Guard?
Shoot them?
SF ruled that prohibitions against gay marriage are unconstitutional. I’d say that was a strike against federalism.
As I see it Bush had two choices:
1) Do nothing and acknowledge that we are a country ruled by judges.
2) Answer the SF judges with the FMA, settling the matter.
Too much all or nothing? Sorry, I waited desperately for the gay rights community to condemn this. If they had, Bush would not have had to get involved. But there was no condemnation. They thought it was just sooo cute.
Now, they have no one to blame but themselves.
I wish it could of been otherwise. You’re directing animosity in the wrong direction. The fault is with SF and those who cheered them on. They are the ones who removed a federalist solution to this dilemma.
Oh BTW, you’ve set the bar for being for respectful of the Constitution pretty high. Bush merely believes that it is necessary to pass an ammendment in order to the change the Constitution. A notion many find outdated and too conciliatory towards the Constitution.
What is your position on Roe v. Wade?
I see some of the comments have skirted around this, but it’s worth reviewing.
A little under a third of the electorate considers Christian and other religious issues vitally important. Among those, opposition to gay marriage is part of the bedrock of their beliefs. For a small but important minority of those, it’s not “belief” — it’s “ralph on the rug at the idea.”
The Mayor of San Francisco just told all forty million or so of those people to fuck off and die — their views will not be considered, their beliefs will not be tolerated, they will not even be thrown a sop to ease themselves with. And nobody spoke up against that for days. Oh, ok, stunned non reaction for a day or so is expected. But half a week?
I don’t think the FMA will pass; the bar’s too high. But before the San Francisco incident, I would have said it was fifty to one. Now it’s two to one against, at best, and a lot of people had better be working hard to mute the effect of the FOAD message over the next little while, or it could get down to evens.
One thing I would put money on, though: George Bush, in the privacy of the family quarters at the White House, is praying that it not pass. But religious people are a huge part of the coalition that keeps him in office. He had literally no way to go, no action he could take, to keep those people in the system, except this. If the Mayor of San Francisco escapes any sort of meaningful sanction, and no action is taken against this “protest,” the religious will be taking the most vigorous political action they can manage to bring the FMA into the Constitution.
I think that would be a mistake. I believe that GWB thinks it would be a mistake. But unless you can find some way to dull the effect — some way to convince the religious that their input is in fact considered, even if it doesn’t control; some way to convince them that arbitrary action against their hopes and beliefs isn’t the norm rather than the exception — the resulting shitstorm is going to make hurricane+earthquake the preferred alternative.
This is _dangerous_, folks. In pulpits and prayer meetings across the country, there are people seriously proposing violent solutions. For now, they’re being slapped down, but unless somebody takes positive action to let the religious know that they have not been expelled from the American community — as a friend who’s a Baptist preacher put it to me just yesterday — we are all in big, big trouble.
Regards,
Ric Locke
They learned nothing from Roe v. Wade.
With all due respect to your position on this issue, how should Bush have reacted to what SF did?
How about by ignoring it.
A renagade mayor of one city pulls a publicity stunt and Bush reacts as if the future of Planet Earth were at stake!
How about letting the executive branch of California deal with the violation of California state laws by a California mayor? How about letting the California attorney general and governor do their jobs? How about letting the California courts do their jobs?
They mayor of my small town is violating state law by not letting a Wal-Mart set up shop in my city, which has resulted in a court case — I eagerly await Presidential attention to this matter.
–How about letting the California courts do their jobs?–
Well, that’s the sure way to get to the USSC, the 9th circuit.
Having this imposed by judicial fiat is not the way to go, the abortion “debate” has proved it.
Instead, let me turn it around on you. If 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4ths of the states were to support an amendment to promote gay marriage, then how could you, based on your previous statements, be against it?
If that were to happen, then we’d be done. There would be Gay marriage, and life would go on.
But what we’re now seeing is nothing like that. NOWHERE are gay marriage advocates putting the issue to a vote. There are a bunch of states with initiative processes. None of them have passed an initiative in favor of Gay marriage (and many have passed initiatives against). I can’t even think of any place where a chance to vote in favor of it has been put on the ballot.
Tells you how popular the supporters think it is.
Kudos to JPS, who beat me to it. When worrying about which “tyranny” to embrace, one should always remember Dred Scott, and the 14th Amendment.
Stephen,
You seriously want to rethink that affection for “tyranny of the minority.” That’s one of the most appalling things I’ve heard in a while.
While “tyranny of the majority” is a very bad thing, and an essential point for democracies to deal with and avoid, “tyranny of the minority” is the very definiton of totalitarianism. Don’t defend totalitarianism.
Sam, you are right, if this passes, it will be because the majority really wants it.
If that is the case, I will not argue that the result doesn’t reflect the majority of the people, but it will be a very sad day for America.
Less respect for our Constitution? Stop it Stephen. It is Bush’s opponents lack of respect for that fine document that has caused this. For a libertarian, you are surprisingly cavalier about having things imposed on us by judicial fiat.
You are looking for the cheap way out. You see nothing wrong with gay marriage, and think it should be legal, which is perfectly fine and reasonable. But, since it cannot be passed legislatively, you see nothing wrong with judicial fiat. I am disappointed in you on this subject.