Gay Marraige will be legal in 50 years

[WMS]

*sigh*
Pardon me for interrupting the left-right debate for a second, but here's another POV dealing more with the legal and political side of this issue:

Currently, I am rather annoyed at both the left (for trying to use the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution to force legal gay marriage down everybody's throat) and the right (for trying to use a constitutional amendment to force a permanent universal ban on gay marriage down everybody's throat) for making this such a major bloody issue. Yes, I am a bit suspicious at the speed by which all these San Francisco mayors, county clerks, etc. *spontaneously* had all these people show up and get - illegally at this point - married, with much publicity. I think ACT UP and like-minded groups planned to make this an issue...not sure why, considering the timing is dreadful, but the left can be really silly sometimes. And I am also suspicious at how quickly GW signed on to this, considering I don't think he really believes a constitutional amendment is the way to go. I'm one of those "let the d*mn states decide it" people, just so you know.

Here's my big question: Why is this happening now? Honestly, I think the gay movement's cause would've been much better served by first continuing their push for gay rights (an issue they were getting really close on, judging by the increasing number of libertarian Republicans willing to support it and by public opinion polls showing majority support for gay *rights*) and getting that hammered down, so they couldn't be discriminated against in housing and the like. Then, they really should have pushed for the civil union compromise, whereupon they could receive all the *civil* rights and responsibilities of marriage without the religious or cultural connotations. Heck, I think Dick Cheney supports that idea. But I would have made that part of it a state-by-state decision, so that the gays could convince everyone that they're not out to subvert The Very Fabric Of Society. I think they would've gotten more support for that than many would think.

But NOOOOOO, instead we get an attempt to force the issue through the courts, in a rather sneaky manner *guaranteed* to spark a severe counterreaction (note the opinion polls on this one, if you will) that could reverse the progress toward gay rights that they've made up to this point. Seriously, marriage is a *VERY* touchy issue in the U.S., and what happened in Massachusetts pounded that cultural 'buzzer', as it were, repeatedly.

This is just like the abortion issue now. Abortion rights WERE being handled by the states, as was proper for this type of touchy cultural issue, until the feminist left just HAD to drag it before the Supreme Court. And because of that, we're STILL arguing about it, since it wasn't handled at the level it should have been, and really PO'd the pro-lifers into waging a partially successful attempt to reverse it. [Roe v. Wade isn't a very steady or clear decision, IMHO, and so it is vulnerable to reversal - I mean, FIRST there's a 'penumbra' emanating from several amendments that creates *poof* a right to privacy, and THEN that right to privacy kinda sorta gives *lesser poof* abortion rights...kind of a rickety way to establish rights, eh?]

And now, no matter which side wins the legal debate, this issue will go on *forever*...
*sigh*

[WMS]

...
But to WMS, you say that gay marriage shouldn't be forced through the courts.  But what about interracial marriage...  that came through the courts not through the legislature or public which was 90% against it just 40 years ago.  It's easy to tell people to wait to get acceptance but I think if it was you who would want to marry interracially then 40 years is a long time to wait.

Ah, I got you to admit that you liberals are up to something.

While I sympathize to an extent with gays who want to get married (at least some people take it seriously ) I also respect the opinions of those who don't want this forced on them. And this is an *especially* devious way of doing so: go to the most liberal state Supreme Court you can find, get them to rule in your favor, then use that to force *every* state to your will. Do you not see how dangerous that can be? What if a conservative state rules in a way that you don't like and applies that case law everywhere through the same method being used here? Like, say, a state court strikes down ALL campaign-finance laws, or makes abortion illegal, or something like that? If you don't provide leeway for varying state interpretation, things get nasty really fast.

And while I have no opposition to interracial marriage (I take the Bulworth approach to it) and quite frankly can't see why it was such an issue, I think it's better if those wanting to make a change can convince people, one state at a time, that they are right. I believe interracial marriage would have been lifted in most places by now (OK, maybe not Mississippi, given how long it took them to get their laws changed, but we're talking about Mississippi here) based on the inherent silliness of banning interracial marriage. And as before, I think the gay left is risking an awful lot of progress it's made by raising this issue - and the counterreaction could be severe.

Anyway, I still think civil unions are the way to go...it might help improve the institution of marriage as a whole if done right - I agree with Dazzleman that the entire institution of marriage needs an overhaul, and this might be a way to get that started...

[WMS]

Just thought you might like to get this poll from New Mexico about this. I'll let Vorlon or Gustav or Al or someone like that tell me how valid it is.

In the Sunday, March 21, 2004 Albuquerque Journal
Done by local statewide polling (and redistricting) firm Research & Polling, Inc. Sample of 404 New Mexico adults interviewed by telephone March 10-15. Margin of error: plus or minus 5 percentage points. So make of it what you will...

"Would you favor or oppose a law in New Mexico that would allow a person to marry a partner of the same sex?" 61% OPPOSE, 29% FAVOR, 5% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS, 5% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY.

"Would you favor or oppose a state law that would allow civil unions among same-sex couples?" 48% OPPOSE, 43% FAVOR, 5% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS, 4% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY.

"Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages in every state?" 51% OPPOSE, 42% FAVOR, 4% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY, 3% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS.

And, in the Monday, March 22, 2004 Albuquerque Journal, a companion poll, done by Journal reporters who asked 93 of the 112 New Mexico LAWMAKERS (ergo, the State Representatives and State Senators) the same questions (OK, the civil question question IS different) that Research & Polling asked in their poll above. In this case the low sample number is, well, not really an issue, now is it?

"A civil union allows same-sex couples to obtain all of the rights, responsibilities and benefits available through marriage. Would you support or oppose a state law that would allow civil unions among same-sex couples?" 48% OPPOSE/45 Legislators, 32% SUPPORT/30 Legislators, 6% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/5 Legislators, 14% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/13 Legislators.

"Would you support or oppose a law in New Mexico that would allow a person to marry a partner of the same sex?" 81% OPPOSE/75 Legislators, 5% SUPPORT/5 Legislators, 10% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/9 Legislators, 4% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/4 Legislators.

"Would you support or oppose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibited same-sex marriages in every state?" 46% OPPOSE/43 Legislators, 43% SUPPORT/40 Legislators, 4% DEPENDS or MIXED FEELINGS/4 Legislators, 7% DON'T KNOW or WON'T SAY/6 Legislators.

Even though I know some of the ones who couldn't be contacted or wouldn't given an answer, I can't say how they would vote. The individual answers, by the way, are ALL over the field. Almost every possible combination is chosen by someone, except three "Support" answers in a row, which would flatly contradict itself as an answer.

I'll just say that gay marriage is NOT going to pass in New Mexico, but gay civil unions MIGHT, and the constitutional amendment would PROBABLY NOT. But the fight over civil unions would be tooth and nail. Mind you, I think most of the NM Legislature *really* doesn't want to deal with this issue...