Declaring people who don’t think gay marriage is good policy as “anti-gay” was always an obvious slander. The New York Times has now discovered that the people against gay marriage aren’t actually “anti-gay” after all:
When an openly gay woman won the mayor’s race here this month, it was the latest in a string of victories by gay candidates across the country, a trend that seems to contradict the bans on same-sex marriage that have been passed in most states in recent years.
Take Texas, by many measures one of the most conservative states in the nation. In 2005, it enacted a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage; the voters passed the referendum by a ratio of three to one.
Yet in the last decade, an openly gay woman has twice won election as the sheriff in Dallas County, and another openly gay woman was elected district attorney in Travis County, which includes the city of Austin. Gay candidates have also won city council seats in Austin, Fort Worth and Houston.
I guess when you’re the leading leftwing rag, you have to at least pretend to be surprised when your slanderous accusations turn out to be false. Conservatives who oppose gay marriage (I don’t care who gets married, personally; I just wish goverment were not involved in the matter at all) were never bigots merely because they took that policy stance. Anyone who said otherwise was simply trying to shut down debate.
Comments
Print This Post
Voters will be going to the polls on November 3rd. If you haven’t been paying much attention, here’s a quick recap of what’s going on:
The Races
Virginia Governor: Easy R Pick-up
McDonnell (R) is trouncing Deeds (D), who he has previously defeated in a statewide election (Attorney General). The Washington Post pulled out all the stops on behalf of Deeds in this race, at one point penning 12 hit pieces in 11 days, but it hasn’t mattered. The White House has already preemptively thrown Deeds under the bus, blaming his impending loss on not using them enough. Ha!
New Jersey Governor: Toss Up
Corzine’s (D) favorables are bad news for an incumbent, but the race is complicated by a third party candidate in Daggett (I). Christie (R) has been outspent by Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs Chairman who pretty much bought the seat in the first place, by a factor of 3 to 1. Nevertheless, polls have the race as a dead-heat.
Of note in the race has been some Corzine digs at Christie’s weight, which prompted Christie to say that he is gonna be a “big, fat winner.”
New York District 23: Likely Conservative Pick-up (he’ll caucus with Republicans, so also an R Hold)
Most recent polls have this three-way race down to Democrat Bill Owens and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Republican Dede Scozzafava, a card-check and stimulus supporting liberal endorsed by DailyKOS, was appointed the Republican candidate by the local party bigwigs. There was no primary for this special election.
After running a terrible campaign (which at one point included an odd episode where the cops were called on a conservative reporter for asking her questions), and numerous prominent conservative Republicans endorsed Hoffman, recent polls have shown her falling fast. With campaign funds completely dried up, she finally threw in the towel this morning. Expect Hoffman to pick up most of her supporters.
Ballot Initiatives
Six states will have state-wide ballot initiatives up for vote on November 3rd. Some of the more interesting ones include:
Maine Question 1: A “People’s Veto” attempt to repeal an act which authorized same-sex marriage in Maine.
Maine Question 4: A TAxpayer Bill Of Rights (TABOR) initiative, question 4 would require taxpayer approval of taxing and spending efforts above a certain threshold (tied to inflation and population growth). The last TABOR attempt in Maine failed to pass.
Maine Question 5: Would allow for legal medical marijuana, and a regulated system of distribution.
Texas Proposition 11: Will prevent government, via constitutional amendment, from acquiring land for non-public use (Eminent Domain abuse).
Washington Referendum 71: A veto referendum that seeks to overturn SB 5688, a state domestic partnership law which granted all marriage rights to domestic partners.
Comments Print This Post
TIME has stumbled upon a novel idea: get government out of marriage entirely.
When a Jewish boy turns 13, he heads to a temple for a deeply meaningful rite of passage, his bar mitzvah. When a Catholic girl reaches about the same age, she stands in front of the local bishop, who touches her forehead with holy oil as she is confirmed into a 2,000-year-old faith tradition. But missing altogether in each of those cases — and in countless others of equal religious importance — is any role at all for government. There is no baptism certificate issued by the local courthouse, and no federal tax benefits attached to the confessional booth, the into-the-water-and-out born-again ceremony or any of the other sacraments that believers hold sacred.
Only marriage gets that treatment, and it’s a tradition that some legal scholars have been arguing should be abandoned. Two law professors from Pepperdine University issued a call to re-examine the role the government plays in marriage in a paper published March 2 in the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors — one of who voted for and one against Prop 8, which successfully ended gay marriage in California — say the best way out of the intractable legal wars over gay marriage is to take marriage out of the hands of the government altogether.
TIME describes the idea as a “new way of thinking.” So just how new is this idea?
Here’s what I had to say in October of 2006:
I’d rather government got out of the marriage business altogether. Citizens are free to live with whomever they please. Churches are free to recognize some of it as “marriage” if they want, or not recognize some of it. And, dare I say, if people want to live with multiple partners, that’s their choice. If a church wants to call that marriage, then so be it. That’s for the individuals and churches involved to decide. Government never should have been in it in the first place. If it weren’t for intrusive government taxes and regulations, there would be no need for marriage “exemptions”.
Marriage has traditionally been, and ought to be again, a private union between two individuals as sanctioned before God (through their church). It is not the place of the state to decide which matters of religious import should be elevated to law. Doing so with marriage was a mistake and has sparked a culture war that need not exist. Such wars don’t occur when people are free to choose their own path, but are always a consequence of one-size-fits-all government solutions. End government recognition of marriage and reduce needlessly burdensome tax rates to all Americans, and there is no issue left.
Comments Print This Post
I have to take a slight disagreement to Steve’s post on the gay marriage issue. Of his conclusion I take no issue, as the entanglement of marriage and government was a big mistake that should be rectified. Marriage is a personal matter to be recognized, or not recognized, by a person’s chosen church. The debate over what should and should not be sanctioned by a church should be conducted by those who belong to that church, or whatever method each religion chooses to decide such things.
However, I must disagree with the assertion that government choosing not to recognize “marriage” between those of the same sex is equivalent to making that behavior illegal. That is not what anyone is calling for. Also, at issue, is a question over proper interpretation of the law. While I don’t believe government should be involved in marriage at all, that doesn’t mean the courts are correct to determine that the state is not allowed to distinguish between behaviors that quite clearly are very different. There is, after all, a case to be made that encouraging traditional marriage is in our interest. I agree with Steve that it’s not necessary, but it’s a plausible position. However, no similar interests exist for recognizing “gay marriage”, as it is completely irrelevent to the survival of the species and society. The courts are wrong for usurping the power of the legislatures in this way. As such, even where I find a law misguided, I can’t say that I’m upset to see the courts trumped by popular ballot.
In the end, Steve and I reach the same conclusion, albeit by taking different routes. So I will finish by encouraging all Conservatives to push for seperating government and marriage once and for all.
Comments Print This Post
New Jersey has handed down its much anticipated same-sex marriage decision.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.
The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.
Notice the bold part. The failure of logic on this debate has been catastrophic and across the board. Everyone already has the same rights under marriage laws. First I’ll make some clarifications, as this issue is often obfuscated to the point that intelligent communication is prohibited. There are two different issues of “marriage” here. There’s church marriage and there’s legal marriage. A church is free to marry whomever they please. Citizens are free to get married by any church that will marry them.
Legal marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. Everyone has that ability, regardless of race or sexual orientation or anything else. That gays often don’t want (though sometimes they do) to marry someone of the opposite sex is irrelevant to the question of equal rights. What they really want is a new ability, one that no one currently has; the ability to be legally wed to someone of the same sex.
I’m not altogether against such a thing, but I want those involved in the debate to at least be honest in what they are asking. Equal rights is not a question here, and those who make comparisons between separate but equal race based institutions miss one small, but absolutely crucial, point. Race is simply ones appearance and heritage, while same sex marriage is a behavior, an action. Society has long ago decided it has to right to legislate behavior. It happens all the time, most of it for good reason. But if a new right can be crafted simply by asking for “equal rights” where they already exist, how can we know it will stop at same-sex marriage? Why not brothers and sisters? Why not polygamy? All can apply the exact same arguments as the same-sex marriage advocates espouse.
I’d rather government got out of the marriage business altogether. Citizens are free to live with whomever they please. Churches are free to recognize some of it as “marriage” if they want, or not recognize some of it. And, dare I say, if people want to live with multiple partners, that’s their choice. If a church wants to call that marriage, then so be it. That’s for the individuals and churches involved to decide. Government never should have been in it in the first place. If it weren’t for intrusive government taxes and regulations, there would be no need for marriage “exemptions”. But the government is involved in it. And if the majority of the voters decide they want to recognize one particular behavior as legal marriage, there’s no equality issue that prevents them from doing so. After all, everyone else is still free to live with whomever they please and, if a church is so inclined, to get “married”.
Bench Memos takes on the merits of the decision.
The majority?s purported solicitude for the right of New Jersey citizens to decide what name to give the new same-sex arrangement is impossible to take seriously, when those same judges run roughshod over citizens? ability to decide which rights and benefits of marriage should be available to same-sex couples.
Ace finds a New Jersey prosecutor to weigh in:
Comments. . .If the state legislature can’t define marriage (as it obviously can’t to the satisfaction of the Court), should it have to recognize any marriage (even common-law marriages which NJ does not). I guess I’m sick of judicial activism cloaked in the guise of equal protection or the so-called liberty interest, and the blatant opportunism of all things judicial. I’m also sick of the fact that the only consistent judicial approach seems to be hypocrisy.
. . .This Court says a private mall has to allow protesters on its property, but would allow me to be terminated for using the word cunt at the office? This Court allows Children wear just about anything at school, unless it offends Muslims or gays, in which case it punishes schools for creating hostile environments. I’m really getting sick of bad reasoning, hack lawyers, and hack legislators who are willing to allow the judiciary to rule from the bench and merely rail against the rulings (to raise funds) without answering with legislation because they are afraid to take a stand.
Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
