The consequences of making up law and avoiding the democratic process
Lisa Schiffren:
"George W. Bush is not a culture warrior by inclination. And he clearly did not seek this fight over gay marriage. I'd guess that he, like most Americans, wishes it would go away. At very least, it is a distraction from the real culture war, which is being fought in the Middle East against terrorists and anti-democratic fanatics.
"Amending the Constitution is a big deal, and as a conservative, President Bush wouldn't seek to do so if there were other political or legal options. But his hand was forced. The mayor of San Francisco, in contravention of all existing state and federal law, started handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples as if they were political placards. More ominously, four Massachusetts judges, looking to bring about radical social change from the bench, decided that their commonwealth must begin performing same-sex marriages this spring. Undoubtedly, there are more judges across the country waiting for their chance to be creative, too. Whether you favor gay marriage or not, it should be a concern when judges and officials decide to circumvent the democratic process on a core issue.
...
"What marriage most certainly is not is a benefits grab. It does not exist for the sake of providing health benefits or minimizing estate taxes. To the extent that those are the issues at stake for gay men and women, they can and should be rectified in state and local law.
"And that's exactly what's been happening. Consider the widespread changes in adoption laws, nondiscrimination policies and corporate benefit plans favoring same-sex couples. In terms of social attitudes, there is now greater acceptance of gay people than anyone could have imagined a few decades ago. This is a good thing. And it will likely continue. Evolution is preferable to judicial fiat.
...
"Passing amendments is notoriously difficult. But given that 38 state legislatures have already passed "defense of marriage" acts, it may well happen in this case. The virtue of the amendment process is that it requires the consent of the governed. It forces nationwide debate and examination. Why are so many liberals now trying to keep that debate from happening?"
Lisa Schiffren:
"George W. Bush is not a culture warrior by inclination. And he clearly did not seek this fight over gay marriage. I'd guess that he, like most Americans, wishes it would go away. At very least, it is a distraction from the real culture war, which is being fought in the Middle East against terrorists and anti-democratic fanatics.
"Amending the Constitution is a big deal, and as a conservative, President Bush wouldn't seek to do so if there were other political or legal options. But his hand was forced. The mayor of San Francisco, in contravention of all existing state and federal law, started handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples as if they were political placards. More ominously, four Massachusetts judges, looking to bring about radical social change from the bench, decided that their commonwealth must begin performing same-sex marriages this spring. Undoubtedly, there are more judges across the country waiting for their chance to be creative, too. Whether you favor gay marriage or not, it should be a concern when judges and officials decide to circumvent the democratic process on a core issue.
...
"What marriage most certainly is not is a benefits grab. It does not exist for the sake of providing health benefits or minimizing estate taxes. To the extent that those are the issues at stake for gay men and women, they can and should be rectified in state and local law.
"And that's exactly what's been happening. Consider the widespread changes in adoption laws, nondiscrimination policies and corporate benefit plans favoring same-sex couples. In terms of social attitudes, there is now greater acceptance of gay people than anyone could have imagined a few decades ago. This is a good thing. And it will likely continue. Evolution is preferable to judicial fiat.
...
"Passing amendments is notoriously difficult. But given that 38 state legislatures have already passed "defense of marriage" acts, it may well happen in this case. The virtue of the amendment process is that it requires the consent of the governed. It forces nationwide debate and examination. Why are so many liberals now trying to keep that debate from happening?"
Comments
Post a Comment