There has been much media celebration over the outcome of the New York State gay marriage debate. That is not unexpected because the media has been pushing the gay sociopolitical agenda for two decades. It is also not unexpected that it was Republicans who allowed it to happen because New York, of course, is the home of Rockefeller Republicanism.
One of the unsurprising aspects of the coverage we have seen over the last couple of days is that we have seen little discussion of the effects on children; and on the ability of the institution of marriage to fulfill its promise to children. The North Carolina Family Policy Council has published a handy issue brief to aid in understanding.
I think one of the inevitable consequences of the change in New York State is that it will make it more imperative for individual states to pass marriage protection amendments; and for a constitutional amendment of some kind to be enacted at the federal level as well. Why? Because the activist courts will tend to rule in favor of gay marriage; because the media is determined to see this issue through to completion; and because legislators will behave like weathervanes, and merely twist in direction according to however the winds appear to be blowing. Various parties will be eager to portray an air of inevitability regarding gay marriage.
Let's hope the North Carolina state legislature lets the voters decide on a constitutional amendment here. This should be a decision for the people of this state.
I'm confused, are you saying this should be left up to the states or decided at the federal level -- or does it depend on the outcome?
Posted by: Roch101 | June 27, 2011 at 09:06 AM
Since the Defense of Marriage Act is under attack, and the Obama Administration is refusing to defend it, I think it would be appropriate to pass a constitutional amendment at the federal level dictating that marriage law is to be decided at the state level; and that one state cannot be forced to recognize a gay marriages from another state. Such an amendment could also assure religious liberty and freedom of conscience on matters related to this topic.
We need to be sure that the federal judiciary does not impose gay marriage upon the entire country. But we also need to be sure that the individual states are not allowing or exercising tyranny against those who wish to exercise their freedom of conscience and religious liberty on these matters.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 27, 2011 at 09:53 AM
"Such an amendment could also assure religious liberty and freedom of conscience on matters related to this topic."
That's really a red herring, isn't it Joe? Because, in truth, nobody is being compelled to subvert their religious liberty to governments that allow gay marriage, are they? In fact, it is governments that prohibit people from marrying their partners of choice that are infringing on religious liberties, isn't it?
I find it funny that a supposed defender of the Constitution would use such an upside down argument to argue for subverting the Fourteenth Amendment.
Posted by: Roch101 | June 27, 2011 at 10:27 AM
In fact, institutions and individuals are in the position of being coerced to provide services to gay couples against their conscience-- adoptive agencies, wedding photographers, etc. That is wrong, and it has already been an issue. A constitutional amendment could clarify the law, and assure there is no tyranny against those individuals and institutions that wish to exercise their conscience.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 27, 2011 at 10:57 AM
What the heck kind of Constitutional amendment are you proposing then? The things you cite have nothing to do with marriage, so it sounds like the straight read of your comments is that you would propose a Constitutional amendment that would codify discrimination against gay people. This level of hatred is really disturbing.
Posted by: Roch101 | June 27, 2011 at 11:21 AM
Wedding photographers??? Seriously???
Every wedding photographer I know supports gay marriage....
Posted by: Stephen | June 27, 2011 at 01:06 PM
Is Barack Obama a bigot?
Posted by: Spag | June 27, 2011 at 01:08 PM
http://i.word.com/idictionary/bigot
"... you would propose a Constitutional amendment that would codify discrimination..."
Surprise!
Posted by: Stephen | June 27, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Isn't the right and responsibility for issuing marriage licenses already a state power, as allowed in Article 10? The main force of your proposed amendment would be to insure other states could deny rights to gay couples married in different states. That, by definition, is encoding a right for states to discriminate, but I assume you mean it in a way similar to the way some states may choose not to honor other states' licenses for professional work.
Here's a problem: at what point may the federal government become at odds with not recognizing duly licensed marriages in the states now granting them, with NY soon joining their ranks? The 14th Amendment is bound to be invoked before the US Supreme Court to force some recognition on the federal level.
Finally, since it requires 3/4 of states to ratify an amendment, and it takes serious time to get such things in process, isn't it quite likely a good 9 or 10 states will soon be granting licenses, or are less stridently antigay marriage, and hence unlikely to pass such an amendment? (all of New England, NY, Iowa and likely California; where are the other few states, do you think? Maybe Maryland?)
I still maintain we should only allow civil unions, for all couples, gay or straight. Then, individual churches, synagogues, etc. can decide whom they marry. And no one needs to force anyone to accept the validity of another couple's marriage. Heck, I know plenty of people who were "joined in matrimony" who are un-committed, un-loving and un-worthy of any spiritual sanction as possible. And they aren't gay. I am sure there are gay couples similarly mis-matched, though.
Posted by: Jim Langer | June 27, 2011 at 01:13 PM
It's not that simple of a 14th Amendment analysis. The Court must first recognize sexual orientation as a suspect class. Until they do that, the Equal Protection analysis is going to be flawed.
Posted by: Spag | June 27, 2011 at 08:52 PM
The use of "discrimination" to describe, for instance, the choice of a conservative priest or minister in a conservative church NOT to marry a gay couple is a rhetorical ploy. Using it to describe a Catholic adoption agency that elects not to serve gay couples wanting to adopt is a rhetorical ploy. Using it to describe a conservative Christian who owns a business that is involved with weddings in some way, who elects not to serve gay couples, is a rhetorical ploy.
Why would anyone want to use the power of the state to compel these folks or institutions to do otherwise? That is tyranny.
I would argue this is not discrimination, because discrimination presumes that those seeking access to the accommodation possess some type of ethical right to that accommodation. But that ethical right does not exist in actuality. Instead, various parties are seeking to construct it by enacting a sociopolitical agenda.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 28, 2011 at 07:17 AM
"But we also need to be sure that the individual states are not allowing or exercising tyranny against those who wish to exercise their freedom of conscience and religious liberty on these matters."
That's already here, not yet from the states, but from the counter culture warriors of the Left.
Robert George describes the REAL discrimination here:
"So people are calling you 'intolerant' and an 'anti-civil-rights bigot'? Well, for those who have absorbed the premises of sexual liberation and embraced its dogmas so fanatically that they can’t fathom the possibility that any reasonable person of goodwill could dissent from them, that’s what people like you and me seem to be.
Like overly impassioned believers at all times and in all places, these folks suppose that anyone who doubts the tenets of their faith must have malign motives. Dissenters from what they regard as an unquestionable orthodoxy must be 'haters' (the modern word for 'heretics'). It’s ironic — and amusing — that these folks regard themselves as urbane, sophisticated people — critical thinkers — who are much smarter and better informed (not to mention more 'tolerant' and 'open-minded') than their opponents. In truth, they rarely have the foggiest notion of what the arguments are in support of the view they reject or what the intellectual challenges are for the view they hold.
They already know the truth, and that’s that! So what need is there for reflection, study, deliberation, and debate? Why argue with “intolerant, anti-civil-rights bigots”? To the barricades!"
George must have been reading the Usual Suspects' nonsense at Cone's blog.
Posted by: Bubba | June 28, 2011 at 06:59 PM
Here's the link to George's remarks. Read the whole thing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270662/sex-and-empire-state-interview?page=1
Posted by: Bubba | June 28, 2011 at 07:01 PM
One more excerpt from George:
"One will begin congratulating oneself for one’s 'open-mindedness' and 'tolerance' in holding that marriage should be redefined to accommodate the interests of these minorities, and one will likely lose any real regard for the rights of, say, parents who do not wish to have their children indoctrinated into the ideology of sexual liberalism in public schools. 'Why,' one will ask, 'should fundamentalist parents be free to rear their children as little bigots?' Heather’s two mommies or Billy’s two mommies and three daddies are the keys to freeing children from parental 'homophobia' and 'polyphobia.'"
Posted by: Bubba | June 28, 2011 at 07:17 PM
As usual, Bubba, George nails it.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 28, 2011 at 07:24 PM
Joe, the only scenario I can think of that even remotely speaks to your concerns would be if a judge were compelled to legally unite a gay couple against that judge's religious leanings.
Would a judge who refuses to carry out duties they are legally obligated to carry out based on their religious beliefs be engaging in judicial activism?
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | June 28, 2011 at 07:56 PM
Brandon, I think you miss the point.
David French on NRO today:
"Gay marriage proponents speak the language of liberty, but so often one form of liberty (sexual liberty) is granted while other forms (free speech, religious freedom) are taken away. In the liberal definition of “diversity” there is room for many sexual practices but only one way of thinking. Thus, we now live in a world where the state attempts to force Catholic charities to place children in same-sex families, college students are punished for speaking against same-sex parenting, graduate students are thrown out of college for refusing to morally affirm homosexual sex, tax exemptions are denied when churches don’t make their property available for gay weddings, and social work licenses threatened merely because a school counselor supported a state marriage amendment. In each of these cases, enumerated constitutional liberties were threatened for the sake of protecting a state-approved idea — the idea that there should be no moral distinctions drawn between homosexual and heterosexual relationships."
Posted by: Joe Guarino | June 28, 2011 at 07:59 PM
That sounds pretty bad.
I'd like to read more about those cases. Did the author cite them?
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | June 28, 2011 at 09:17 PM
Nevermind, Joe. I found the article and citations. I'll look it over.
Thanks.
Posted by: Brandon Burgess | June 28, 2011 at 09:22 PM
"In truth, they rarely have the foggiest notion of what the arguments are in support of the view they reject or what the intellectual challenges are for the view they hold."
That statement says it all and more than adequately describes much of the discourse engaged in by many on the Left, including on the local blogs on any number of issues.
There is a difference between declaring oneself smart and actually possessing the intelligence to follow a premise to its logical conclusion. It is here where so many of them fail and dismiss those who challenge them as inferior, racist, bigoted, trolls or in some extreme scenario's, simply ban them from the conversation altogether.
The greatest sin for these people is to be exposed as not being nearly as sharp as they think they are. Pretending to be intellectually superior is a major part of their act and they don't tolerate the deflation of that myth very well.
Posted by: Spag | June 28, 2011 at 10:36 PM
"Pretending to be intellectually superior is a major part of their act and they don't tolerate the deflation of that myth very well."
....as is demonstrated almost every day elsewhere in the local blahgosphere.
Posted by: Bubba | June 29, 2011 at 08:19 AM
The real mark of intelligence is the willingness to admit one's lack of full understanding, and to seek new depths of knowledge. Anyone who begins with ad hominem attacks and absolute confidence in only one angle on every issue is bound to fail that test of intelligence.
Posted by: Jim Langer | July 04, 2011 at 08:38 AM