The NY Times Charts A Course To Gay Marriage

Hint - they don't want anyone in our democracy to actually vote on this question.

The New Yorker described the legal terrain here; the bit about the Supreme Court being a follower, rather than a leader, with its anti-miscegenation "Loving v. Virgina" decision, actually matches an earlier argument I posted. And no, I was not a fan of the Bush strategy, either.

Comments

[Paul Zrimsek]

That stupid crack about judicial activism is probably something we can expect to see from now on whenever a court reaches a decision of which conservatives approve.

[Andy]

IF they allow a vote on Gay Marriage they will probably have to allow a vote on Abortion.

Neither side wants the states and the citizens to decide. OTOH they want the hot potatoes to go to the states and leave the Federal Politicians alone.

One solution, two problems. Let 50 democracies sort it out-!

Makes sense to me- Let's do it!

[J_Crater]

I can only hope that we don't fall into another example of the "Yugoslavian model," as the nation got with "Roe v Wade." The abortion fight was not won, it was put into suspended animation in the same way that Tito forced the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians to live in "peace." We saw what happened when Tito died. Should "Roe" ever be overturned, the fight pro/anti-abortion will return to the state legislatures and courts, to be settled state by state.
To see a good counter example, the model I hope gay marriage advocates use, women suffrage was fought simultaneously on the federal and state level, over many decades. To their credit, their fight for the women's vote was won.

[Frank IBC]

What on Earth were the Liberals thinking when they decided to make gay marriage a "wedge" issue? If you compare the people for whom this is a crucial issue in deciding which candidate to vote for, the "pro" side is MUCH smaller than the "anti" side. And even Kerry himself is against gay marriage. It's a losing issue for the Democrats, no matter how you look at it.

And when is Andrew Sullivan going to put his money where his mouth is, and actually marry his long-time boyfriend? He lives for part of the year in Massachutsetts, fer cryin' out loud. The hypocrisy never ends...

Note: I'm pro-gay marriage (lukewarm-ly), just fed up with the insane tactics used by its most vocal supporters.