Pundit changes view based on (*gasp!*) evidence

[Quinn]

I rarely venture into the politics sections, but I thought this article warranted it:

I was wrong about same-sex marriage by David Frum.

I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state's vote to authorize same-sex marriage -- a vote that probably signals that most of "blue" states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don't think I'm alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm -- if not outright approval -- to New York's dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

I'm not a terribly politically active person, and before this article I couldn't even have told you who David Frum was. But the fact that a socially conservative pundit has not only publicly changed his view to oppose the party line, but has done so because he realized the party line conflicts with observable reality, is worth noting. Yes, the fact that it's so rare as to be noteworthy is sad, but still, the guy gets my respect for it.

I'm not convinced by his claim that "most conservatives" shared his reaction. But if a bunch more of them would exhibit this kind of critical thinking rather than basing their ideals on tribalism and ancient myths, a couple of them might even convince me to vote for them.

 

[Puppycow]

Yeah, David Frum is one of those thoughtful conservatives. He's been critical of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. I'm not surprised by this.
He was a speechwriter for George W. Bush.

 

[Brainster]

While I'm not dismayed about New York's passage of the gay marriage law, that's mostly because it was done the right way; with accountable legislators and an accountable governor passing a bill, rather than instituted by judicial fiat as has been the case in several other states.

That said, I do find Frum's reasoning here to be a little specious:

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead -- while American family stability has continued to deteriorate -- it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

It is absurd to assume that we have already seen the full effects of gay marriage in our society, when only a few small states have had it for a few years.

Note that I am not saying I know what the effects will be--good, bad, major or minor. I am just saying that the idea that the results are already in is transparently untrue.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

As best as I can tell (I scanned his wikipedia reference) Frum is still a Canadian Citizen. He is the son of Barbara Frum who died too young and would have been extremely amused by his politics. The fruit does not fall far from the tree.

 

[BenBurch]

Brainster, If something is the right choice, does it really matter if it is reached though the court's interpretation of existing law or in entirely new law being passed?

 

[Brainster]

Brainster, If something is the right choice, does it really matter if it is reached though the court's interpretation of existing law or in entirely new law being passed?

I reject your premise. Like President Obama, I don't know if state-sanctioned gay marriage is the right choice. However, I am respectful of the rights of individual states to decide that on their own. The idea that judges can suddenly find a right to gay marriage somewhere either in state constitutions or the US constitution is ridiculous.

 

[Cleon]

I reject your premise. Like President Obama, I don't know if state-sanctioned gay marriage is the right choice.

Ah, there's your problem. Most of us have already figured that one out.

However, I am respectful of the rights of individual states to decide that on their own.

Do you hold the same opinion regarding interracial marriage?

The idea that judges can suddenly find a right to gay marriage somewhere either in state constitutions or the US constitution is ridiculous.

"Equal opportunity before the law" doesn't seem ridiculous to me.

 

[WildCat]

While I'm not dismayed about New York's passage of the gay marriage law, that's mostly because it was done the right way; with accountable legislators and an accountable governor passing a bill, rather than instituted by judicial fiat as has been the case in several other states.

What's wrong with judicial fiat when the case for unconstitutional discriminaton is clear? You don't think the courts should ever check the power of the legislature?

 

[mumblethrax]

I love the idea that gay marriage is a separate institution, such that we would have to argue for a right to marry apart from that found in Loving v. Virginia. "Stephen, will you gay marry me?"

Personally, I'm sick of these activist judges. And activist legislators. And activist governors, activist voters, and especially activist activists.

 

[WildCat]

I reject your premise. Like President Obama, I don't know if state-sanctioned gay marriage is the right choice. However, I am respectful of the rights of individual states to decide that on their own. The idea that judges can suddenly find a right to gay marriage somewhere either in state constitutions or the US constitution is ridiculous.

Do you think gays are enjoying the equal protections of the law wrt marriage?

 

[TraneWreck]

I like the idea of the state getting out of the "marriage" business all together. They should simply offer the licensing and other legal benefits and let churches do the "what god has put together let none break apart (except for attorneys)."

Civil unions for all, let churches do whatever the hell they want.

But absent that, we seem to be moving in the right direction.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I like the idea of the state getting out of the "marriage" business all together. They should simply offer the licensing and other legal benefits and let churches do the "what god has put together let none break apart (except for attorneys)."

Civil unions for all, let churches do whatever the hell they want.

But absent that, we seem to be moving in the right direction.

A rose by any other name....

It's just a word that people are hung up on. Nobody needs a religious body to recognize a marriage in order for the state to do so. Nothing prohibits a church from performing a marriage ceremony and calling it a marriage, even if the state doesn't recognize it as such. When it becomes illegal is when people attempt to have the state recognize the marriage, when it doesn't shouldn't/exist in the eyes of the state. A church can perform a polygamous marriage if it so wishes, it's when those in a polygamous marriage get marriage certificates that the legal issue arises.

 

[TraneWreck]

A rose by any other name....

It's just a word that people are hung up on. Nobody needs a religious body to recognize a marriage in order for the state to do so. Nothing prohibits a church from performing a marriage ceremony and calling it a marriage, even if the state doesn't recognize it as such. When it becomes illegal is when people attempt to have the state recognize the marriage, when it doesn't shouldn't/exist in the eyes of the state. A church can perform a polygamous marriage if it so wishes, it's when those in a polygamous marriage get marriage certificates that the legal issue arises.

I don't think we disagree. The state should confer all the legal and economic benefits to anyone who wants to apply for them, gay or straight. In other words, instead of moving towards leglaizing gay marriage, we eliminate straight marriage from the state's perspective. Same equal treatment, but it removes the nexus of the state and religious tradition known as "marriage."

If churches want to have all kinds of religious ceremonies that do whatever, let 'em go, I don't care. They can designated people however they see fit. If they want to call them Eagle Scouts or spouses, go for it.

 

[Brainster]

What's wrong with judicial fiat when the case for unconstitutional discriminaton is clear? You don't think the courts should ever check the power of the legislature?

Politically, deciding difficult issues judicially never solves anything; it just guarantees that opponents of the decision will pursue their grievances through changes on the court, as happened in Iowa:

Three Iowa judges who were part of a unanimous ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, have been thrown out of office by voters in a retention election that's seen as a rebuke to what critics call "legislators in robes."

Roe v. Wade came during an era when several states had already decided to allow abortion. Had that process been allowed to continue, abortion would probably be a settled question. Instead it has lingered for almost forty years.

There are certainly some situations where judicial activism is appropriate; Brown vs Board of Education is an example. You could show substantial harm to citizens with school segregation. It is difficult to show similar harm with a refusal to recognize gay marriage.

Nothing prevents a gay couple from living together as man and husband. There may be some obstacles to a smooth union that don't exist for a hetero couple; it seems to me that efforts would be better spent removing those obstacles.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I don't think we disagree. The state should confer all the legal and economic benefits to anyone who wants to apply for them, gay or straight. In other words, instead of moving towards leglaizing gay marriage, we eliminate straight marriage from the state's perspective. Same equal treatment, but it removes the nexus of the state and religious tradition known as "marriage."

If churches want to have all kinds of religious ceremonies that do whatever, let 'em go, I don't care. They can designated people however they see fit. If they want to call them Eagle Scouts or spouses, go for it.

Yes, if it was called "civil unions" instead of "marriage" by the state, then it would be a much less contentious issue. I do agree there. I'm more arguing that the idea that "the government should get out of the marriage business" just seems silly to me, because it would be exactly the same except just called something different.

I personally don't care what the government calls it. Hell, I don't care if the government wants to call same sex marriages "civil unions" and opposite sex marriages "marriages" just as long as they are guaranteed the same set of rights and privileges. I don't buy the "separate but equal is not equal!" argument in this case. If the law says something to the extent "all civil unions are afforded the exact same set of rights, privileges, and protections that are afford to marriages and shall be treated as the legal equivalent in all circumstances" then you're talking about nothing more than a label, which I could care less about. Bickering over labels is silly to me.

 

[TraneWreck]

Yes, if it was called "civil unions" instead of "marriage" by the state, then it would be a much less contentious issue. I do agree there. I'm more arguing that the idea that "the government should get out of the marriage business" just seems silly to me, because it would be exactly the same except just called something different.

Sure, maybe that wasn't phrased correctly. Right now there's a civil component to marriage (tax benefits, inheritence laws, certain automatic rights like power of attorney...etc.) and a religious component. The religious component ("traditional marriage") should be entirely out of the state's control. A preist should not be able to confer the legal benefits and the state should have no control over the religious aspect. Separate them completely.

I personally don't care what the government calls it. Hell, I don't care if the government wants to call same sex marriages "civil unions" and opposite sex marriages "marriages" just as long as they are guaranteed the same set of rights and privileges. I don't buy the "separate but equal is not equal!" argument in this case. If the law says something to the extent "all civil unions are afforded the exact same set of rights, privileges, and protections that are afford to marriages and shall be treated as the legal equivalent in all circumstances" then you're talking about nothing more than a label, which I could care less about. Bickering over labels is silly to me.

It's not just a label, it's a conjunction of state and religious tradition. Not a particularly large or pernicious one, but it should be eliminated, anyway. Eliminating that tie has the added benefit of removing a substantial portion of the angst over the gay marriage issue.

 

[Piscivore]

I like the idea of the state getting out of the "marriage" business all together. They should simply offer the licensing and other legal benefits and let churches do the "what god has put together let none break apart (except for attorneys)."

Civil unions for all, let churches do whatever the hell they want.

Second that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't think we disagree. The state should confer all the legal and economic benefits to anyone who wants to apply for them, gay or straight. In other words, instead of moving towards leglaizing gay marriage, we eliminate straight marriage from the state's perspective. Same equal treatment, but it removes the nexus of the state and religious tradition known as "marriage."

If churches want to have all kinds of religious ceremonies that do whatever, let 'em go, I don't care. They can designated people however they see fit. If they want to call them Eagle Scouts or spouses, go for it.

I agree, but I think it's untenable.

If you just add some type of state/federal sanctioned 'civil union' I think you bring up the spectre of separate but equal.

If you change everything to 'civil union' - then the 'gays' have destroyed marriage.

I think the the only way to go is to keep plowing forward by calling it marriage whether it's an opposite-sex or same-sex couple.

 

[Uncle Otto]

I reject your premise. Like President Obama, I don't know if state-sanctioned gay marriage is the right choice. However, I am respectful of the rights of individual states to decide that on their own. The idea that judges can suddenly find a right to gay marriage somewhere either in state constitutions or the US constitution is ridiculous.

State legislatures are infamous for passing rotten, hateful, harmful and unconstitutional legislation. That's why we have three branches of gov't. To have checks and balances against abuse of power of any one branch. The notion that judges can find a right to declare campaign finance laws favoring the rich, and corporations, to be constitutional concerns me the helluva lot more than that they consent to a committed relationship between two adults, that is demonstrably not harmful to anyone else.

Oh and by the way----I can't recall anything in the Constitution that says anyone has the right to a heterosexual marriage either. If judges rule that such a right exists, does that make them activist or something?

Nobody has come up with any valid rationale why gay couples should not have the same rights as straight couples. Religious BS, in legal terms, just doesn't count. It's irrelevant.

 

[Brainster]

State legislatures are infamous for passing rotten, hateful, harmful and unconstitutional legislation. That's why we have three branches of gov't. To have checks and balances against abuse of power of any one branch. The notion that judges can find a right to declare campaign finance laws favoring the rich, and corporations, to be constitutional concerns me the helluva lot more than that they consent to a committed relationship between two adults, that is demonstrably not harmful to anyone else.

Oh and by the way----I can't recall anything in the Constitution that says anyone has the right to a heterosexual marriage either. If judges rule that such a right exists, does that make them activist or something?

Nobody has come up with any valid rationale why gay couples should not have the same rights as straight couples. Religious BS, in legal terms, just doesn't count. It's irrelevant.

But is marriage a "right"? Or is it a contractual obligation that society enforces in order to provide for the rearing of children?