![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
topazOne of the sentiments I've seen a lot in the last week is that because same-sex marriage proved such a galvanizing issue for the right, Democrats are somehow to blame for pushing this issue inappropriately. For example, "Bush should send a thank-you letter to the Massachusetts SJC," or "If the Massachusetts court had not ruled as they did, Kerry would currently be in the White House." Even assuming that the marriage issue turned out the deciding vote in the election -- and the evidence is mounting to indicate that it didn't -- there are at least two reasons why this is nonsense.
The first is that it's, well, not true. Democrats are "pushing" same-sex marriage? Good Lord, I only wish that they were! Nobody in the political arena wanted this football. This happened because a handful of gay couples found lawyers who were willing to take their case, and they went to court. Just like any other citizens. It was not an issue introduced by Democratic political operatives. In 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act came up for a vote, it passed overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle. That bill was signed into law, as conservatives are fond of pointing out, by a Democratic president. In this most recent election cycle, only one Democratic candidate expressed support for same-sex marriage, and he was not the nominee, who turned out not only to oppose same-sex marriage but supported amending his own state's constitution to prohibit it.
So the next time someone suggests that Democrats are responsible for bringing this issue down on themselves, ask them to explain which Democrats made it happen, and how: who brought the issue before the SJC, who arranged for the SJC to decide the way that it did, and who timed it to happen in an election year.
But the other reason it's inappropriate to blame the SJC for making this a campaign issue is that the court, of all branches of government, is the one that should be acting without regard for day-to-day political concerns. To decide issues of civil rights based on which candidate is most likely to be hurt by it is short-sighted almost beyond belief. It is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Can anyone possibly believe that same-sex marriage supporters would be better off if the SJC had ruled against it, just so that we could have elected a president who also opposes it?
It seems to me that the "handful of activist judges" meme is not going to hold currency for much longer. When it was just one state, it was at least understandable. But with two states, it would have been a stretch, and when you have three state supreme courts independently ruling in favor of same-sex marriage... well, maybe Arlo Guthrie said it best.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.
And friends, they may think it's a movement.
The first is that it's, well, not true. Democrats are "pushing" same-sex marriage? Good Lord, I only wish that they were! Nobody in the political arena wanted this football. This happened because a handful of gay couples found lawyers who were willing to take their case, and they went to court. Just like any other citizens. It was not an issue introduced by Democratic political operatives. In 1996, when the Defense of Marriage Act came up for a vote, it passed overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle. That bill was signed into law, as conservatives are fond of pointing out, by a Democratic president. In this most recent election cycle, only one Democratic candidate expressed support for same-sex marriage, and he was not the nominee, who turned out not only to oppose same-sex marriage but supported amending his own state's constitution to prohibit it.
So the next time someone suggests that Democrats are responsible for bringing this issue down on themselves, ask them to explain which Democrats made it happen, and how: who brought the issue before the SJC, who arranged for the SJC to decide the way that it did, and who timed it to happen in an election year.
But the other reason it's inappropriate to blame the SJC for making this a campaign issue is that the court, of all branches of government, is the one that should be acting without regard for day-to-day political concerns. To decide issues of civil rights based on which candidate is most likely to be hurt by it is short-sighted almost beyond belief. It is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. Can anyone possibly believe that same-sex marriage supporters would be better off if the SJC had ruled against it, just so that we could have elected a president who also opposes it?
It seems to me that the "handful of activist judges" meme is not going to hold currency for much longer. When it was just one state, it was at least understandable. But with two states, it would have been a stretch, and when you have three state supreme courts independently ruling in favor of same-sex marriage... well, maybe Arlo Guthrie said it best.
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.
And friends, they may think it's a movement.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 08:30 am (UTC)The argument is that because he sat on civil union proposals for so many years, there was no other option except the courts; in this hypothetical, had he let one pass, the Goodridge case wouldn't have happened. I'm not sure I agree (and I have a real distaste for the whole "separate but equal" BS that civil unions represent), but the argument exists.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 09:18 am (UTC)