A Federal judge in Oklahoma has struck down the state's ban on gay marriage. I think the time has come to start pondering an unpleasant reality. The ship is sinking.
Five or six years ago, I wrote one of my first really controversial blog posts suggesting that public opinion was shifting on this subject and that too many of the laws then being passed limiting gay rights in everything from power of attorney to spousal rights in hospitals were going to create a backlash, especially in the courts. And I opined that the best course of action was to get the government out of the marriage business entirely. Strike the word "marriage" from the law books and replace it with "civil union" or something similar and require such things to be done before a duly empowered civil servant. Leave "marriage" as a purely religious matter.
That was also the first, though definitely not the last time I discovered the value of asbestos underwear in blogdom. After being burned at the ethereal stake for my heresy, I sat back and waited to see where things were going. Long story made short, here we are. A solid majority of Americans now support homosexual marriage. Even in some fairly red states we are seeing the scale tipping in that direction. And there is a legal avalanche gaining steam to the point where it seems like a week does not pass without another state law defending natural marriage being struck down. Unfortunately, it is now waaaay too late to try the civil unions for everyone plan. The other side has the upper hand and they know it.
So where are we and what's next?
The answer is that we are defending a fort whose walls have been irretrievably breached. I expect that by the end of this year the Federal Courts at the appellate level will hold that SSM bans violate the 14th amendment and when said ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, it will be affirmed, probably without comment or further argument. So the next question is what do we do?
My advice is to divert what political resources are available and salvage what we can. Congress should be lobbied aggressively to pass the most strongly worded conscience protection bill that can be drafted to ensure that no one is forced to be a party to this against their religious convictions. If the price includes cutting a deal with liberals and granting Federal recognition of what everyone should by now realize is coming anyways, then so be it.
This battle is over and we have lost. It's time to make the best terms we can, while we can.
The Terrible, Troubling Test
9 hours ago
8 comments:
You must have some French ancestry.
Do you perhaps have a more substantive rejoinder beyond the ad hominem?
It's time to make the best terms we can, while we can.
I fear that it is too late even for that.
I shouldn't be quite as pessimistic about the Supreme Court as you - I think Kennedy is quite likely to finally draw a line at forcing homosexual marriage on Mississippi.
It's time to make the best terms we can, while we can.
If you think terms can ever be made with social liberals - devoted, I remind you to the defence and propagation of various sins and evils - I have a wonderful shiny bridge in California to sell you. It's even made of gold.
I think that there are two reasons for hope:
1) Judges are the ones striking these down, individual judges. I believe this shows just how out of hand the judiciary has become in this country. Maybe that will be the necessary impetus for forcing the legislatures and executives of states and the federal government which have oversight to actually oversee and stop this activism. 2) Besides, in every ballot initiative where the issue has been put to the people, it has been shut down every time. Social policy should be driven by the people not by the men in black.
Your suggestion that government should get out of marriage is a laudable one, but I disagree. I will not get into why, but if the gay lobby were honest, really honest, they are not the ones who want government out of marriage. They very much want government in marriage because that gives them power. It's no different than the abortion lobby which claims it wants government out of the bedroom and out of women's choices, but they really want government involved, hence the need for taxpayer funded abortion clinics and contraceptives. We are dealing with dishonest people who routinely disguise their campaigns for rights with subterfuge. They are not about securing "rights" for themselves as they are about taking away "rights" from the rest of us, even the right to object.
I agree that Congress needs to step up with federal protections of people who object, in word and in deed, to homosexual marriage. It's already being criminalized in some parts of this country (e.g. new Mexico and Colorado)
The time has come for Orthodox clergy to stop acting as an agent of the government, that is in signing the marriage licence, and simply do the Sacramental rite of Crowning. Let the couples go before a magistate before the Sacrament is conferred.
I think we can start looking forward to lawyer commercials who deal with divorces involving this: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/opinion/hardy-plural-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_t4
Correct me if I am mistaken, but my impression is that when most heterosexuals approve SSM, they are thinking of Tom Hanks and Antonio Banderas in Philadelphia. That movie was pure fiction. I'm a celibate homosexual and have never encountered a gay couple that bore even the slightest resemblance to the couple in that film. Right now, gay couples regard marrying as a political statement. But what happens when the political objective is achieved and the truth that the overwhelming majority of gay relationships are transitory reasserts itself? Is someone going to jump up and shout "April Fools?" The whole situation would be farcical if it were not so terribly tragic.
Post a Comment