IS THIS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY? Mike Pignatello

I think the SOTU address should clarify a little why Andrew Sullivan feels the way he does. I can't blame him for feeling that there is much bigotry behind anti-SSM positions--not always, but many times. And the SOTU does little to comfort American gays and lesbians that their government is going to meet their needs:
"...Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

A lawsuit brought by individuals against a state for recognition of a civil right can hardly be the "arbitrary will" of judges. That would be like saying the 1948 Perez case was arbitrary, when the California Supreme Court ruled--far ahead of its time--that the state ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. If it's not what most people want, it must be arbitrary! But the Goodridge decision is not arbitrary at all; it's based on constitutional law and the state appeals process.

The president even suggests resorting to the national "constitutional process" in order to "defend" marriage, presumably from gay people. It sounds like Bush is actually trying to create the situation under which a Constitutional amendment could be justified. We didn't do it, SSM opponents will say, it was the activist judges that made us do it. There is no recognition in the SOTU, of course, that the Massachusetts judges were interpreting the law according to their state constitution, as is their job. One can't help but wonder what lack of respect for the separation of powers is hiding in some of the SOTU comments.

Andrew Sullivan has it right: there is no official policy toward gay people. If there were an official policy, the president might promote an alternative to civil unions to help gay families, something that wouldn't infringe on the "sanctity" of marriage. Simply telling gay families "No" is not a policy. Preempting states from meeting the needs of gay people through civil marriage adds to the perception that there is no positive policy. Instead, there is a policy of denial.
posted by Eve at 2:30 AM VOTE

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home