Gay unions are facing a rainbow of reactions... Of any state, though, Oregon is perhaps the most likely to recognize gay and lesbian marriages, and extend the myriad health, tax and other benefits that go with them, several observers and scholars agree. Although Oregon law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, the state is one of 12 that did not adopt a law prohibiting recognition of gay marriages from other states. And perhaps more significantly, Oregon is just one of three states where the courts have recognized the rights of gays and lesbians to be treated equally. The other two are Vermont, which, through its civil union law, extends all marital benefits to gay and lesbian couples, and Massachusetts.
Interesting.
For the one or two people wondering about the acute radio silence on this issue in these here parts last week, mostly it was because there really wasn't a great deal to say, and what I did have to say would likely leave a great many people severely pissed off at me. And I wanted to think about it for a time.
Regarding Massachusetts and its nonaction on gay marriage last week ... it was surprising that nothing came out of the legislature regarding that issue, yes. And while it makes sense for gay marriage advocates to actively be working to prevent any change whatsoever to the Massachusetts constitution, the other thing they seem to be working for is that if an amendment eventually does come out, it should be a flat out ban on gay marriage, with no allowance for civil unions or anything else. The thinking is that the people of Massachusetts will be reluctant to revoke a right in a manner that is so obviously bigoted and discriminatory. And while the position they are taking makes sense, one cannot help but feel that they have their heads buried so deep in the sand, regarding probable results, that they may never get clear.
As one representative remarked during last week's debate, the reason that the courts so frequently wind up stepping into the civil rights arena is that when a minority asks a majority to be treated equally, the answer is almost invariably "No." Humans are ferociously hierarchical, after all, and shoving people down is one of the things we do very well indeed. It's only rarely that we allow our intelligence to overcome that instinct.
Additionally, this particular issue crosses an intersection that's always dangerous, involving sex, sexuality and religion, as well as civil rights. One of the things you can count on regarding sex and sexuality is that (1) people are more conservative than you might otherwise expect, and (2) they will lie to your face about it. People out there may well think that their neighbors will not vote to strip them of the right to marry, once it has been in place for a year or two -- perhaps they're right. But it seems terribly unwise to expect anything else to happen.
Do I think that they should change their tactics? Well .... on the whole, no. Probably not. As the court remarked, separate is inherently unequal, when it comes to civil rights. I just think they're deceiving themselves if they truly think that people in Massachusetts would not vote to reserve marriage for straight people forever and ever, amen. That said, I'm not sure how you could otherwise approach the issue. You really can't go forward into a campaign saying, "Well, we think we'll lose because our friends and neighbors are so bigoted that they'll never allow this to happen." That would seem to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And I really don't have anything to say (in public, anyway) about the weddings in San Francisco, except that it would be nice if Newsom's political grandstanding turns out well. I rather suspect, however, that California's court system will say the judicial equivalent of "You have GOT to be kidding; do you people even know the law of the state in which you live?" and void them all. (Although I would think that the "Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund" would lack standing to sue over California marriages.)
Posted by iain at February 16, 2004 02:40 PM
