The California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry is an unfortunate rejection of Christian morality. Glen Greenwald points out that it’s hardly unexpected given the state’s precedents before going on to say that the democratic process in California legitimizes the ruling, a claim of dubious accuracy, as demonstrated by his source material. All that said, I think it’s the correct ruling for the same reason as John McCain as does.
McCain opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) because he believes states should set their own marriage laws
While I don’t support equating gay marriage to that of a traditional couple, the California Supreme Court has made its decision and, for better or worse, it’s the state’s decision to make and to the extent that California’s citizens support it, so do I.
That said, given that only a minority of Californians currently say that gay marriage is acceptable, it’s a big jump to say that democracy made this ruling happen.
the latest survey, conducted by Field in February of 2006, shows 43% in favor and 50% opposed
Interestingly, these numbers actually show a decline in support for same-sex marriage from a 2004 poll conducted by the same organization.
What’s really irritating is that, in Glen’s view of the world, even questioning the decision is unthinkable.
anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure "judicial activism" (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law).
Somehow I think that Mr. Greenwald agrees with the ruling. Even so, I’m confident that his evaluation of precedent is accurate.
What’s more interesting is that in considering the 2006 Field poll, Frank Russo wrote:
the shift in support has been dramatic over the years and there are increases of support amongst all age groups. Most significantly, a majority of those born after 1970 now support same sex marriage.
As Russo said last year, it was only a matter of time before California went the way it did.
Why fight it? As far as California goes, I’m fine with the decision they made for themselves. While I do not support a national ban on gay marriage, the effect the ruling will have on other states that is concerning because, activism being what it is, it’s also only a matter of time before the battle spreads elsewhere.
Are conservatives supposed to surrender the right to define local norms? Hardly. And yet history is against us, what with the federal courts’ habit of actively expanding their powers and demanding homogeneity between states on social issues.
Jason says that social conservatives should "get over it", but I don’t think they will. Nor should they. If Texas, for example, wishes to chart its own course by refusing to recognize gay partnerships, that should be left up to Texans to decide. Yet the pressure for other states to fall in line with California will only increase as time goes by, perhaps ultimately leading to a U.S. Supreme Court case.
Perhaps Jason is right as a matter of pragmatism, but there are such things as principles. One of the foremost social constructs is that of the natural union of man and woman. Arguing that traditional marriage is not demeaned by the new definition simply isn’t so, regardless of how easy it is to agree with the coming redefinition or how inclusive one feels while doing so.