June 29, 2011

The wrong way to go about it

The AP has a story in today's News Journal about how some gay couples are suing the state of New Jersey to get gay "marriage" ... "passed" in the state. Via judicial fiat. But, NJ already has a civil union law on the books. That is insufficient for the plaintiffs, because, they claim, various actors around the state don't understand the law well enough:

The families say in their legal complaint that the state's civil union law designed to give gay couples the same legal protections as married couples has not fulfilled that promise.

One man says he was denied being able to make urgent medical decisions for his partner. Another saw his partner and children's health insurance canceled by a skeptical auditor. One woman had to jump through legal hoops to adopt the baby of her civil union.

So, naturally, instead of suing the entities which supposedly "don't understand" the civil union law, the entire state has to be sued to allow gay "marriage."

Here we go again. New York State recently went about granting gay "marriage" via the proper venue -- the state legislature, which actually, y'know, makes the laws. Some conservatives have queried whether gay "marriage" could survive a referendum in NY State; I say, why should it? Doesn't the legislature represent the people? Don't we want this branch of government making the laws and not the judiciary? But now that this actually happens, we're not satisfied.

But back to New Jersey. It already has a civil union law on the books. My personal view on the matter, stated here various times, is that based on the 14th Amendment, at the very least states need to allow civil unions. But there is no mandate to use the term "marriage." I continually put "marriage" in quotes when it pertains to homosexuals because the term has a definite concrete historical basis for a heterosexual couple. "Separate but equal" claims by gay rights groups (used in the AP article, too, by the way) don't wash here because, unlike the "rationale" of skin color back in the day, there actually is a defining biological difference between gay and straight people. Equal protection under the 14th Amendment would have to apply to all states; however, if individual states (like New York) wanted to allow the term "marriage" to be used in a gay union, then that's their business.

As I've also said before, I think gays would do well to focus their struggle in that realm: Equal protection under the 14th Amendment, instead of demanding the use of the term "marriage." Seriously, what is ... wrong with letting the term mean what it has meant for millennia? As noted above, there is a defining biological difference between gays and straights. This is not unlike the defining biological difference between males and females. Why do we have separate men's and women's sporting events? That's right -- because men and women are not the same thing. And polls seem to back up my POV -- civil unions are generally widely accepted by the American public, but gay "marriage" is not.


Posted by Hube at June 29, 2011 11:20 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I've always thought of myself as part of both a civil union and a marriage. The civil union was me filling out paperwork for the state. The marriage happened in the church.

Heck, my faith doesn't even recognize other CHRISTIAN marriages let alone civil unions.

Posted by: Duffy at June 29, 2011 11:50 AM

Glad to see you're still fightin' the fight, Hube!

Doesn't the legislature represent the people? Don't we want this branch of government making the laws and not the judiciary? But now that this actually happens, we're not satisfied.

I think what you're missing here is that..well, you're attempting to make a rational point there. Surely you know that for most of those who are terrified of gay marriage -- Republican or Democrat -- it's not about reason.

Look, we all know this fight is over. It's just a matter of time. So every time the process takes another step (like legislative approval), the argument changes. The NR article you cited represents the last hope: The legislature is now not enough, and it's all about the referendum.

And BTW, regarding those referendums and public opinion, which you touched on in your last sentence: I *know* you couldn't have missed the headlines this spring that polls (Gallup, ABC/WaPo/CNN) began showing that Americans favor gay marriage. The poll you link to is almost two years old! When it comes to this issue, is an eternity. I see how you found that at the top of the page on Marriage, but if you look below, there are updated 2010 numbers.

And here is Pew as of 3/2011:

http://people-press.org/2011/03/03/fewer-are-angry-at-government-but-discontent-remains-high/

Here are

Posted by: dan at June 29, 2011 12:24 PM

Hi dan,

Thanks for noting an updated poll. I merely Googled "poll gay marriage civil union" and looked for the most recent one. I wasn't trying to be deceptive. Nevertheless, your point about trend may be right; however, gay "marriage" is still opposed by more than not.

Posted by: Hube at June 29, 2011 12:33 PM

Yes, I figured as much. I saw how you made the mistake.

But as I mentioned, this past spring we learned that in fact a majority *did* support gay marriage -- in multiple polls -- for the first time. It's exactly like civil rights issues in the 60's and 70's -- people are either becoming OK with it, or pretending they are. Either of which I'm more or less fine with.

Gallup 53/45; CNN/Op. Research 51/47; ABC/WaPo 53/44. Those numbers here.

Posted by: dan at June 29, 2011 12:56 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?