the most interesting fact is, just like most causes, the opponents of gay rights don't have a 60%+ majority on virtually any question asked (though they used to).
They did have majorities (often over 60%, sometimes well over 60%) in over a half dozen states that put the issue to a referendum (with a much larger "sample size" than any poll.
I don't really consider the issue to be gay marriage, but to be two issues
1 - "government recognition of gay marriage"
2 - The constitutional, legal, and political issue of what level, and in what body, the issue is decided. (Congress, federal courts, state legislatures, state courts deciding for each state, or a state court decision allowing "gay marriage" in one state getting imposed on the whole country when a federal court, or at least a lot of state courts, decide that other states have to consider "gay marriages" in one state to be valid).
The 2nd issue is the more important one to me. One can be for allowing state legislatures to enact gay marriage laws, one can even be for them actually enacting such laws (a much bigger step then merely considering such laws to be within their power), but still oppose courts imposing such a change.
Some might consider the first issue "government recognition of gay marriage" to be the same as just "gay marriage", but I think there is an important distinction to be made. "A marriage" is really a number of things that are lumped together. It is two people having a relationship (usually sexual, and often romantic even if there is no absolute requirement for either), it is the recognition of such a relationship by people in society, it is the formal recognition of such relationship by the government, and it normally results in a package of benefits (as well as some obligations and perhaps some negative implications) from the government. All 4 things can, and in certain situations should, be considered in isolation.
In a real sense everyone already has the right to a gay marriage. They can have sex with a partner of the same sex. They can have a romantic relationship with that partner, they can live with that partner, they can call that partner their spouse and ask other people to consider the partner to be their spouse, they can find a religion that will bless their union if they care to, and if they aren't religious, or don't belong to a religion that does accept it they can make up their own ceremony. They can hold a wedding, have a reception ect. No one is asking for this because they already have it. The last straw against it fell when the supreme court struck down the sodomy laws. What is being asked for is not to have a marriage as much as for government to accept and support it. I have no fundamental objection if the democratic process results in such acceptance and support in a state or in every state (and for federal benefits, on a national level), but I don't consider such acceptance or benefits that come with it to be either a natural or a constitutional right. I do consider the right to have the relationship, the ceremony, ect. to be part of a person's natural rights, but to consider recognition and support to be a natural right, is to support "positive natural rights" (which I don't do), and I can't consider it a constitutional right because I can't find anything in the constitution to support that view.
My opinion in this area has changed over time. I used to be against "gay marriage", I'm still not a supporter but I'm not really against it either. I am just against considering it to be a constitutional right, or otherwise imposing it through the courts or as one national decision by congress.
Tim |
