THE RULE OF LAW

I am moved beyond words by the sight of gay couples taking their lives and rights into their own hands and getting civil marriage licenses. I believe they will be vindicated in the light of history. But I also believe in the rule of law. That law will protect civil marriage for gays as it does now for straights; and disrespecting it undermines it for all of us, now and in the future. Where such civil marriages can legitimately take place under the law (as appears to be the case in Oregon), there’s no problem. Where they are being used to dramatize current oppression, they are justifiable only so long as the officials responsible are prepared to face all the legal consequences (as in New Paltz, with the remarkable young mayor). That is called legitimate civil disobedience: violating the law in order to be arrested. And if they are a means to challenge discrimination and are performed with the full intent of abiding by the final legal and constitutional judgment, then that too seems to me to be legitimate, (as in San Francisco). It is how change happens. If a state decides to recognize civil marriages for gays performed in another state, then that too is perfectly within the law (as yesterday’s momentous ruling by Eliot Spitzer revealed.) But it is vital in our struggle for legal equality that we do not, as gay people, show contempt for the rule of law itself. It is our only recourse and our only respite. Legitimate civil disobedience is one thing. Blatant disrespect for the law is another. We are on the verge of a real and solid victory for equality in Massachusetts. It has been achieved through years of legal and political argument and civil demonstrations. We need patience now as well as anger, calm as well as determination. Above all, we must respect the law itself. It is the fabric of our democracy. If we trivialize or violate its importance, civil rights are meaningless. For gay people and for everyone.

THE BIOETHICS COUNCIL FLAP, ETC: The best wrap-up is, as so often, at Glenn’s. Don’t miss his post on the flagging “war-base” for Bush either. My own disillusionment with the president is not, despite appearances, all to do with marriage. I first worried with the aircraft carrier stunt, the post-war mess in Iraq, then the fiscal insouciance, and the more general bossiness that this unlibertarian president was exhibiting. The message chaos of the least few months, capped by that dreadful Meet the Press interview, was unnerving, to say the least. The solution? We need to hear what our future strategy is in the war: who we’re targeting next. We need to see more clarity on Iraq, more commitment on al Qaeda, more explanation of what we’re doing and where we’re going. I’m tired with hearing recitations of the president’s past conduct and want to hear more about the future. Churchill didn’t spend 1943 reminding people of what a great leader he had been in 1940. In contrast, the first Bush campaign ads are all retrospective, nostalgic even. If they’re the campaign, he’ll lose.