He’s their Bernie Goldberg and he just wrote his confession.
“NOXIOUS BIGOTRY” IN NEBRASKA? Stanley Kurtz takes on the Washington post here on equal marriage rights. He portrays the Nebraska amendment as simply another one “protecting” the traditional definition of civil marriage. The best discussion of the decision I’ve read is, as so often, by Eugene Volokh. The ruling won’t hold. But Kurtz ignores the obvious point of the Post editorial. It is the following:
The Nebraska provision, particularly as interpreted by the state’s attorney general, is so broad as to invalidate any legal recognition of any same-sex relationship. This has implications, the judge notes, not merely for those who would marry but for “roommates, co-tenants, foster parents, and related people who share living arrangements, expenses, custody of children, or ownership of property.” The state attorney general, in fact, interpreted it to prevent any state law allowing gay couples to make organ donation decisions for one another. The constitutional guarantee of equal protection may not require states to recognize same-sex marriage, but it unquestionably prevents a state from arbitrarily targeting gay couples for differential treatment.
So to summarize: there is a law against same-sex marriage in Nebraska; the amendment’s keeping civil marriage rights entirely heterosexual is not under legal dispute at all; the Defense of Marriage Act and all previous legal precedent ensures that Massachusett’s civil marriages will not be recognized in Nebraska. But even this is not enough. By constitutional amendment, same-sex couples are denied all legal protections, including any “civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship.” It’s revealing that Kurtz seems to support such an amendment, because it belies his claim that he is not interested in persecuting or disenfranchising gay couples, just “protecting civil marriage.” Given the fact that there is not even the slightest chance of same-sex marriage occurring in Nebraska, what is really motivating this sweeping denial of any basic protections for gay couples? Here’s what I mean: preventing them from visiting one another in hospital; making organ donations impossible and joint custody of children illegal; no possibility of sharing health insurance. When a majority singles out a tiny minority that represents no threat to them, bars them from basic legal protections, and denies them the most basic aspects of human dignity, we are no longer talking about the “protection” of marriage. We are talking about another version of Jim Crow. And Kurtz is applauding.
The Dish 