Category: Marriage Equality

Stanley Kurtz has a brief, incisive and shrewd analysis of where we stand on the Iraq debate here. It’s hard to disagree with him. I’m afraid that the case for many more troops might have made sense two years ago, but makes much less sense today. But Kurtz’s post is excellent because it simply analyzes lucidly what’s going on. And then I read his post on marriage equality. Can this be the same guy? He writes:

After all, until a moment ago, same-sex marriage was itself considered a radical idea pushed by a bunch of college professors and marginal activists. That was before gay marriage was taken up as a cause by weighty mainstream institutions like The New York Times.

I think Stanley must know this is historically absurd. The first big mainstream article for gay marriage was written by me in 1989 from a conservative perspective. The left’s unwavering position on the subject until the Bush administration was deeply hostile. I remember having to go through a lesbian picket line for a book-reading of "Virtually Normal" in 1995, because my argument for marriage was deemed "patriarchal," "fascist" "heterosexist." etc. The "marginal activists" opposed marriage equality for much of the 1990s and so did the Human Rights Campaign, as well as the Democratic leadership and Bill Clinton. No mainstream gay group would back the first marriage case in Hawaii; and HRC did all they could to kill the issue for years. From the beginning, it was gay conservatives who pushed for this, egged on by many actual gay couples. I understand why Stanley disagrees; and he is entitled to his opinions. But he is not entitled to rewrite history.

The ANC, divided on the issue, just resolved it:

In a major about turn, the African National Congress (ANC) in Parliament‚Äôs home affairs committee yesterday swept aside opposition objections to the same-sex marriages bill and used its 70 percent majority to force the use of the terms ‘civil union’ and ‘marriage’ equally.

The approved version of the bill makes the term ‘civil union’ the same as a ‘marriage’ and wherever the one appears, so too does the other. This approval is a direct rejection of the masses of submissions from religious groups objecting to giving homosexual couples the choice of using the term marriage. It is also a direct rejection of traditional leaders who wanted the constitution to be changed rather than the bill approved.

In Massachusetts, the legislature has done, in my opinion, the wrong thing. By denying the voters the chance to have the final decision on marriage rights, the pro-marriage forces have lost a clear chance at democratic legitimacy. Yes, in some respects, civil rights should not be up for a vote. But many opponents of equality in marriage do not accept the premise that civil marriage is a civil right for gays. I think they’re wrong; but it’s an honest disagreement. And they’re not wrong that equality in civil marriage is also a social change that should have democratic input. To prevent such input by parliamentary maneuvers taints the victory. I think we would have won the vote in 2008. I’m sorry we won’t now get the chance to prove it.

Nationally, of course, Massachusetts is becoming less anomalous. In California, the state legislature has approved full marriage rights for gays; and the issue is awaiting the state Supreme Court’s ruling. I hope they rule for full civil marriage rights and that the first governor to sign a marriage law into effect for gay couples in Anerica will be a Republican in the most populous state in the Union.