February 5, 2004
ANOTHER KARL ROVE OPERATION?:
G.O.P. Revives Line of Attack Against Kerry (ROBIN TONER, 2/05/04, NY Times)
Republicans and their allies have begun laying the groundwork for a familiar line of attack against Senator John Kerry: that he is "out of sync" with most voters, "culturally out of step with the rest of America," a man who votes with "the extreme elements of his party," as Ed Gillespie, the Republican chairman, has put it in recent days.In short, that he is a Massachusetts liberal. It is a charge that ultimately proved devastating to Michael S. Dukakis, the Democrats' presidential nominee in 1988, who ended the campaign battered by the Republicans as "a card-carrying member of the A.C.L.U.," a product of the "Harvard boutique" who coddled criminals and was too much of a legalistic liberal to require school children to say the pledge of allegiance.
How did Mr. Rove get the MA Justices to do this at just the right moment?: Massachusetts Gives New Push to Gay Marriage in Strong Ruling (PAM BELLUCK, 2/05/04, NY Times)
Massachusetts' highest court removed the state's last barrier to gay marriage on Wednesday, ruling that nothing short of full-fledged marriage would comply with the court's earlier ruling in November, and that civil unions would not pass muster.The ruling means that starting on May 17 same-sex couples can get married in Massachusetts, making it the only state to permit gay marriage. Beyond that, the finding is certain to inflame a divisive debate in state legislatures nationwide and in this year's presidential race. [...]
In a statement Wednesday, President Bush condemned the Massachusetts court's latest ruling but stopped short of explicitly endorsing a constitutional amendment. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," he said. "If activist judges insist on redefining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Not only does it put Mr. Kerry at obvious odds with most of America but it lets George W. Bush toss disgruntled conservatives some red meat. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 5, 2004 9:05 AM
What insolence these courts are capable of. Ben Domenech summarizes:
-The Court repeats its belief that "no rational reason" exists to support the traditional definition of marriage alone, and that laws in favor of limiting marriage to its traditional definition are rooted in "prejudice."
-The Court says, not once but twice, that traditional marriage is "invidious discrimination."
-Civil unions are an unacceptable answer for the Court, because they "assign... second class status," short of full marriage.
-When it comes to traditional marriage laws, the Court claims that "no amount of tinkering with language will eradicate that stain."
-The Court opines that "If ... the Legislature were to jettison the term "marriage" altogether, it might well be rational and permissible."
-The Court heavily implies that "personal residual prejudice against same-sex couples" is the only possible reasoning behind traditional marriage laws, that "enshrine in law an invidious discrimination."
-The Court acknowledges that yes, they have heard of DOMA: "We are well aware that current Federal law prohibits recognition by the Federal government of the validity of same-sex marriages legally entered into in any State, and that it permits other States to refuse to recognize the validity of such marriages." But no matter, because "Courts define what is constitutionally permissible."
Our legislative bodies are truly broken and cowed institutions if they will take this affront without retaliation.
OJ calls this a question of "red meat" for "disgruntled conservatives"; I think First Things had it better: the judicial usurpation of politics.
Posted by: Paul Cella at February 5, 2004 12:56 PMThe two aren't mutually exclusive.
Posted by: oj at February 5, 2004 1:09 PMI confess I am confused by this whole issue--do couples have constitutional rights? It seems to me that any individual homosexual male has the same marriage rights as I do--namely that he may marry a woman over a certain age who is not too closely related to him, etc. The fact that he would rather marry a man seems to me irrelevant.
If, however, there is equal protection for couples, then I can see that the government may not discriminate against couples based on the gender of the two (for now) people involved. But is there such protection? I recall that in the past week or so the Florida Supreme Court upheld a state law banning homosexual couples from adopting, so it would seem to me that there is not. Does anyone know more on the possible existence of such "rights"?
Posted by: non-lawyer guy at February 5, 2004 3:23 PMFrom whence would any "right" to marry originate?
Posted by: oj at February 5, 2004 3:38 PMTrue enough. That's why I asked about equal protection, and whether a couple consisting of 2 men may be treated differently than a man-woman couple.
Also, hasn't Congress explicitly stated that serving in the military is not a "right" and so banning homosexuals from serving is permitted? My understanding is that the courts have upheld this?
Posted by: non-lawyer guy at February 5, 2004 4:17 PM