Davis Osterkamp (L) and Larry Martinez celebrate the ruling.
(AP Photo/Ron Lewis)
What happened
The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The decision makes California the second state where same-sex marriage will be legal, after Massachusetts, and it doesn't directly affect couples outside of the state. The Massachusetts high court's ruling to allow gay marriage in 2003 was used to rally gay-marriage opponents to vote in the 2004 election, which some analysts credit with helping President Bush win reelection. Republican presidential nominee John McCain has opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, while Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support same-sex civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage. (USA Today)
What the commentators said
The California Supreme Court's ruling came just as the Republican Party was "gasping for air," said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, and the party "certainly hasn't done anything to deserve such luck." But despite "the popular spin," there really isn't an "all-or-nothing war between Democrats and Republicans" on gay marriage—Americans mostly back civil unions but not marriage. The problem is judges. Just like with Roe v. Wade, it's the "berobed judiciary" that has created a divisive "wedge" issue, by usurping democracy and creating law. That should be the "campaign issue."
The expected "backlash" against the Massachusetts ruling "never came," said Emily Bazelon in Slate. And actually, five years later, public opinion has come around to the judges' point of view. In 2003, state residents opposed gay marriage, 53 percent to 35 percent; by March 2005 they supported it, 56 percent to 37 percent. In Massachusetts, though, changing the constitution to overturn the judges would have been hard, and time allowed residents to get used to the idea. "California voters can overturn the decision with a single vote." And if they get the chance to try in November, it might "hurt Democrats nationally in this presidential election just as the Massachusetts decision did in the last contest."
The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The decision makes California the second state where same-sex marriage will be legal, after Massachusetts, and it doesn't directly affect couples outside of the state. The Massachusetts high court's ruling to allow gay marriage in 2003 was used to rally gay-marriage opponents to vote in the 2004 election, which some analysts credit with helping President Bush win reelection. Republican presidential nominee John McCain has opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, while Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support same-sex civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage. (USA Today)
What the commentators said
The California Supreme Court's ruling came just as the Republican Party was "gasping for air," said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, and the party "certainly hasn't done anything to deserve such luck." But despite "the popular spin," there really isn't an "all-or-nothing war between Democrats and Republicans" on gay marriage—Americans mostly back civil unions but not marriage. The problem is judges. Just like with Roe v. Wade, it's the "berobed judiciary" that has created a divisive "wedge" issue, by usurping democracy and creating law. That should be the "campaign issue."
The expected "backlash" against the Massachusetts ruling "never came," said Emily Bazelon in Slate. And actually, five years later, public opinion has come around to the judges' point of view. In 2003, state residents opposed gay marriage, 53 percent to 35 percent; by March 2005 they supported it, 56 percent to 37 percent. In Massachusetts, though, changing the constitution to overturn the judges would have been hard, and time allowed residents to get used to the idea. "California voters can overturn the decision with a single vote." And if they get the chance to try in November, it might "hurt Democrats nationally in this presidential election just as the Massachusetts decision did in the last contest."
- more -
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment