Kathryn, if I may say so, the idea that the same-sex marriage vote failed to count as a “democratic triumph” because it was not approved by a referendum looks a little like an attempt to move the goalposts. The fact that this matter was decided by the legislature rather than the courts was a thoroughly healthy development, and, yes, insofar as anything in a representative democracy is, strictly speaking, “democratic”, this was. As for the “triumph”, well, let’s just agree it was a close-won victory.
Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition.
Those few lines beg quite a few questions, not least whether its author believes that a “just” state would allow divorce.
Oh, good, just what the Corner needs: another proponent of radical androgyny.
It's arguable that the legislature passed this in part to pre-empt the courts: going ahead and doing what the courts might inevitably demand is hardly a victory for the primacy of the assembly as a legislative bod, anymore than giving a mugger your wallet is an altogether voluntary act, just because it preempts his shooting you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStuttaford: "The fact that this matter was decided by the legislature rather than the courts was a thoroughly healthy development, and, yes, insofar as anything in a representative democracy is, strictly speaking, “democratic”, this was."
Sure. Just like Obamacare and the rest of the Obama, Reid, Pelosi legislative agenda.
I had to check the masthead to see if I was at the Nat'l Review or the Daily Beast.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStuttaford is probably right on this one. I mean, what would have been the reaction had an pro-ssm referendum passed, and then the legislature met to overturn it? Such a scenario is hardly inconceivable in the future. We all know that suddenly the legislature's decision would have become primary and fooey on the people's vote.
I think it is time to move on. As adults (h/t to Mark Steyn), we must have a strong sense of proportion and priority. We can't do everything so what are the other matters facing us? Financial ruin, nuclear armegeddon, anti-white racialism run amok? Sorry, but I honestly think these are of a higher priority and definitely on the upper end of the proportion scale. You might think otherwise and I am happy for you. But for now, once we have those under control, then we can go back to SSM.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHeadline should read "A Democrat Triumph."
I haven't read the text of the bill, but my sense is this could have been a lot worse.
They did at least try to put a "religious exemption" in (I think that's necessary to square it with 1st Ammendment, as the quote in the article demonstrates -- ie, govt can't redefine pre-existing religious institutions!)
And the Legislature deciding is certainly better than activist judges doing it (I am iffy on the idea that direct referendums are "better" on democracy grounds, though they may be for tactical/political reasons.)
In the long run, I think gays will partner up and some will start families. We can't prevent that without creating Saudi-style "morality police". I also don't see why gay couples shouldn't be treated the same as "traditional marrieds" as far as wills, insurance rates, hospital visitation, etc.
That's why I advocate "civil unions" instead (avoid using the word "marriage" at all; don't try to redefine religion, create a new category instead.)
My position's a lot like the one Obama has voiced -- though he isn't consistent about it and doesn't seem to believe his own statements. (He's not "evolving on the issue", he's been pro-gay-marriage all along but "nuances" his public statements for maximum votes.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would think that evaluating whether or not the law represented a "democratic triumph" would depend mightily on whether the public actually wanted it. A recent article in the NYT (External Link
) suggests that the law was passed through the NY Senate by buying off Republican Senators with campaign donations as the following quote illustrates:
"It sounded improbable: top Republican moneymen helping a Democratic rival with one of his biggest legislative goals.
But the donors in the room — the billionaire Paul Singer, whose son is gay, joined by the hedge fund managers Cliff Asness and Daniel Loeb — had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash if they supported the marriage measure. And they were inclined to see the issue as one of personal freedom, consistent with their more libertarian views.
Within days, the wealthy Republicans sent back word: They were on board. Each of them cut six-figure checks to the lobbying campaign that eventually totaled more than $1 million."
In my mind, the phrase "had the influence and the money to insulate nervous senators from conservative backlash" is just another way of saying "had the influence and the money to allow senators to ignore the objections of their constituents". I am not so naive as to think that this sort of thing is uncommon, especially in a State with a government as bloated as that of NY, but it certainly suggests casual arrogance rather than democracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Those few lines beg quite a few questions, not least whether its author believes that a “just” state would allow divorce."
If I may say so, this looks a little like an attempt to move the goalposts. The "We've done enough damage to marriage already, let's do some more!" argument isn't terribly persuasive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndrew's final sentence also begs an infinite number of uncomfortable questions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo conservative doubts that a duly passed law is better than a judicial fiat. For one thing, the former can be repealed while the latter tend to be enshrined as "rights". But does anyone really doubt that the gay rights movement feared a referendum? Most states have decided that gay marriage is sufficiently momentous as a social change that it should be decided directly by the people. The Gay rights folks in NY feared this, and so they chose to bribe the legislature and make an end run around the more robust democratic option. Not to mention they waived all of the debates, hearings, etc. and rammed the thing through as lawmakers were winging it out of town. Very telling.
It's also true that the law was only passed after court fiats had worked for years to label opponents of gay marriage irrational bigots. Would NY, or any other state, have become the first state to legalize this, if it hadn't been for this spade work by our black-robed betters?
More broadly, Wiegel destroyed the flimsy logic of this large libertarian clique here on NRO. Stuttaford hasn't given much of a rebuttal except this false analogy with divorce. Williamson's reaction was even worse - basically warning conservatives that they can't buck the social trends (really? We haven't lost a referendum yet.) On the other hand, we are to comfort ourselves with this libertarian fantasy that the state might be cajoled into getting out of the marriage business altogether. "Realism" for thee but not for me basically. Absurd.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust wondering:
What if two hetero women, failing to find husbands, decide to "marry" and then do artificial (or non) insemination to bear children, thereby starting a family. They don't engage in sexual congress at all; they just want the bennies.
Women grok other women better than they grok men and vice-versa. So if a woman can get the bennies of marriage without having to deal with a man, then why shouldn't she?
We'll end up with a society in which an increasing number of households consist of "married" adult women, with the men providing stud service on occasion, but otherwise not really being involved in child rearing or home life.
These men, untethered from family and home, will concentrate their considerable energy in activities that do not benefit society but that provide the men with plenty of macho entertainment, as we can see in the inner cities and other lawless areas of the world.
Failure to socially encourage or even compel the sexes to bond and then to learn to live with and love each other will not result in anything good. When men don't focus their sexual energy into family-building (and bonding with fidelity-demanding women), we will indeed reap the whirlwind.
Because NY does not have a residence requirement to get a marriage license, gays will get married there, return to their home states, and then demand that the Equal Protection clause be applied.
And they'll be absolutely right.
We just lost the battle against SSM. Nothing more to be done but await the inevitable (and long-term) consequences and mourn the loss of the Republic.
All because we couldn't bear to be called bigots by people who hate our guts anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have not "lost" the debate, really.
All that is needed is enforcement of a set of laws we already have - the laws protecting the rights of children.
All children have the right to a relationship with both biological parents, severable only in need-based cases, where the child is orphaned or abandoned.
We have gotten so shoddy at enforcing this law that people do not even realize that children have rights.
We need to recognize that making a baby with anyone other than your spouse - and then claiming your spouse as the child's other parent - is fraud, and punish it as such.
We need to recognize that deliberately arranging a situation where a baby is abandoned, not because of unintended circumstances but because a person wishes to have an abandoned baby to adopt, is trafficking in human flesh, and needs to be treated as such.
We need to recognize the difference between legitimate adoptions, which are done to ensure the child is well-cared-for, vs. "adoptions" that are really about what the parents need - at the child's expense.
We have been bullied into accepting that gay rights trumps kids rights. But if gays want equality, they should be prepared to demonstrate that they are willing and able to meet a child's needs. Instead of accepting that the burden of proof is on us to prove that the absence of a mother or father is harmful, we need to insist that the burden be on them to demonstrate just how a man and a woman can be held to be interchangeable - or at the very least do a better job of documenting the available evidence, which is already abundant and adequate to demonstrate that, far from being interchangeable, men and women parent differently - and a same-sex parent-child relationship is a different experience from an opposite-sex relationship.
The history of civil rights debates informs us that truth usually (if not always) wins in the end. The real truth, though, is not on the side of gays - whose relationships are built out of lies and exploitation. The real rights violations are the family members who are to be used to provide gays with their faux family experience.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"All that is needed is enforcement of a set of laws we already have - the laws protecting the rights of children."
You didn't address my point, I'm afraid.
No set of laws can require fathers to be psychological and physically tethered to home and family when the mothers have decided to create a male-free home (thereby relieving men of having to cohabit with women, stay faithful to them, or learn to live peaceably in cooperation with them).
The idea that children don't really need fathers is fairly prevalent, despite decades of research and millenia of common sense. Beyond a child-support payment, what will these women-only households demand of the fathers, if anything?
We've already seen what happens when a gubmint check replaces a father in the inner cities. But has the Left retreated from its harmful practices? Not in the least: they just blame EBIL conservative racism for urban rot and then double down.
Watch for fatherlessness to spread to the 'burbs and to acquire respectability under this new law.
"The history of civil rights debates informs us that truth usually (if not always) wins in the end."
You're forgetting human entropy as it applies to societies. We're a society in decay, which means that a significant number of us don't have the desire to pursue actual truth over sweet lies.
"we need to insist that the burden be on them to demonstrate just how a man and a woman can be held to be interchangeable"
They already can produce reams of "studies" that support their side. It doesn't take an expert in statistical analysis to see that the studies don't qualify as scientific, but academia and the social sciences are too corrupt to accept facts over ideology, and most Americans still trust alleged experts over dry data analysis. Or failing that, they'll fold under accusations of bigotry.
This is reversed only if we separate ourselves from the Left such that we don't have to accept their laws or their assumptions about reality. Because the welfare of children (nor of gays, for that matter) is not the end game for the Left, we waste our time brandishing facts in the face of those who wish only to wield power to destroy religion and tradition and the Constitution itself.
SSM is just another tool in their deadly toolbox.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesince divorce has become socially accepted it is not the states place to interfere in EITHER direction ...
How hard is that to understand ? really ? trying to be a devils avdocate without admitting you have to be a devil to do so is so weak ... just more moral preening for the crowd ...
WFB would be so proud of some members of the crew at NRO today ... others not so much ... I'm thinking not so much in your case ...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"The fact that this matter was decided by the legislature rather than the courts was a thoroughly healthy development, and, yes, insofar as anything in a representative democracy is, strictly speaking, “democratic”"
Yup. It was every bit as democratic as the passage of Obamacare.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey! You're plagiarizing my posts! You owe $5!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yup. It was every bit as democratic as the passage of Obamacare."
I can't believe I agree with flenser.
You're right - both were democractic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunate - just remember that funny notions about decorum and procedure and ethics in govt are pretty much out the window. Keep that in mind if NY ever tries to get rid of this, or when it is time to overturn ObamaCare. Process means nothing. Results everything.
My hope is that the utilization of this designation doesn't have much action attached to it after the big ceremony of the first day. Early stats suggest this is so.
The danger to society is real, not imaginary. We do see it in the inner cities. Thankfully, since the numbers here should be small we might not see it - but get ready for wave two - polygamy, group, and yes ...ahem, adult/not quite an adult. They are out there and will be coming harder now. None of that will be good. It is the hubris of modern man to think he knows what he is doing when he defies biology and human sociology. Good luck with that.
To those GOP legislators - enjoy your wh*redom - for it seems that is all you are. And to those who maintained they were firmly opposed and then were bought off - whoops, gained greater understanding - you are not an honourable person, and you won't be trusted much again. I hope your re-election campaign was worth the selling of your integrity.
Finally, NY never defined marriage. It existed well before the state was founded. I know what a marriage is, and it isn't this. I have no need to be mean-spirited about it, and won't if I come across a couple designated as such. But don't label me a bigot. I tried to be tolerant, I was, and instead I was told I have to accept it. I accepted it, but then was told I have to celebrate it. I'm done, I do not approve, and will not celebrate it. The state may say you are married, but you aren't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm thoroughly enjoying the civil war brewing here at NRO. It's a healthy debate, and I applaud those of you willing to call out K-Lo for her rank hypocrisy. I'll be back to watch the fireworks right after I pop some popcorn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse