Posted on 12/09/2004 7:43:17 PM PST by RWR8189
Gay marriage legislation will probably be introduced in Canada today, a final culmination of a debate that has been marked along the way by a remarkable disdain for democratic opinion. Gay marriage has not triumphed in Canada because Canadians are more liberal on the issue than Americans, although they are, slightly. Gay marriage has triumphed because Canadian politics is much less subject to popular control than US politics.
All Canadian judges above the level of police magistrate, including judges on the mis-named provincial courts, are appointed by the prime minister at his sole whim: there are no judicial hearings, no opportunities for representatives of the people to block out-in-left-field nominations. Canada’s constitution was negotiated in 1982 without any kind of reference to the public: It is now effectively unamendable. Open debate is restricted: The federal government regulates radio and television to keep unwelcome opinions off the air. American programs that take a traditionalist view of marriage – Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s for example – were forced off the airwaves by government power. Individuals who express traditionalist views on the gay marriage question can (and have been) harshly punished. (One Saskatchewan man was fined $5,000 for buying an ad in his local paper made up of verses from the bible.) Even today, it’s doubtful that same-sex marriage would pass Parliament on a free vote: But, as the Globe and Mail observes today in the story linked above, “Several cabinet ministers have voted against same-sex marriage on previous occasions in the House, but will have to change positions if they want to remain in cabinet.”
From an American point of view, however, what may be most remarkable about the Canadian debate has been its disingenuousness. I’ve been participating in this argument since the late 1980s. At every step along the way, it was obvious what the next step was – and what the ultimate destination would be. At every step along the way, proponents of same-sex marriage passionately denied that the next step was coming – or was even contemplated.
That same spirit of disingenuousness has now crossed the border. Take a look at Andrew Sullivan’s blog this morning. He has an item affirming his support for a “federal” approach to same-sex marriage. He even links to a story about two Massachusetts women who were married in Massachusetts and then moved to North Carolina where their marriage was not recognized. Andrew describes this as an example of the system working. But either he’s kidding himself or he’s kidding his readers.
Here’s how “federalism” on the marriage question really “works”: Two Vermont women, Lisa and Janet, entered a civil union. One became pregnant. The relationship ended. The mother and child moved out of state to Virginia – a state that does not recognize civil unions. The non-custodial women sued for visitation rights in Virginia and lost. So she sued in Vermont and on November 20 won a custody order from a Vermont court. If the birth mother ignores the order, Vermont will hold her in contempt - and will then demand that Virginia enforce the contempt ruling.
Result: Either Virginia must accept the validity of a marriage that flagrantly violates the public policy of the Commonwealth – or else it ignores a facially valid custody order and violates the public policy of the United States in favor of comity between state courts. To put it more bluntly: the “federalist” approach to marriage will destroy either federalism (as states ignore each other’s judicial orders) or else it will destroy marriage (as individuals using their freedom of movement carry same-sex marriages with them into states that do not wish to recognize them).
And just as a footnote: I did a quick google search this morning and discovered that none of the self-described proponents of federalism have taken Virginia’s side in the custody matter. No surprise there: For the advocates of same-sex marriage, federalism is a tactic, not a principle. It will be discarded as soon as it ceases to serve its purposes.
The only happy result of the Canadian tragedy is that it dramatically demonstrates the true trajectory of the marriage debate: Like Canada, the US will go all one way or the other. You can see why the people on the losing side of the current debate would want to kick the problem down the road and settle it later, when they hope that something might alter public opinion in their favor. For the same reason, people who believe in marriage as it has always been understood in the United States should insist on settling the issue now, with a federal constitutional amendment.
The federalist claims went it comes to gay marriage is indeed disingenuous. I have said that from the beginning, and I support gay marriage, and calling it marriage, not domestic partnerships. But it should be a national decision, nationally made, at the ballot box. It is an impeachment of the sense of fair play and respect for democracy, for those who argue for end runs via the courts and federalism, aka states rights.
I wonder if a Canadian paper would print an ad of this type bought by Americans.
I oppose gay marriage, but if validly voted on at the ballot box, then I would accept it. I will not however, accept gay marriage imposed on the people via a court order or a court ordering a legislature to make a law (a la Massachussetts). So actually we are on the same side even though we are not.
It seems so simple to me as to how the process should work. It clearly escapes the likes of folks like Andrew Sullivan. Sad.
Sure. I don't quite understand the motive though. With marriage comes not only legal benefits, but legal duties.
I guess the point I was making was a bit too subtle for you. Read my last post again and really concentrate this time.
You asked a question, and I answered it. Fair enough?
That about sums up the American way, and what it means to be a good citizen, even if while "accepting it," you advocate repeal, as is you right.
And the Left knows it cannot now, or in any foreseeable future, win a fair democratic fight on this matter, just as they can't for abortion on demand. And that is exactly why they won't rest until they have a federal court imposition of it on the entire nation, just as they have on abortion with Roe.
But I agree, that if it were implemented democratically, w/o any judicial involvement, then it would be easier to accept.
Perhaps the Pro-Marriage forces should consider calling the bluff of all of those congressmen who said they oppose an Amendment on the grounds of states rights, and offer up an alternative that explicity bars the Courts at any level from having any say on the matter, be it marriage or the legal incidents thereof. That way, at least, we could be sure that the matter will now and always be settled democratically.
You answered it alright. Now lets debate the pros and cons of giving sharp knives to toddlers.
The homosexuals are liars in the marriage debate. Here in California during the campaign for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as a man and a woman, the homosexuals lied and said that they weren't interested in gay marriage. They urged a "no" vote because it was mean spirited, the law had always been interpreted to be that marriage was 1 man and 1 woman, and that the whole thing was unnecessary. Fast forward 4 years, and homosexuals are getting "married" by the mayor of San Francisco. So it turns out that homosexuals were interested in marriage. They lied about their true intentions then, and it makes it hard to believe what their true intentions are now. I think that their true intentions don't stop with 2 person homosexual marriage. I think they will want to re-define marriage again after they succeed, if they succeed, in forcing homosexual marriage on America.
Where do I sign up?
Frankly I am not sure you are worth engaging in a discussion. Convince me I am wrong.
I am not sure what you mean here. Please elaborate. Thanks.
The libs advocate state's rights only when it suits their purposes. It's a short-term tactic and would quickly be forgotten in favor of national recognition of gay-marriage.
Take your posts elsewhere. You are spoiling for some kind of flame thing, and I just don't do that. We are done.
"I oppose gay marriage, but if validly voted on at the ballot box, then I would accept it."
Under all conditions?
If you were a minister with religious scruples against gay marriage would you perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple because the law says they are marriageable and the law (as it will sooner or later) says you have to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.