Witnessing Our Latest Social Revolution

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | March 6, 2004 | RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR.

[Scenic Sounds]

The brewing controversy over gay marriage comes complete with the high drama of a political Ping-Pong match. It's as if everything we learned in high school civics is coming to life before our eyes.

First, Vermont allowed civil unions for gay couples and the top court in Massachusetts went one better by ordering the Legislature to legalize gay marriages. That led Republicans in Congress to draft a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Then San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom forced the issue by instructing city officials to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. And that pushed President Bush to declare his support for a constitutional amendment.

Now another mayor has jumped into the fray. Jason West of New Paltz, N.Y., has been charged with 19 counts of solemnizing marriages of same-sex couples. West said that he was acting in line with the state constitution, which bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If convicted, West faces a maximum penalty of a $500 fine or a year in jail. But the mayor vows to perform more gay weddings.

In Oregon, meanwhile, the attorney for Multnomah County – which includes Portland – has issued a legal opinion that would allow marriage licenses for same-sex couples. The Board of County Commissioners has issued a statement declaring its support for a change in existing policy.

This is really good stuff. Each turn of events breathes new life into some old and familiar questions.

By what authority does the federal government impose its will on the states? Do localities intent on defying federal mandates have a leg to stand on, or do the feds always get the last word?

As individual states grapple with difficult and controversial issues – whether gay marriage or an end to Jim Crow laws – should it be expected that each state will come along at its own pace? Or should the preferred goal be to push for an across-the-board decree from Washington?

And when decrees do come, must they come only from elected officials or can they come from the courts, where judges – particularly those who don't have to stand for election – are sometimes better equipped than politicians to make decisions that are morally courageous? That, after all, is the whole point of judicial review.

President Bush says he wants to keep power in the hands of elected officials, bemoaning the intervention of what he calls "activist judges." The president and those who share his view seem to resent that judges are in a position to advance social agendas without having to go before voters for approval.

They got it backward. It's precisely because many of these judges don't have to stand before voters that they can advance the agenda of social justice.

Let's hear it for activist judges. Without the third branch of government, we wouldn't have some of the greatest and most important victories of the civil rights movement. Without activist judges, Linda Brown would never have been allowed to go to school with white children, James Meredith would never have made it into the University of Mississippi, and George Wallace would have been able to stop integration cold when the governor made his stand in the doorway to prevent the enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama.

During the civil rights movement, elected officials in the old South – in case after case – made the wrong decisions, and so the courts had to make the right ones. The courts led, and soon other institutions followed.

And so it might be with the issue of gay marriage. When it is all said and done, a story that began with a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court could end with the complete transformation of one of our most beloved social customs.

The least the rest of America can do is apply to this social revolution the lessons it learned from the last one.

My generation has never seen anything like this. Born 11 months before the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., I've often felt as though I missed out on some really good history. Now my generational cohorts and I are getting a chance to watch history in the making.

[Scenic Sounds]

My generation has never seen anything like this.

It is exciting to be alive right now, isn't it?

How can anyone tell whether one of these changes will have any staying power or will just fail?

[raloxk]

"How can anyone tell whether one of these changes will have any staying power or will just fail?"

Ultimately they will fail. However, they may not fail in our short lifetimes.

[longtermmemmory]

RUBEN NAVARRETTE JR, homosexual

[Scenic Sounds]

Is he? If so, he's what you call committed on this issue, I think. ;-)

[longtermmemmory]

never say die.

There are more of us than them.

This is going to make anyone who supports homosexual marriage UNelectable.

This makes the entire democrat party, a party of homosexuals.

Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.


H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26

Please note: it does not mention homsexuals at all.

It baseically bans
"whatever-else-a-deviant-mind-can-think-of" marriage.
The could easily be called the polygamy ban.

It will also give us the 28th amendment. We have the internet, now we will all be able to push for this.

[theFIRMbss]

>Each turn of events breathes new life into some old and familiar questions

Sure. When left wing nuts
fight for their stupid issues
it's democracy

being wonderful.
But when Christians struggle to
stop baby killing

reporters always
say they're like the Taliban.
The media sucks.

[liberty03]

This article is apparently written from the viewpoint of an impartial observer who is simply enjoying the democratic process at work. Yet, no where in his references to the various mayors forcing the issue does he accurately report that they are breaking the law, undermining the rule of law in the process. I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment? The writer also brings up the question of how much federal authority is appropriate. Funny how we read nothing of the sort from writers like this "mainstream" writer, concerning the numerous other ways our national government exercises its massive authority, except from known conservative writers who we have to seek out. Bias? Yeah, right, there's no media bias.

[KC_for_Freedom]

By what authority does the federal government impose its will on the states? Do localities intent on defying federal mandates have a leg to stand on, or do the feds always get the last word?

As is clear from the article, the judges have a say, but if the federal government really wants to trump the judges, they can write new law, if they want all the states to abide, they can write a constitutional ammendment. Even the supreme court cannot trump a constitutional ammendment, they can try but would be removed from office. Way to go Bush.

[gcruse]

It will also give us the 28th amendment.

It won't got out of Senate committee.  And if it did, the Senate wouldn't go against what 40% of the voters want.  And if it did....

For the whole story, please see An Imperial Message.

[gcruse]

I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment?

You raise a good point.  Along those lines, what is your stance of John Ashcroft violating the Tenth Amendment by overriding  the right to death laws in Oregon and the medical marijuana laws in California? 

[El Gato]

It's precisely because many of these judges don't have to stand before voters that they can advance the agenda of social justice.

That's not their job. Their job is enforce the constitution and the law in so far as it does not conflict with the constitution.

Art. VI second and third sentences

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

ART

[King Black Robe]

Let's hear it for activist judges. Without the third branch of government, we wouldn't have some of the greatest and most important victories of the civil rights movement.

Like the Dred-Scott decision?

[El Gato]

I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment?

Probably not. Furthermore the Second Amendment doesn't need to be twisted or interpreted to invalidate nearly all gun laws. You have to really twist "equal protection" to say the homosexual marriages must be recognized. Homosexuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they choose, regardless of their "orientation". Thus they are equally protected. The fact that they don't choose to exercise that option is irrelevant.

[El Gato]

Even the supreme court cannot trump a constitutional ammendment,

I dunno, they seem to be doing a damn good job of it when it comes to the second amendment, and a fair job with res[ect to a couple of others as well.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I have not seen the Supremes position on the second ammendment, but I would like to see the administration reach a filabuster proof level in the senate for obvious reasons.

[Scenic Sounds]

I wonder if the writer would take such an impartial stance if a mayor took identical actions regarding the 2nd Amendment?

I think the writer is a Texan - Dallas News. Texans don't care much about Second Amendment issues.

[Scenic Sounds]

LOL. Very nice. I think you're right - there's really no point in getting excited about any of this. The folks are just experimenting. ;-)

[King Prout]

And when decrees do come, must they come only from elected officials or can they come from the courts, where judges – particularly those who don't have to stand for election – are sometimes better equipped than politicians to make decisions that are morally courageous? That, after all, is the whole point of judicial review.

ohhhhkayyyy, then... I guess it is clear where this author stands on the enumerated powers of government. Agenda, anyone? All the rest of this article is obfuscatory prattle.

[King Prout]

gay agenda ping