FGB I

This is turning into an ongoing department that seems to spill over more than it occupies Fridays only. Well, that's life. As you can tell from the title of this post, this is this week's first installment of Friday Gay Blogging.

The Times, They Are A'Changin'

Marriage is still the big news. The latest Field Poll in California shows support for SSM and a majority against a constitutional amendment. Andrew Sullivan does some projecting:

The first reason for optimism is a new Field poll, a little larger than the LAT poll, that shows an actual majority in favor of marriage equality: 51 - 42. The poll was taken after the court decision. This is the first ever majority for same-sex marriage in a California poll, and it's a solid one. What's driving the dramatic shift upward toward support for inclusion? You guessed it:

Californians age 18-29 favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry by a greater than two to one margin (68% to 25%). Those in the 30-39 age group also approve of such marriages by 24 percentage points. However voters age 65 or older disapprove by a wide margin (55% to 36%).

The next generation doesn't simply approve of gay marriage; it does so by a massive majority. The poll suggests an Obama-Clinton-style generation gap - and an Obama candidacy this fall will surely increase the number of these demographics in the California voting this fall.

What's germane here is that Field is "the" California poll.

And of course, the predicted backlash has started -- sort of. Here's Scott Lemieux's comment:

An outraged California populace has reacted to the Outrageous Judicial Activism of their "unaccountable unelected"* state court. As you remember, the court, with only the support of other unrepresentative and undemocratic institutions such as the state legislature and governor but in the teeth of strong opposition from pundits who support social change in theory and always oppose it in practice struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. The response: California is showing if anything more support for same-sex marriage than ever. I have no idea if the initiative will pass, but I certainly don't see much evidence of the predicted political firestorm here.

(* In Lemieux's original, these words were lined out. Blogger doesn't want to acknowledge that.)

Here's a bit of Matt Zeitlin's comments Jeffrey Rosen's analysis:

Rosen’s argument is that, essentially, because conservatives view homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, the California Supreme Court shouldn’t offend them by basing their ruling on the fact that discrimination on basically immutable characteristics like race or sexual orientation should have strict scrutiny applied to it.

I think I've linked to Rosen's piece before, but this struck me this time around:

If the gay marriage decision triggers a backlash that hurts the Democrats' chances in November--as the Massachusetts Supreme Court hurt John Kerry with its unnecessarily expansive gay marriage decision in 2003--the politically controversial result, rather than the legal reasoning, will be the main culprit.

Mmm -- Kerry had enough problems. I don't think anyone can make a cogent argument that the Goodridge decision did him in. (And, as Lemieux points out, Rosen can't seem to back that assertion up with anything. He doesn't even try.)

In case you have any doubts about where this country is headed on this issue, check out this ad for Macy's in the LA Times:



Gov. Paterson of New York has instructed the state to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere:

Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

(A note on framing: this quote is a good example of how the anti-gay right is misrepresenting the issue:

“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”

Sorry, but this is wrong on several levels. First, public policy issues are not decided by the voters, although they can certainly weigh in. As in pretty much every other area of public life in this country, decisions on public policy come from the dialogue, which includes the voters, the legislatures, executives, and the courts.

Second, this is more a civil rights issue than a public policy issue, and on that score, the courts are the final authority. Sorry again, but that's America for you. Love it or leave it.)

Good As You has a video of Paterson's press conference (which, unfortunately, I can't seem to get code for).

From Brad Blog, a take on O'Reilly's latest gambit on the marriage question:

We've long argued that same-sex marriage was, for all intents and purposes, a done deal. Marriage equality, under virtually any legitimate conservative reading of the U.S. and most state Constitutions, cannot be denied.

If the segment [. . .] from tonight's O'Reilly Factor is any indication, it looks like even Bill O'Reilly is finally coming to grips with that fact, in light of the new poll showing for the first time that a majority of Californians are finally in favor.



Bill's guest is Don Schweitzer, a "family law attorney," who can't seem to come up with a real reason to oppose same-sex marriage -- as you may have noticed.

Frankly, I'm surprised at O'Reilly's approach on this. But I have a feeling he's another weathervane on the air, who will take any position that's going to keep his ratings up.

Footnote: Andrew Koppelman wrote an article some time ago -- late 1990s, I think -- about same-sex marriage. It's dated, and some of his assumption are questionable, but it's worth reading for a theoretical legal grounding in the issues. (PDF, and long.)

There'll be more.

TTFN