I'm going to have to break this up, because it's becoming a book-length post.
First off, some more statements by leading politicians, in addition to the lame attempts by our presidential candidates:
Nancy Pelosi's statement:
I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes.
I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.
Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.
And from two Libertarians: first, Mike Gravel, via Queerty:
I congratulate the California Supreme Court for recognizing a self-evident truth: Marriage is a fundamental constitutional right that ALL Americans share! Anything short of marriage equality means second-class citizenship for gays and lesbians. Obama, Clinton and McCain choose to deny this truth but California just made their obstinate opposition much more difficult.
The California court dismissed the argument that “tradition” precludes same-sex marriage. Opponents of interracial marriage once shared this view. They were dead wrong just like opponents of gay marriage. As I said during the HRC/Logo debate, marriage is not about tradition but about love and what this world needs is more LOVE.
Next we must get all states to recognize the same sex marriages granted in California and other enlightened states. This is not a states rights issue, as many of my opponents argue.
Gay marriage, like civil rights for blacks, is a constitutional issue and individual rights must always trump states rights when they are in conflict. My fellow Libertarians who disagree ought to check the definition of libertarianism.
During the HRC/Logo debate I predicted that in five years the nation would embrace gay marriage. Thanks to California we have taken a giant leap toward that glorious day!
Slightly more problematic is the reaction from Bob Barr, who, as you will recall, was one of the chief sponsors of the federal DOMA:
Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work.
Does anyone besides yours truly smell a little bit of a logical disjunct here? Given that in any conflict between federal and state law, federal law is taken to be controlling, Barr’s DOMA handed any backward-looking state ample ammunition for an attack on gay marriage equality. And quite frankly, there are times (although the present administration is an exception) when I would rather have these kinds of decisions in the hands of the federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment