Sunday, May 15, 2005
'For proponents ... For opponents': Good article on the political implications of the MSJC's decision a year ago legalizing gay marriage. Since the November election, there's been a strange phenomenon within the MSM to refer to a political 'backlash' against gay marriage but then not mention how the Massachusetts ruling was the catalyst for that backlash. The reason, Hub Blog suspects, is that it's become almost taboo within some liberal circles to connect the backlash with the ruling, as if the former would discredit the latter. Can't have that! So some segments of the media have respected the taboo, showing their own sympathetic biases in the process. ... Anyway, the Globe story above doesn't pull punches: There was and is an obvious connection. ...
The only small gripe I have about the article is the "for proponents ... for opponents" approach. But what about those of us who favor gay marriage but still think the MSJC decision was gross, egotistical judicial overreach? The same applies to abortion and the Roe-Wade decision that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg says needlessly prolonged the national debate by short-circuiting the political process via judicial fiat. ... One of the reasons why I admired Attorney General Tom Reilly's initial reaction to the gay-marriage ruling was that he appeared to respect the not so insignificant point that the means don't always justify the ends. People should have a say on how their democratic society is structured. But Reilly has since hopelessly muddied his stand with his backpeddling and nuanced ducking. If he believes it, he should just say: "I support gay marriage but think judicial interference was wrong and has proven to be politically counterproductive." It wouldn't satisfy the liberal wing of the party. But it would appeal to a lot of moderates. ... But, alas, Reilly was still playing dodge ball on the issue at yesterday's state Dem convention.
P.S. -- Some good culture and class columns can be found over at the NYT: Kristof on how liberals can politically benefit by actually reading the Bible and Brooks on 'poor Republicans.'
Update -- I include myself among those who favor gay rights and abortion but don't like the way the judiciary intervened. Someone rather tartly but rightly pointed out I wasn't clear. Just wrote too fast without making it clear first time around.
The only small gripe I have about the article is the "for proponents ... for opponents" approach. But what about those of us who favor gay marriage but still think the MSJC decision was gross, egotistical judicial overreach? The same applies to abortion and the Roe-Wade decision that even Ruth Bader Ginsburg says needlessly prolonged the national debate by short-circuiting the political process via judicial fiat. ... One of the reasons why I admired Attorney General Tom Reilly's initial reaction to the gay-marriage ruling was that he appeared to respect the not so insignificant point that the means don't always justify the ends. People should have a say on how their democratic society is structured. But Reilly has since hopelessly muddied his stand with his backpeddling and nuanced ducking. If he believes it, he should just say: "I support gay marriage but think judicial interference was wrong and has proven to be politically counterproductive." It wouldn't satisfy the liberal wing of the party. But it would appeal to a lot of moderates. ... But, alas, Reilly was still playing dodge ball on the issue at yesterday's state Dem convention.
P.S. -- Some good culture and class columns can be found over at the NYT: Kristof on how liberals can politically benefit by actually reading the Bible and Brooks on 'poor Republicans.'
Update -- I include myself among those who favor gay rights and abortion but don't like the way the judiciary intervened. Someone rather tartly but rightly pointed out I wasn't clear. Just wrote too fast without making it clear first time around.
