You’d figure after they got burned in California, they’d have learned their lesson about court challenges to laws enacted with popular support – but, no, they haven’t:
The federal complaint in Commonwealth v. HHS was filed yesterday by Massachusetts, which is asking for federal recognition of its same-sex marriages, not for the invalidation of all state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Massachusetts makes two federalism-based constitutional claims against Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law…
…Massachusetts also appears to rely on a case called New York v. United States to argue that Congress is “commandeering” it to administer a discriminatory federal program. But there’s nothing unusual about Congress’s decision to set up a federal benefits program and then define the limits of eligibility. A state might want the retirement age to be 55, but Congress can make it 62 or 65 or 105. A state might want to make the middle class eligible for assistance in obtaining health benefits, but Congress can limit federal eligibility to poor people — as it defines “poor.” All of these things might increase a state’s administrative costs, discourage experimentation, and be terribly unfair to people left out. But that doesn’t make them unconstitutional…
…In that respect, Massachusetts’ lawsuit is a cousin to the existing DOMA challenges. Success for Massachusetts would likely help advance a result it expressly disclaims: the invalidation of all laws excluding gay couples from marriage. The upshot, then, is that a lawsuit to protect state power against a one-size-fits-all federal definition of marriage would hasten a one-size-fits-all federal definition of marriage.
In the linked article there is a great discussion of the grounds for the suit, as a thing, and the various plus and minus things about it – I do recommend reading the whole thing. But I wish to discuss the politics of this.
To step back in time for a moment – when gay marriage was first brought into the larger public square, I went over the argument in favor and while I believed it was a wrong thing to do, I didn’t see how defenders of traditional marriage had a chance. With the gay-rights people enjoying entirely positive Old Media coverage and the ability of gay-rights people to call upon the best propagandists in America, I figured we were going to get rolled and in State after State, there would be close fought elections which would, in the end, turn on the propaganda story of sweet, long-suffering gay couple vs narrow-minded, fundamentalist bigot…and thus gay marriage would become law.
Man, was I wrong about that…
My first clue that I was wrong was a discussion I had on the subject with a woman of decidedly liberal views who was just viscerally opposed to the very concept of gay marriage. Call it what you will, it turned out that my liberal friend was legion – people don’t want gay marriage. Period. End of argument. In vote after vote, the proponents of gay marriage – benefiting from practically unlimited funding and enthusiastic support from the elite power structure – have failed to win the day…while some votes were narrow, most were 10 point or more wipe outs at the polls. And while proponents of gay marriage keep trying to talk themselves into believing that as the younger generation rises, gay marriage becomes a certainty, the fact that half a generation of young people have grown up since gay marriage became an issue with no alteration in the electoral reality shows that this is a pipe dream.
Clearly, if there ever is to be gay marriage in America – under whatever form – it will have to be a slow, incremental change carefully in tune with popular desires…naturally, gay marriage proponents look at what has happened and come to the conclusion that if they can’t immediately get it by votes, they’ll ram it through by judicial fiat. This is the definition of “stuck on stupid”. Its not time to file new law suits, guys, but to work out programs to provide ease for gay couples in joining up their lives…legislation to make it easier to combine incomes, property, etc; that is where your efforts should be. You know, providing practical assistance to those gay couples who are in long term relationships. But, no – off to the courts we’ll go – and just in time for it to wend its way through the courts to become an issue for the 2010 mid terms. Are you liberals out there entirely sure the Massachusetts AG isn’t a secret, GOP mole? She’s handing us House seats on a platter.
Ah, well, we’ll gladly take the seats, and thanks very much. Perhaps after you’re burned the 20th or so time in 2010, you’ll learn your lesson. Then again, you’re liberals – you still think that Bismarck’s 19th idea of social security it a good idea. “Stuck on stupid” is not a new thing for you.
Blogs For Victory 