New at Reason

David Weigel | October 20, 2006

Kerry Howley reads through the anti-"gay marriage" laws many states are about to pass and discovers that they're not banning what voters think they're banning.

Comments

|10.20.06 @ 12:38PM|#

BLOG HIJACK! I just read an article at my other favorite lunchtime website that I know those who visit this post will devour with great pleasure!
War on Drugs rant meets Cycling with a bonus quote from Albert Einstien...
See it here:
http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11064.0.html

Sorry for the Hijack, but when I read this I immediately thought "REASON"!!

|10.20.06 @ 1:03PM|#

In Webb's last debate with Allen in VA, he said he was against this marriage amendment because of the "unintended consequences." He made it a point to say loud and clear he was against gay marriage (even adding "I am a Christian"), but he was against this particular amendment because it wasn't written well. What a wuss. It is not the unintended consequences of the amendment that is the problem, it is the intended consequences. Webb's answer can only be taken to mean that he would support a better written amendment. Just another example of a Democrat not taking the opportunity to really become a better alternative.

Kerry, as I understand, gay marriage is also already illegal in Virginia. Perhaps you should add it to this sentence, "In each of these states - Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin - gay marriage is already illegal."

|10.20.06 @ 1:10PM|#

Thanks, Cab. It's fixed.

|10.20.06 @ 1:24PM|#

Heh, Ig, that's a good article.

|10.20.06 @ 1:39PM|#

By broadening the language to forbid civil unions and even private contracts, all the anti-gay activists are doing is making it easier for bills like this to be overturned in a couple years.

It's clear which direction the momentum is going on gay rights, and the anti-s are simply handing large blocks of people who take the squishy Jim Webb/John Kerry position over to their opposition.

|10.20.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Obviously, straight couples that live in sin are gay.

|10.20.06 @ 1:51PM|#

"Obviously, straight couples that live in sin are gay."

yes. otherwise they'd be straight. and straight people are married. unless they're just single - in which case gay experiences are just fraternity hijinx.

gay experiences when you're married means you're an alcoholic.

are we straight on this?

|10.20.06 @ 1:57PM|#

hmm. radley balko - who by his picture looks like a pretty big dude - is hired by reason.

suddenly, the squirrels are performing at a higher level than they ever had previously in their careers as i've had no issues posting lately.

are we sure it's not radley balco?

either way, keep doing what you're doing.

|10.20.06 @ 1:59PM|#

As things stand, I'd have liked the civil union concept to have gone forward, leaving marriage to be the traditional institution we all know and love. I think if some people hadn't fought so hard against civil unions, the attempt to legislate gay marriage wouldn't have happened.

Since the overreaching anti-gay marriage/civil union laws and amendments are going to get struck down, the doors for what can constitute marriage will be thrown wide open--just like conservative commentators were predicting in the first place. Polygamy can't be banned if gay marriage is allowed. The hard right has no one to blame but themselves for pushing things so hard.

|10.20.06 @ 2:03PM|#

From a quick read (and I have not compared it to the statute, if there is one, that creates common law marriages), it appears as though this amendment may eliminate common law marriage...

Gimme Back My Dog|10.20.06 @ 2:06PM|#

It's clear which direction the momentum is going on gay rights

I hope you are right, joe, but I am skeptical. If the tide were really turning, one or both of the major parties would be jumping on the bandwagon. They are very good at taking bold, principled stances once their army of pollsters tell them that they can get more votes by doing so.

|10.20.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog (Who has the coolest screen nam ever),

When major revolutions like that happen, they take place at light speed. Who was calling for a New Deal in 1928? How popular was women's suffrage in 1910? Look how quickly Southern conservatives went from "segregation forever" to "colorblindness."

Pro Libertate,

"I think if some people hadn't fought so hard against civil unions, the attempt to legislate gay marriage wouldn't have happened." Ain't it the truth. In Massachusetts, bills creating civil unions were filed in both houses of the legislature every year since about 1999. For the last few years prior to the Goodrich decision, the bills has a majority of each house as cosponsors. But the most conservative person in the legislature, a vile Democratic bigot named John Rodgers, was Chair of the Ways and Meand Committee, and refused to let them out of committee. The House Speaker, his close ally, Tom Finneran, backed him up. For their effort, the two were regularly feted by anti-gay conservative groups.

Today, of course, those same groups swear to God that they've got nothing against gay people, and that they just want the issue settled democratically.

|10.20.06 @ 3:05PM|#

Gimme Back My Dog,

More than anything else, it's an age thing.

Anecdotally, if you're over 65, you're against both unions and marriage. If you're 26 - 64, you're kinda against marriage, but don't really object that much to civil unions (and they younger you are in that range the more likely you are to favor them.) If you're 18 - 25, you're fine with both and don't understand what all the fuss is about.

The other big factors in people's opinions is whether you think teh Gayness is a choice or not, and whether you have gay family members / colleagues / friends.

Bisexuals are of two minds on the matter;

I was looking for recent polling data broken down by age, but the best I found was three years old (and done by Fox News) so I'm not gonna give a cite.

The D's are being all wishy-washy - trying not to tick off teh Gay and the friendlies, while not giving Gramps & Grams a case of the ickies. The R's are betting on the oldies and the fundies while the rest of the Republicans get a two-fer if they want it - "come for the tax cuts & war porn, stay for the queer bashing!"

The savvy (and evil) thing that the anti crowd is doing is pushing for constitutional amendments instead of just laws mainly 'cause it's harder to undo.

|10.20.06 @ 3:49PM|#

"The D's are being all wishy-washy - trying not to tick off teh Gay and the friendlies, while not giving Gramps & Grams a case of the ickies."

I don't think that's true. I think there is genuine diversity of thought in the Democratic Party. Because there is not such diversity among Republicans, because they are ruthless about maintaining message discipline, and because their control of the government has allowed them to control the terms of political debate, people have gotten used to the idea that a political party has a message on an issue.

When they see different Democrats saying different things, people with mindset don't conclude that there are different messages coming out - they conclude that the party is being wishy washy in its message.

|10.20.06 @ 5:15PM|#

joe,

The 2004 Democratic Platform was against any federal amendment banning gay marriage and stated that marriage was a state issue. It's not exactly a clarion call for equal protection under the law or a strong emotional appeal for equality and fairness for all Americans.

I agree that D's are of mixed opinions, but I have a healthy suspicion that the reason is for the triangultion aspect more than anything else.

They know it's the right thing to do, but they don't have the guts to do it. And after going 0 for 11 on state constitutional amendments in the last two election cycles maybe it's unavoidable that that's their "position."

Besides, when Cranky Old Bastards get hepped up on Palmetto Saw extract and Rush O'Hannity, they're a lot more likely to vote than Tattoo Texting Chick.

Thomas Paine's Goiter|10.20.06 @ 5:18PM|#

If you're 26 - 64, you're kinda against marriage, but don't really object that much to civil unions (and they younger you are in that range the more likely you are to favor them.)

Most 30+ people that I know don't give a shit either way.

|10.20.06 @ 7:01PM|#

de stijl,

"They know it's the right thing to do, but they don't have the guts to do it."

I think that describes a third of the party. Another third doesn't think gay marriage is right, and another third believes in it and loudly advocates for it.

For Republicans, it's about 80-19-1, with principled homophobes in the majority.

|10.20.06 @ 11:16PM|#

Let's make marriage compulsory.

Equal unhappiness for all.

|10.21.06 @ 11:26AM|#

They say married men live longer. Actually, it just seems longer.

|10.22.06 @ 11:59AM|#

de stijl,

I am with TPG on this one. I think your groups are off...the 18-25 group is probably more like a 18-45 group. Otherwise I think you're about right. It is generational.