Will Last Week’s Events Hurt The Gay Marriage Movement?
by Matt Margolis, June 18th, 2007 at 11:03am
If you asked supporters of gay “marriage” they would tell you that the people of Massachusetts support gay “marriage,” and that the Marriage Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman would have failed. Certain polls suggest this to be true, with support allegedly above 60%.
Earlier polls revealed a lack of majority support for gay marriage in the beginning, but a USA Today story from two years ago suggested a trend in favor of gay marriage since the SJC imposed it on us.
In the 15 months since the Massachusetts court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, polls consistently show a majority of Americans against it. Opposition reached a historic high of 68% in March in a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll. But the most recent poll, April 29-May 1, showed a significant drop of those against gay marriage, down to 56%. The poll showed support for gay marriage at 39%
Naturally, a MassEquality poll suggested 62% support gay “marriage” back in 2005 but, naturally, it doesn’t take a poll expert to know that any poll by MassEquality should not be taken at face value. But, if we assume that support for gay “marriage” truly has increased since the SJC decision, then one has to ask why its supporters were so adamantly opposed to giving the people a chance to vote on the issue.
Instead, gay “marriage” has been imposed on the state of Massachusetts by a 4-3 vote by the Supreme Judicial Court, followed by the legislature narrowly preventing the Marriage Amendment from being put on the ballot in 2008. This was achieved in part by Governor Deval Patrick offering jobs to legislators in order to switch their votes.
Had the people voted and given their okay for gay “marriage” the issue would have been officially over. So, why, if polls did suggest majority support for gay marriage, didn’t the pro-gay “marriage” movement push for that vote? Either they weren’t confident in the polls, or perhaps they were desperate to achieve their victory sooner rather than later.
If it was the latter reason, then they may do more damage to their cause in the long run.
For many who supported voting on marriage, the issue would have been settled after a vote by the people. But, the circumstances by which gay marriage was imposed on this state gives ammunition to conservatives nationwide over the issue of judicial activism, and this could have drastic consequences for gay “marriage” nationwide.
The White House has been preparing a short list of potential nominees for the Supreme Court, due to a potential vacancy this summer. Liberal judges Stevens and Ginsburg have been floated as potentially retiring. Bush would nominate a conservative.
Some might suggest that President Bush’s poll numbers does not give him the so-called mandate he needs to put a solid conservative on the court. However, the razor thin majority of the Democrats may not be enough to prevent confirmation, and with the approval rating of Congress even lower than that of the president’s, a filibuster would be significantly tougher to pull off.
There’s also the Lieberman factor. Senator Joe Lieberman has not ruled out the possibility of caucusing with Republicans if he becomes uncomfortable with the Democrats (which may very well happen considering their defeatist rhetoric on Iraq). If this were to happen, it would make it that much easier to get a conservative nominee through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and pave the way for confirmation.
And throughout the whole process, you can bet on gay “marriage” and judicial activism being the primary issues of the confirmation battle. This means that what happened in Massachusetts will be put under the national microscope — and that will only serve to help President Bush in the event of a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
And another strict constructionist on the Supreme Court doesn’t bode well for the gay “marriage” zealots on a national level.
Entry Filed under: Gay Marriage
16 Comments
1. Andy (a different one) | June 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Interesting. I never thought about that. You might be right.
2. Stephen | June 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Gay marriage would only correctly be said to be “imposed” on you if you were forced to participate in one! This was a matter of principle, namely, the safeguards that were included in the constitution to prevent tyranny of the majority. There was nothing underhanded, unethical, or otherwise unconstitutional about “denying” the people the opportunity to vote on other peoples’ civil rights.
3. Andrew | June 18th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Stephen,
I do not understand how you can possibly believe what you just wrote.
Of course gay marriage was imposed upon the state’s citizen. The first and foremost reason is because the citizens of the state had ABSOLUTLEY NO input as to whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. First in 2003 when the courts decided to mandate it and just as recently when we were denied the ability to vote on it by our corrupt legislature. Imposition has nothing to do whether or not a person has to participate in the actual ceremony.
Secondly–as I have written extensively, there is no “tyranny of the majority” as there is no minority rights issue in question here. Gay people have had the right to marry as long as everyone one else. As someone else so rightly stated that just because gay people do not like who they can marry does not mean their civil rights are being violated.
Please stop spreading this propaganda about “civil rights” because while it may sound nice, it lacks complete factual merit.
4. Knightbrigade | June 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I’v been saying this for a while. mASS is (NOT) like the rest of the country.
People will just ho hum/ live and let live on some issues, until an aggressive group tries to push/change social values.
Liberals and hacks saturate this state like moths to the light.
Take this issue nationally.
The USA will deal with this issue, unless of course Teddy Kennedy can somehow find 15 million GAY Mexicans and then import them.
5. Andrew | June 18th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Knightbrigade makes an excellent point. If this issue can make better national media headway–the silver lining will be to ensure what happened in 2004—a conservative tilt nationally and in other states to either A) pass a federal ban on gay marriage or B) Pressure the retards in the MA statehouse and Deval’s office to rethink their actions.
I know I will certainly be making this one of my top issues here in MA in 2008
6. Steve | June 18th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
“Gay people have had the right to marry as long as everyone one else. As someone else so rightly stated that just because gay people do not like who they can marry does not mean their civil rights are being violated.”
Andrew,
Don’t you think you’re oversimplifying a bit by saying that gay people “do not like who they can marry”? It’s basically like saying this: If you’re straight, you can fall in love and marry the person that you have decided to build a life with and you will access hundreds of rights and privileges. If you’re gay, you can obtain those rights and privileges only if you marry a person with whom you will never be in love or compatible. Unless you believe that homosexuality is merely a behavioral choice, which is an entirely different debate, then how can you say that’s equal?
7. V | June 19th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Stephen,
Are you saying that being “gay” is equal to being straight? It sure seems like you are. I’m sorry, it just isn’t. (Now don’t go saying that I’m anti-”gay” again…..it doesn’t mean that “gay” is less…it’s just not equal) And, if you are just looking for “those rights and privileges only if you marry”, why did marriage have to do the trick for you? Couldn’t some other way have been found. I’ve said it here before, the argument isn’t about marriage, it’s about legitimizing a behavior.
8. Andrew | June 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Stephen,
While the aspect of “love” in a marriage is certainly commonplace and I would say entirely necessary–the definition of marriage, especially as the state would see it has no requisite for loving the other person. The definition falls to a member of the opposite sex, who is not a member of your immediate family, who is of consenting age and is a human being. No where is love in the requirements for marriage. So yes there are equal rights. Only if you believe, which would be in error, that you have the right to marry anyone you love, would there be unequal rights.
Wouldn’t a civil union or something along those lines be good enough?
9. Steve | June 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Andrew,
Love is not a requirement for marriage in th4e government’s eyes, true. But most people consider it a requirement for themselves. Maybe it’s not so for you, so how do you feel about arranged marriages? I mean if love and compatibility shouldn’t matter for me, why should it matter for you? Same-sex marriage is also restricted to someone who is not a member of your immediate family, and is of consenting age - there are valid reasons for those restrictions and we expect to play by the same rules. But the SJC was correct when it found no reason for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples and I’ve yet to hear a compelling reason from you.
So Andrew, would a civil union or “something along those lines be good enough” for you? You think it’s good enough for other people. Would you support replacing civil marriage with civil unions - for everyone - and leaving the word “marriage” for religious institutions?
10. Steve | June 19th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
V,
If you still consider homosexuality a “behavior” then you really need to educate yourself. It’s not about “legitimizing”, I personally don’t give a f— if I have your stamp of approval. Do heterosexuals get married to legitimize their lifestyle? Of course not. So why is it so hard to believe that gay people want to get married for the same reasons? We are human, you do realize that, don’t you? You say that you don’t mean that “gay is less” yet your suggestion your take on the reasons same-sex couples want to marry suggests that you believe otherwise.
11. V | June 19th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Steve;
If it is not a “behavior” then what is it?
You sure argue with the venom of a person seeking approval.
Yes, I do believe that homosexuals want the “right” to marry because they will feel that it makes them the same as everyone else. No ideology that you spew has convinced me otherwise.
Oh, and just FYI:
“Associated Press: August 5, 2002
Washington, DC ‚Äì Urban Legends are extremely difficult to stop once they‚Äôve reached the email circuit or the Internet. The ‚ÄúBorn Gay‚Äù urban legend is actually being exposed as false by homosexual researchers themselves. Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, notes that homosexuality is not ‚Äú…purely genetic‚Ķenvironmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay.‚Äù
Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who attempted to find a genetic basis for homosexuality by examining the differences in the hypothalamus between “homosexual” and “heterosexual” males, has written: “I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
Read Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth by Jeffrey Satinover, MD Baker Books, 266 pp., $17.99
12. Steve | June 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
V,
Dismissing “born gay” as an urban legend is absurd. We can all find studies that lean toward whatever we want reality to be (just look at Focus on the Family). Here’s an interesting piece that acknowledges that there is no conclusive scientific findings. To call it “urban legend” is proposterous.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/?page=9
I’m surprised more people on your side aren’t pushing for the discovery of the “gay gene”. I’d imagine that the pro-lifers would do a sudden 180 if they knew we could abort gay fetuses.
I just hope you consider that you sound foolish to those of us who understand homeosexuality first hand.
13. Andrew | June 19th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Steve,
My point about the love issue was that it was not a legal requirement. I readily agree and understand that marriage usually involves a man and a woman who love each other–but my point was there is nothing stopping a man and a woman who hate each other for marrying.
With respect to the what makes people gay discussion. The answer is there is not conclusive evidence to support a particular answer.
14. V | June 20th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Steve;
That word (preposterous), I do not think it means what you think it means.
“Now even the gay and pro-gay press are acknowledging the problems. In her 1996 book, Gender Shock, writer and lesbian woman Phyllis Burke, quoting Dr. Paul Billings, an internist and human geneticist, calls the born gay idea “a new fish story.” A gay publication, “The Guide,” writes Hamer’s story under the title “Gene Scam?”
As well, Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), one of the larger pro-gay organizations, explains that there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay in its booklet “Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology.”
Born gay? Ironically, what the studies actually suggest is that persons who experience same-sex attraction are not prisoners of their biology. That’s good news for same-gender-attracted people who would rather pursue other options.”
http://www.freetobeme.com/r_biol.htm
You might think you understand homosexuality better than I do Stephen, but I think you only understand BEING homosexual better than I do.
15. wave maker | June 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I’d suggest that Steve is off the tracks.
The gay lobby aggressively pushed the “born gay” theory for a specific legal purpose — it made their status “immutable,” what provides a reasonable argument for why orientation should be equated with race for purposes of civil rights. If it were merely a personal choice, their civil rights argument would be ridiculous.
16. Steve | June 21st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Wave Maker,
What’s ridiculous is believing that people have relationships with persons of the gender they’re NOT naturally attracted to as a matter of mere “personal choice”.