Issues such as gay marriage should be decided by legislatures, but it's obvious that we're not headed that way. Connecticut has become the third state to say that same-sex partners are entitled to all the benefits of traditional marriage, including the title, and all three were court decrees. Furthermore:
If California voters on Election Day were to overturn the state's historic May 2008 ruling sanctioning same-sex marriage, it would stall political momentum for same-sex marriage rights in the states, political experts say.
Florida and Arizona voters also will decide on Nov. 4 whether to amend their state constitutions to limit marriage to one man and one woman - essentially ensuring a permanent ban on gay marriage unless voters go back to the polls to repeal it.
I've been saying for a while now that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually decide to take this up because of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause. I think we're only one state or two away from that tipping point.
Comments
I used to have a knee jerk "ick" reaction to the idea of gay marriage and didn't regard it as an issue the country ought to take seriously. The more I've thought about it, though, the more I'm sure I was wrong.
If sexual orientation is something you're born with, I can't think of very good reasons to leave gay marriage up to the legislature when we didn't leave anti-miscegenation laws up to the legislature.
Why is it appropriate for a court to ban legislative prohibitions on black men marrying white women and not appropriate for a court to ban legislative prohibitions on gay men or gay women marrying one another?