Unintended ironies
As the May 17th deadline approaches after which gay couples will be able to wed in my fair Commonwealth, Governer Mitt Romney has pulled what could charitably be seen as a bozo move.
Romney, who has done everything in his power to stop the marriages from going forward (which is of course his right), has invoked a 1913 state law that bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts. That seems like a reasonable stopgap, an attempt to mitigate the effects of couples from other states marrying here and going back home, forcing a painful and rancorous re-examination of the Defense of Marriage Act and the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution. Unfortunately for Mitt, his problem is with gay marriage itself rather than its political consequences, and the law in question was originally passed to ban miscegenation by barring interracial couples from out of state from marrying.
Furthermore, straight couples from out of state are not barred-- and the Governer has not instructed that they be barred-- from getting married in Massachusetts, though the law is still on the books. It's just the gays, like the blacks used to be. To my mind, it's more than a little hypocritical to revive an antiquated law whose intent everyone today would agree is fundamentally immoral in defense of an ostensibly moral crusade.
With this in mind, I challenge all comers to tell me with a straight face that gay marriage, complicated as the question is, is not a civil rights issue with strong ties to the past.
Hat tip to brdgt.
on
| § 3
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Word.
Word.
And, I heard this morning that they are already preparing the lawsuit challenging Mitt's little plan as unconsititutional.
Johno:
Johno:
"gay marriage, complicated as the question is, is not a civil rights issue with strong ties to the past."
There - I said it. Now can I laugh?
It's only a civil rights issue in this case because of the cack-handed manner in which Mitt is attempting to "solve" the problem. He'll lose the lawsuit Brdgt mentions, sure as shootin'.
But as a broader issue, it's beyond civil rights. It's about the right of the majority to impose its will on the majority. In other words, it's purely a matter of democracy, and one in which democracy may win, to the regret of the minority. That damned tyranny of the majority!
That might not bother me, if we were talking about something I really gave a crap about, whose legalization had a chance to fundamentally destroy society, and about which a majority of people had a strong opinion one way or another. This ain't one of those. I don't care what gays want to do, I don't want to be kept up to date with whatever it is, and as an extension, I don't care to keep them from doing whatever it is. In most respects, it's the exact same feeling I have about other peoples' heterosexual relations.
The conclusion I've reached on my desired outcome for this entire thing is that I've reached no conclusion. It's a conundrum, I tellya. But I don't see a federal constitutional amendment passing, just as I don't see states radically altering their approaches. Except perhaps Utah. And anywhere in the Bible Belt.
Everywhere else, I honestly believe (hope?) people can keep their noses out of others' business.
"It's only a civil rights
"It's only a civil rights issue in this case because of the cack-handed manner in which Mitt is attempting to "solve" the problem."
I agree with you partially on that point. I need to mull it over and see if I can figure out whether there is a penumbral area where the question goes from NOT being about civil right, to being about civil rights. My gut sense is "no," however, since when you lay aside all the rhetoric the question is ultimately about whether a loving couple who happen to be queer homosexuals will be allowed to do stuff like visit each other in the hospital.
As for this: "Everywhere else, I honestly believe (hope?) people can keep their noses out of others' business," I think you have more faith in humanity than I.