Holy smokes! Worldwide Pablo steps out for lunch and a workout, and this bombshell drops: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, echoing an earlier decision on the subject, today more-or-less ordered state lawmakers to permit full-fledged marriage for same-sex couples. Anything less, the court said, would make gays "second-class" citizens and would not be valid under the state's constitution.
The 4-3 decision seems to leave little wiggle room for those backing legislation to create civil unions. But the court nixed this idea, saying they would violate the constitution by perpetuating a "second-class citizen status" for gays and lesbians. Read the courts advisory opinions here.
Naturally, gay activists are cheering the decision, the religious right is foaming at the mouth and the White House is “troubled.”
There are number of things that amaze, amuse or just plain befuddle WWP. What's with this hooey about “activist judges?" [Read your Constitution: There are three, count ’em, branches of government. Oh, and civil rights belong to individuals, not electoral majorities.] How does admiration of marriage, to the degree of wanting to join it, actually undermine it? And why is the normally sane and fair-minded John Edwards opposed to gay marriage?
But most of all, WWP wonders: How will this affect this year’s presidential election? The usual pundits are already in a lather, and scenarios abound. [Check them out for yourself.] One school of thought is that the decision will anger and motivate the religious right and create a swell of support in GWB’s natural constituency, thereby boosting his re-election chances. On the other hand, while Americans are divided about gay marriage and oppose it by a slim majority, they seem generally loathe to the idea of “codifying” something as small-minded as anti-gay sentiment in something as noble as the U.S. Constitution (to say nothing about being turned off by the political poseurs who would make it so).
A sense of fairness and the concern that the Constitution should be used to enhance, not curtail, civil rights perhaps explains GWB’s mush-mouthed State of the Union address, wherein he supported heterosexual-only marriage, condemned those “activist judges,” alluded to a constitutional amendment as a solution, but then failed to actually endorse it or say what he would do about the matter.
But today’s development surely will flush the president out of his, er, closet, to declare his support for FMA. The question is: When will he do so? Will it help him, or hurt him? And why?
As Linda Richman would say, “Talk amongst yourselves.”
Recent Comments