The New Republic responds to Iowa
Christopher Orr has been engaged in an ongoing debate with Rod Dreher (re: my earlier post), Damon Linker, and Andrew Sullivan over same-sex marriage. His most recent entry does not address the Iowa decision directly, but he does provide links to several of Dreher's earlier posts on the subject. These posts contextualize Dreher's initial response to the Iowa ruling within a larger argument. I especially like the part when Dreher describes his upcoming newspaper column, which (he writes) will reveal "how the gay marriage debate illuminates the difficulty finding consensus on basic moral issues, and how the public discussion inevitably privileges liberal premises."
Hm: the public discussion inevitably privileges liberal premises. Or, in the words of Stephen Colbert, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Meanwhile, Richard Just offers his optimistic reactions to Varnum v. Brien. The highlights:
1. "[It's] pretty clear that gay marriage is going to remain a fact of life in Massachusetts. It seems reasonable to hope that events in Iowa could follow a similar pattern. At the very least, this is not going to be a sequel to Prop 8."
2. "[Like] the California and Connecticut decisions from last year, this opinion is fundamentally rooted in the idea that gays and lesbians as a group--like racial minorities or women--are entitled to some form of heightened judicial protection. That this idea is gradually seeping into the law seems significant."
3. "More broadly, the very fact that the central arguments of these state court opinions so closely track each other seems noteworthy in and of itself. ... Taken together, these decisions are starting to suggest something of a building legal momentum--momentum that other justices in other states will undoubtedly have to grapple with at some point in the future."
4. "One key difference between the Iowa decision and those that came before it: In Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, the cases were all decided by a vote of 4-3; this time, the ruling was unanimous. Earl Warren famously went out of his way to ensure that Brown v. Board of Education was decided 9-0. And John Roberts has said he wants the Supreme Court to reach unanimity when possible. At some level, of course, a majority decision is a majority decision, no matter what the vote. But there is undoubtedly symbolic significance in courts achieving unanimity. Here again, the perception of a few rogue justices hijacking a state's political process no longer fits quite as comfortably as it once did."
The final sentence of the final quote echoes, almost verbatim, a point I made earlier: what happened in Iowa yesterday cannot be written off as the work of a few rogue judges.
Hm: the public discussion inevitably privileges liberal premises. Or, in the words of Stephen Colbert, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Meanwhile, Richard Just offers his optimistic reactions to Varnum v. Brien. The highlights:
1. "[It's] pretty clear that gay marriage is going to remain a fact of life in Massachusetts. It seems reasonable to hope that events in Iowa could follow a similar pattern. At the very least, this is not going to be a sequel to Prop 8."
2. "[Like] the California and Connecticut decisions from last year, this opinion is fundamentally rooted in the idea that gays and lesbians as a group--like racial minorities or women--are entitled to some form of heightened judicial protection. That this idea is gradually seeping into the law seems significant."
3. "More broadly, the very fact that the central arguments of these state court opinions so closely track each other seems noteworthy in and of itself. ... Taken together, these decisions are starting to suggest something of a building legal momentum--momentum that other justices in other states will undoubtedly have to grapple with at some point in the future."
4. "One key difference between the Iowa decision and those that came before it: In Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut, the cases were all decided by a vote of 4-3; this time, the ruling was unanimous. Earl Warren famously went out of his way to ensure that Brown v. Board of Education was decided 9-0. And John Roberts has said he wants the Supreme Court to reach unanimity when possible. At some level, of course, a majority decision is a majority decision, no matter what the vote. But there is undoubtedly symbolic significance in courts achieving unanimity. Here again, the perception of a few rogue justices hijacking a state's political process no longer fits quite as comfortably as it once did."
The final sentence of the final quote echoes, almost verbatim, a point I made earlier: what happened in Iowa yesterday cannot be written off as the work of a few rogue judges.