Marriage and Culture

[rowyn]

I read a rather mediocre opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, on the subject of gay marriage. The author favored the Supreme Court staying quiet on the question and letting states decide one-by-one instead. The one interesting argument in the essay was 'legislation resolves issues: judicial rulings bury them

Comments

[tuftears]

I agree to some extent, it's not the justice department's job to CREATE laws, it's the justice department's job to INTERPRET laws. But I don't agree that it should be a state-by-state ruling, I think if there is a national consensus, there can be (not necessarily should be) a national law on the subject.

The problem is that a national law isn't going to pass in today's highly polarized Congress.

[rowyn]

Generally, the states have been left alone to make their laws on marriage -- the laws against mixed-race marriage were made and repealed on a state-by-state basis, for instance. But it is messy.

Allowing gay marriage is getting to be a pretty popular position, so it wouldn't surprise me if Congress in four years could agree on it. Which is awesome given that it hasn't been even 20 years since Clinton signed DOMA to make it explicitly forbidden.

[tuftears]

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if Congress shifted radically after the 2014 elections.

[rowyn]

I don't even know that it'll need to be a shift in the members of Congress -- quite a few politicians have reversed positions on this already. Including the president! I may be too optimistic, though.

[terrycloth]

Legislation doesn't really settle anything -- there've been too many examples of people passing legislation and then it being reversed or ignored recently for me to feel encouraged if a law passes that I agree with.

Whereas the whole point of the supreme court is for someone to get the last word.

I'm not sure that gay marriage is really a constitutional issue, but I guess if you want it to actually be something people feel safe doing without worrying that in the next election or the next primary it'll be completely overturned because public opinion shifted, that's the only way.

So, yeah. I guess I feel exactly the opposite.

[rowyn]

Yeah, from a legal standpoint, a Supreme Court ruling is a lot closer to final.

[alltoseek]

The separate-but-equal and Jim Crow laws were essentially turned over by judicial ruling. I think the judicial rulings are important to ensure that the minority in government actually abide by the laws; that the ideal justice that the people intend by the laws, are actually followed.

Actually, neither legal nor political action actually resolves issues. It's always one smaller body of people imposing their will on everyone, with the claim that they represent a larger group of people.

[rowyn]

The separate-but-equal and Jim Crow laws were essentially turned over by judicial ruling.

This is a good point. Anti-miscegenation laws were also overturned by a Supreme Court ruling, although looks like there were only 16 states that still had them at the time. I think the Roe vs Wade situation is unique and not indicative of a large pattern.

[alinsa]

I'd actually written up a big response, but then I thought better of it and killed it. Then I decided I was going to sit it out. And now, I decided I'd just write something sort of in-between [which I ended up failing at]. But anyhow, perhaps against my better judgement, here we are

[alinsa]

(remainder

[rowyn]

Yes, I think you're right. The laws promoting segregation or prohibiting interracial marriage are a much better analogue to gay marriage than the abortion issue, and court rulings don't appear to have substantially impaired social acceptance of the former. So, not really thinking the "how" of legalization much affects long-term social acceptance.