Political footballs

"But opponents told the Senate Government Operations Committee that they aren't done fighting. Joseph Backholm, director of the Family Policy Institute of Washington, said the issue should be put to a public vote.

'If we as a state are going to take the position that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and replaceable, if we are going to send a message to fathers and potential fathers in this state that it isn't important to be in the lives of their children because dads specifically don't matter, that is something we should all do together,' he said." From a CNN article.

The argument of this guy, in other words, is that there already is a high proportion of straight men who make terrible husbands and fathers that we wouldn't want gay people coming along an showing them up or encouraging the (continuation of the) dereliction of their moral duties. Really? Reminds me of what Dan Savage said regarding gay adoption in a YouTube video I saw. The only reason there are enough kids out there for gay couples to adopt some is because their straight parents couldn't afford, were incapable of taking care of, or simply didn't want the kids. Some are in the system because they're orphans. Far from all though.

Same-sex marriage is making strides across the country. Washington looks like it may pass a bill for it that the governor has pledged to sign. Maryland and Rhode Island are working on legislative means for legalizing same-sex marriage. Maine is looking at another attempt with the referendum. New Jersey is looking at both. The Democratic majorities in the legislature are wanting to pass a bill to legalize it there. Governor Christie and other Republicans are claiming that a referendum is the best way to settle the issue.

I agree with the principle that civil rights shouldn't be put up as a referendum. You don't put civil rights on the ballot. Governor Christie is wrong to want to. However, the reason for it is clear. He doesn't want to get tagged with the veto from the left and he certainly doesn't want to be a Republican governor who signed a gay marriage bill into law. There are still plenty of Republicans, social conservatives, who hate the fact that sodomy was legalized by the Supreme Court of the United States nine years ago. Some think there is no constitutional right to contraception. Even condoms. Santorum, one of the four candidates still in the race for the GOP nomination and the likely conservative alternative to Romney if and when Gingrich implodes, disagrees with the Griswold v. Connecticut decision. If Governor Christie has national aspirations (which he probably does. I hope so, at any rate) then he'll have to contend with the social conservatives in his own party. That's proven difficult for Romney. It'd be just as much so for Governor Christie. And if he had a legislative, and not just rhetorical, record to back up criticisms of him that his social conservative credentials aren't in order, it could end any potential he has for national office.

Gay marriage is being legalized in more states, though, as I already said. There's also the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case (Perry v. Brown) and the case against DOMA which are both in the 3-judge panel of the US federal appeals circuit (ninth and first circuits, respectively) stage of the process. One or both will almost assuredly end up being decided by SCOTUS. The Prop 8 case, in particular, has two outstanding lawyers fighting for marriage equality and a finding of facts from the trial court that was so abysmally done on the part of the pro-Prop 8 people that even the trial judge (a gay man in a long-term relationship, having lived with his boyfriend for about ten years) chastised them for not doing better. I can't say for sure who will vote in which direction. I would be unsurprised, though, if there were a 5-4 decision in favor, with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote (as usual). That's assuming, though, that the Supreme Court even hears the case. If they don't, the DOMA case can't be dismissed for want of a federal question, so maybe the Supreme Court will hear that. Even in a narrow ruling that does nothing more than strike down DOMA for reasons of the tenth amendment and ignores the fourteenth, it'll be a victory for gay rights. Progress, however slow, is clearly being made.

Which brings me around to my point. Why would the Democrats want to pass the bill now? Maybe it's just a desire to see marriage equality. We are talking about a state that already has civil unions which grant the same rights as marriage after all. Maybe they're against the referendum for reasons that they said they were. It's possible. I don't deny it. However, it's also possible that they intend to put Governor Christie in a bind. Signing it or vetoing it could and likely will lead to problems for Governor Christie. It could and probably will hurt his re-elect. And it could and probably will harm his likely-coming attempt to enter the national scene in a more official capacity. Republicans are fighting against what seems to be the tide of time here, and Governor Christie probably knows it. Should civil rights be decided by the ballot? No. But I'm content, as a gay man, to be satisfied for now with civil unions that grant equal rights. That's not enough for me, ultimately. But I'm not convinced marriage equality will come any way but through the courts. Not permanently. Civil unions we can get through the legislatures with much less chance of it being reversed by the people as happened in Maine.

Would that mean fewer members of the LGBT community get to marry in the nearer-term? Yes. But in New Jersey they are only missing out on the name. They have the substance. I'd rather see the efforts and money of the LGBT community, particularly the legal part of it, be directed towards anti-discrimination efforts, especially for the trans people in this country. By all means, we should keep working on Perry v. Schwarzenegger in the courts, and the case to repeal DOMA. I have high hopes most especially for that latter case. But I resent the Democrats using my rights (or rather, in this case, only one right: the name of the union) as a political way to go after a rising Republican star. Just as my rights shouldn't be put on the ballot, nor should they be used as a wedge issue. By either party.