Judge in New Jersey Hears Arguments on Gay Marriage (NY Times, June 27, 2003, registration required): A day after the nation's highest court overturned a Texas sodomy law, expanding rights for gay men and lesbians, a state judge here heard arguments on a potentially groundbreaking case that could lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey. During a hearing today in State Superior Court, a lawyer for seven couples who were denied marriage licenses last year argued that the state Constitution afforded lesbians and gay men the right to marry whomever they wanted. A lawyer from the state attorney general's office, which is seeking the lawsuit's dismissal, said the question of gay marriage should be decided by elected officials, not judges. [...] Judge Linda Feinberg of Superior Court asked both sides to submit additional written arguments and said she would not issue a ruling for at least two months. Although she expressed sympathy for those in committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, she stressed that her decision would not be swayed by emotion. "It's not what I think," she said. "It's about the law."
My, that didn't take much time at all, did it? To be sure, the suit was already in process when the decision came down from the Court; arguments were already scheduled. Mind, it's entirely possible that the decision might make a difference, but one can't tell. New Jersey wasn't one of the states directly affected by the ruling, so it makes no technical difference to their state constitution.
Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban (ABCNews/AP, June 30, 2003): The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. [....] "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's This Week. "And I'm thinking of whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."
And that could have been (and was) entirely predicted ... although I must admit, that sort of rhetoric from Frist, right off the bat, is a mild surprise. A mild one. The problem with his viewpoint, from a purely constitutional angle, is that there is technically no such thing as a legal sacrament -- state recognition of marriage has, very technically, nothing to do with religion.
It will be very interesting to see what happens with the Federal Marriage Amendment, now that it's been referred forward to the House Judiciary subcommittee, after having been held up for so long. The plain fact is, most of the representatives probably agree with the concept that marriage should only be between one man and one woman at a time. For most Republicans, there's no particular difficulty in voting for it; for Democrats, voting for it could lead to even more alienation of the liberal bloc within the party -- and they have a graphic example of where that gets 'em, don't they? On the one hand, as many have noted, the extreme wings of both parties literally have nowhere to go -- you either hang with the moderate majority, or watch them hang you out to dry without having any say whatsoever in the matter. On the other hand, if they're going to hang you out to dry anyway, why bother?
Assuming that this, and other like processes, continue forward, the question for the liberal Democrats is eventually going to be: what the hell are we doing here, anyway? Or rather, it may devolve to: who do we dislike more, Dubya, or our own party?
Posted by iain at June 29, 2003 11:10 PMComments
