Agreeing with the fundies on marriage equality
While we are on opposite sides of the marriage question, the president of Alliance for Marriage, is spot-on about the fact that no matter what the states do regarding amendments, this is going to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said it is possible that a few other states might join Massachusetts in legalizing gay marriage, and suggested the U.S. eventually will have to choose whether to ban or accept such unions nationwide.
“We could not have a cohesive society with radically different definitions of marriage throughout the states,” he said.
No we can’t. It’s why interracial marriage bans were struck down with the decision in Loving v. Virginia. This situation is what is vexing both sides, as many marriage equality advocates as well as opponents aren’t sure they want a case before the current court. The fundies want another shot at filling a vacancy (86-year-old John Paul Stevens is on their hit list) before a case makes it to the court in order to ensure a win for its side. Similarly, gay activists are torn about timing, after all, if there is another vacancy under Dear Leader, marriage equality is doomed under the Roberts court.
Bauer says all it takes is one liberal judge or liberal court to swing the momentum the other way — and homosexual advocates know that.
He says it is too early to tell if judges across the nation are beginning to exercise judicial restraint on the issue of men marrying men and women marrying women. “[B]ut we should get a better idea when the New Jersey Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of that state’s marriage law,” he says. Bauer believes that if homosexual activists win there — a court which he describes as “notoriously liberal” — things could easily start to come apart.
“New Jersey could start issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples from other states, setting off a flurry of litigation in the federal courts challenging the constitutionality of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act,” he points out. “It only takes one court determined to impose same-sex ‘marriage’ on its citizens to threaten marriage everywhere.”