Gay Marriage, the new abortion?

[Joe]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jul25.html

In the battle over gay marriage, both sides contend that time is on their side. But both are raising -- and spending -- money like there is no tomorrow.

The forces arrayed for and against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage are rapidly becoming institutionalized at both the federal and state levels, according to evangelical Christian groups and gay rights organizations.

A little more than a year ago, each side had a handful of little-known activists. Now mighty coalitions pour millions of dollars into advertising and lobbying. Activists on both sides have begun to speak of the issue as "the new abortion" -- a passionate and uncompromising struggle that will be fought in Congress, the courts and state legislatures, and through referendums for at least a decade to come.

The two sides are also increasingly identified with the Republican and Democratic parties. What began as at least nominally bipartisan alliances are now more polarized groups closely aligned with the campaigns of President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and their networks of consultants and donors.

"For anybody who thought the culture wars were over, this will reignite them and ensure that they will be here for years and years to come. In that sense, it's very much like the abortion issue," said Michael Cromartie, director of the Evangelical Studies Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington think tank. "New careers on both sides will grow out of this, the polarization will continue and grow, and the room for compromise will diminish."

The transformation of the same-sex marriage debate into a lasting confrontation between two well-oiled political machines has taken place much faster than it did in the case of abortion, some activists said.

The Rev. Richard Land, president of the public policy arm of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, said it took six years after Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 decision legalizing abortion, for Roman Catholics, evangelical Protestants and other abortion opponents to join together as the Moral Majority.

By contrast, nine months have passed since Massachusetts's Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay couples have a right to marry in that state.

The battle lines over same-sex marriage have formed at lightning speed, Land said, because "the wiring was already up and ready to go. The institutional connections, the personal relationships -- it was all built over the last 30 years by the pro-life movement."

Both sides flexed their organizational muscles in mid-July as the Senate debated a constitutional amendment and defeated it, at least temporarily, on a procedural vote.

Supporters of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment flooded the Senate with phone calls, jamming its voice-mail system for three days. Many senators who opposed the amendment were attacked in half-page advertisements placed in their hometown newspapers by two evangelical Christian groups, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

Opponents of the amendment pounced on a July 11 CNN interview in which Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, said, "When it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states." Within a day, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group, produced a TV commercial trumpeting Cheney's remarks and plunked down $200,000 to air it in the Washington area and five key senatorial districts.

Steven Fisher, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, said it has 13 full-time lobbyists working on the same-sex marriage issue. It also has generated 1.5 million e-mails, faxes and phone calls to Capitol Hill this year, he said, and has spent since March about $1 million on advertising and another $1 million on lobbying against the proposed constitutional amendment.

Yet Fisher estimated that groups opposing the amendment are financially outgunned by its proponents by a 5 to 1 ratio. According to the Human Rights Campaign's calculations, the nation's major gay rights groups had a combined budget of $51.4 million in 2003, while Christian groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America reported spending $247 million.

Gary L. Bauer, president of the conservative advocacy group American Values, said: "Our perception would be the exact opposite -- the gay rights groups are able to access a lot of Hollywood money and large donors, and they are able to spend many times more money than what the pro-traditional-marriage side is able to spend."

Bauer agreed, however, that both sides have formidable resources. The Arlington Group, a coalition of evangelical organizations, spent $2 million on newspaper ads in February and March to thank President Bush for his endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Conservative groups are raising millions more to push for state constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage and to try to unseat senators who voted against the federal amendment.

For example, Bauer said his political action committee has budgeted $2 million for this year's elections. How senators voted on the proposed amendment "will be a major factor for us in deciding where to put our resources," he said.

Just 18 months ago, the main protagonists in the debate were two small organizations, each run by an energetic lawyer on a shoestring budget. Freedom to Marry, headed by Evan Wolfson, was leading the charge for same-sex couples. The Alliance for Marriage, a bipartisan group of civil rights and religious leaders headed by Matt Daniels, was pushing for a constitutional amendment.

Then came the Massachusetts court's decision in November and the granting of same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco in February, which brought many more organizations into the fray. MoveOn.org, the liberal Internet-based group that is working to defeat Bush, spent $147,000 on TV advertising against the federal amendment the week of the vote and has raised $557,000 to support congressional candidates who oppose the amendment.

Another newcomer, the Campaign to Protect the Constitution, is organizing grass-roots efforts against constitutional amendments in key states. With seed money from the Human Rights Campaign, it is shepherded by the Dewey Square Group, a political consulting firm that advises many Democratic candidates and is heavily involved in the Kerry campaign.

On the other side, the Arlington Group, which began a year ago as an informal meeting of about 20 evangelical Christian leaders, has grown to 53 member organizations, with three full-time staff members working out of the Family Research Council's Washington office. Opposition to same-sex marriage "has unified and created a coalition of organizations that is unprecedented," said council President Tony Perkins.

Until the Senate vote, evangelical leaders were bemoaning their supporters' passivity over the Massachusetts court decision. But several said they believed the vote energized grass-roots conservatives.

"We lost the vote, but I'm ecstatic," Land said. "The time lag, the pause between the emergence of this issue and its resonance with our voters is over."

Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said she believes the public is split on the issue, with one-third in favor of legal recognition for same-sex couples, one-third against it and one-third undecided. She and other gay rights leaders have argued that in time, Americans will get used to the idea of same-sex marriages and conclude that they strengthen, not weaken, the institution of marriage.

But Bauer said evangelicals are convinced that the public gradually will decide that courts are changing the definition of marriage and that only a constitutional amendment can protect it. "People will see this as the new abortion in the sense that, once again, unelected judges are remaking America," he said.

About a dozen states are likely to hold referendums on state constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage in primary or general elections this year.

In every state in which a referendum is held, "strong grass-roots organizations will be left behind," Perkins said. "This issue is definitely not going away."

[Darth Wong]

I love the way these fuckers rant about "unelected judges". They didn't vote for the Constitution either; I guess it doesn't fucking count!

In any case, younger people are generally more in favour of gay marriage than older people, so I suppose the best way to support gay marriage would be to cut Medicaid for the elderly

[Joe]

You mean Medicare. Medicaid is for the very poor, Medicare is for old folks.

Personally, I think the analogy is perfect; on both issues, the entire argument of one side rests on religion and nothing else.

[Edi]

I love the way these fuckers rant about "unelected judges". They didn't vote for the Constitution either; I guess it doesn't fucking count!

These are theocrats, remember? Of course they would like to have judges elected, then the lowest common denominator would decide and the whole purpose of the justice system would be defeated so they could sjhove their agenda down everybody's throats.

Over here, the mere idea of actually electing the judicial arm of the state (any part of it, like prosecutros and so forth) is an abomination on all sides of the political spectrum.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

When you think about it, the term "activist judges" is really a brilliant way of taking their true position, which is "I despise the Constitution of the United States of America and I reject its authority", and rhetorically re-packaging it in order to attack the judges who apply that Constitution rather than openly attacking the Constitution itself.

[Stormbringer]

Actually, the term activist judge is actually just a term both sides abuse for their own purposes. It's actually a proper term for a judge that looks to the intent of a law rather than simply a narrow, rote reading of the law (a constructionist).

Of course it's more fun to wave around terms like a boner at a hooker convetion and with as much care.

[Edi]

Actually, the term activist judge is actually just a term both sides abuse for their own purposes. It's actually a proper term for a judge that looks to the intent of a law rather than simply a narrow, rote reading of the law (a constructionist).

What the fuck?

Well, this sheds some very bright light on a thing that has bothered me for some time, but couldn't quite precisely put my finger on in exact terms.

To clarify, constructionism is practically forbidden by law and Supreme Court decisions here. Judges are required to consider the intent of the law and if the lawbook seems ambiguous, they are often required to reference the government briefs that contain the justifications and reasoning behind the statutes (can be hundreds of pages of additional stuff as compared to the actual Act) to find the best outcome. This is more common in the Appellate and Supreme Court than in the District Courts.

The term "activist judge" doesn't exist here because constructionists are universally considered incompetent.

Edi

[Phil Skayhan]

When I started looking into this, I never would have expected Hawaii to be a state to have a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. But in 1998 they did.

The text of the Hawaii marriage amendment reads: The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Can this be chalked up to radical right fundamentalist christians? The amendment passed 70% to 29% yet the percentage of christians as part of the Hawaiian population is only 30%. In 1998 the number of registered voters was 601,404 and of that only 398,124 turned out to vote. But even so, Hawaii is generally considered one of the more liberal states. It is one of only 13 states that that protect sexual orientation as a class affected by workplace anti-discrimination laws.

So, how the hell did this amendment pass? I don't think we can attribute this to the fundamentalists as much as we can in Missouri simply because, unless christians were the only ones who showed up to vote, they just don't have the numbers. I've found editorial calling this amendment a victory agains "judicial activism" but that's not hard evidence of why this had legs. If anyone can find a breakdown of who voted for this I'd appreciate it as I haven't been able to as yet.

The other point to consider is that if an amendment such as this can pass in Hawaii, it can pass in any of the states and not just in the Bible Belt.

[Howedar]

Are you sure that didn't just piggyback on something else?

[Phil Skayhan]

It was on the ballot for the voters to decide.

I did find more info on the money used to campaign for/against the amendment

Spending reports, filed in October, showed supporters of the amendment had raised nearly $1.3 million, and the opposition had raised $1.15 million. Much of the pro-gay marriage money came from the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian civil rights group, while the traditional marriage money came from conservative Christian and other religious groups.

So perhaps it can be laid at conservative Christians' feet after all.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Actually, the term activist judge is actually just a term both sides abuse for their own purposes. It's actually a proper term for a judge that looks to the intent of a law rather than simply a narrow, rote reading of the law (a constructionist).

But it's used clearly as a derogatory term.

[Gil Hamilton]

I love the way these fuckers rant about "unelected judges". They didn't vote for the Constitution either; I guess it doesn't fucking count!

If I remember my Civics class right, the fact that the Justices on the Supreme Court aren't elected but appointed was part of the "checks and balances" system. One of the Executive "checks" on the Judiciary is that they have to be appointed by the President, with the check on that being that congress can impeach them or block their appointment if they don't approve it. They bitch about "unelected judges", but that just shows that it's been a while since they've taken Civics and it's part of the Constitution.

[Bob McDob]

When I started looking into this, I never would have expected Hawaii to be a state to have a state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. But in 1998 they did.

The text of the Hawaii marriage amendment reads: The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Can this be chalked up to radical right fundamentalist christians? The amendment passed 70% to 29% yet the percentage of christians as part of the Hawaiian population is only 30%. In 1998 the number of registered voters was 601,404 and of that only 398,124 turned out to vote. But even so, Hawaii is generally considered one of the more liberal states. It is one of only 13 states that that protect sexual orientation as a class affected by workplace anti-discrimination laws.

So, how the hell did this amendment pass?

Because the pro-gay marriage campaign sucked.

I remember when this first came out. I remember how the pro-amendment campaign (known as the "Yes" campaign) wrapped themselves in a cloak of nobility, calling for the "preservation of traditional marriage" (hell, their slogan was "Yes - Save Traditional Marriage") and how their professional-looking ads filled the radio and television networks. ("How would you like your children to be taught that it's okay to have two mommies and no daddy?") And I remember how, in contrast, the anti-amendment campaign ("No") was meek, unresponsive, lacking any sort of charisma, so that while I can remember the details of the "Yes" campaign, I can't in fact recall even a single of the "No" ads.

I remember watching the results on election day, not particularly caring who won the governorship but waiting to see what the results of the referendum were. I remember being shocked to find that only 30% voted against the amendment.

And I remember how one of the "Yes" campaign's leaders was subsequently elected, amid some controversy, to the Board of Education, and how another is now Lieutenant Governor of the state.

[Stormbringer]

Actually, the term activist judge is actually just a term both sides abuse for their own purposes. It's actually a proper term for a judge that looks to the intent of a law rather than simply a narrow, rote reading of the law (a constructionist).

What the fuck?

My definition is a probably a bit flawed but I'm trying to convey the basic differences rather than listening to the screeching of both sides in order to abuse the term.

Well, this sheds some very bright light on a thing that has bothered me for some time, but couldn't quite precisely put my finger on in exact terms.

To clarify, constructionism is practically forbidden by law and Supreme Court decisions here. Judges are required to consider the intent of the law and if the lawbook seems ambiguous, they are often required to reference the government briefs that contain the justifications and reasoning behind the statutes (can be hundreds of pages of additional stuff as compared to the actual Act) to find the best outcome. This is more common in the Appellate and Supreme Court than in the District Courts.

Actually, the idea that a constructionist judge wouldn't consider the expressed intent of the lawmakers applies only to a strict constructionists, of which there almost none. However a constructionist generally only looks at the expressed intent of the lawmakers and what the law actually says and rule based soley on that. An activist judge however feels free to consider a lot more in that, including the modern interpertations of the intent, how it should apply today, the "spirit" of the law, etc; in general not confining themselves solely to the judicial aspects of it.

Which makes it easy to sling it around like an insult, even when it's not true. It's rather like the term neo-con and liberal elite; a convinient easy to abuse term.

The term "activist judge" doesn't exist here because constructionists are universally considered incompetent.

Have fun then.

[Edi]

Thanks for the clarification, Stormbringer.

I see what you mean now, I interpreted "constructionist" as "strict constructionist" instead of the more rerasonable definition you used. Yeah, we have those normal constructionists here, as well as the more far reaching types.

Good thing that the laws here tend to be written relatively straightforward and unambiguously. If you remove all the § signs and artificial breaks created by the sub-statutes, most laws read just like normal text and are fairly easy to understand (the gist of them anyway). In contrast, American legalese is absolutely horrifying and completely illegible most of the time, filled with ambiguity and doublespeak, so your judges have a much harder job to begin with.

Edi

[Stormbringer]

Thanks for the clarification, Stormbringer.

I see what you mean now, I interpreted "constructionist" as "strict constructionist" instead of the more rerasonable definition you used. Yeah, we have those normal constructionists here, as well as the more far reaching types.

Glad I could help enlighten at least one person around here.

Good thing that the laws here tend to be written relatively straightforward and unambiguously. If you remove all the § signs and artificial breaks created by the sub-statutes, most laws read just like normal text and are fairly easy to understand (the gist of them anyway). In contrast, American legalese is absolutely horrifying and completely illegible most of the time, filled with ambiguity and doublespeak, so your judges have a much harder job to begin with.

Edi

Yes, legalese is one of the curse we inherited from the English system. Of course part of that is just lawyers working to keep themselves employed too.