DISQUS

terenceweldon · 2 months ago

Bill, I was frankly confused by this article when I read it. I remember reading the judges comments when he first made them, and was absolutely delighted: at a stroke, the main basis of the H8 argument was unravelled , so I wrote at the time "think again, team 8".

But while this article makes the same point, it also seems to be saying that the key point is one of timing - and he doesn't think the timing for this is yet right.

You're right, of course, that the so-called "arguments" are based only on prejudice under the mask of religion. They will indeed fall away after the law has changed - but the NYT seems to think that the law will not be changed by the Supreme Court until after the prejudice has dissolved.

This is why victories in the state legislatures and (where necessary) in state ballots such as Maine and Washington are so crucial. Prejudice will have to be broken down one state, and one country, at a time - until there is enough momentum too make it unstoppable.

Then suddenly, opponents of gay equality will be as hard to find as former apartheid supporters now are in South Africa.

WDL · 2 months ago

Terry, you're right. This article did also raise questions about the timing of initiatives to overturn bans on gay marriage. You probably know that there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether it's feasible or advisable to mount a poll challenge to prop 8 in 2010, or whether 2012 is better. And in some parts of the gay community, there have been questions about the motives of Olson and Boies, given Olson's former high-profile Republican activities.

I've come to think that Olson-Boies are on the up and up, and that they deserve support. Re: timing, I understand the need to be politically savvy. But I also remember that the challenges to miscegenation laws came at a time when those laws would have been hotly defended by a majority of voters.

It seems to me it's important to step out courageously against injustice even when popular opinion moves against you, and, at the same time, to work in well thought-out political ways for change.

terenceweldon · 2 months ago

On the question of timing of a ballot attempt to overturn Prop H8, I don't understand the point of delaying until we can be sure of a win. Going in next year may mean a loss - that's a risk we take, and we will be no worse off than we are now: but the campaign itself will provide an opportunity to change some minds. Making the attempt next year will not prevent a further attempt later, and may even make it easier.

On the other hand, we could win - we won't know until we try.

And I say "we" even though technically I am well out of it, but I have a lot invested emotionally, if not legally or financially.

WDL · 2 months ago

Terry, I think perhaps one of the significant questions about timing is whether, in choosing an inopportune time to return this issue to the ballots, those defending the right of marriage for gay citizens would assure another defeat at the polls.

And that would, then, be a very costly defeat, given how the other side argues that these initiatives are imposed by courts (and now legislatures and governors) against the will of the majority. This is what makes the Maine vote so significant.

Of course, the question that the other side doesn't want to engage is why human rights ought to be up for a vote.

DoubtingThomas · 2 months ago

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think couples who don't plan on having children should be allowed to marry either...

WDL · 2 months ago

Are you speaking here of both civil and church marriage, Thomas? And would you then want legal bans preventing folks from marrying at the civil level unless they intend to have children?

And how should the church assure that those who are going to marry really do intend to have children? Wouldn't it be problematic for the church to place itself in a policeman's role as people plan a marriage, with lots of strictures and red tape about promises to procreate as a precondition for marriage?

Seems to me that system would 1) turn the church's role in the marriage process primarily into a policeman's role rather than a pastoral one, and 2) encourage people to make false promises that they will bear children, when they have no intent of doing so.

The church today would be so much better off if it paid more attention to Aquinas's classic definition of conscience, it seems to me.

DoubtingThomas · 1 month ago

I was referring to church marriages. The state can do whatever it wants for all I care.

WDL · 1 month ago

Thomas, thanks for the clarification. I still have questions about the pastoral feasibility of withholding marriage from couples who don't plan on having children.

I know this is the official position of the church. But I also know that in practice, the church often chooses to allow couples to make their own conscientious decisions in these areas.

And that seems pastorally wise to me. Putting priests in bedrooms as sexual policemen has never struck me as a wise approach.