By William Saletan
From Slate Magazine, June 28, 2011
Most Americans now support gay marriage. But they can't legalize it, thanks to the voters of 2004.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and others march in a gay pride parade
Two days ago William Saletan, of Slate Magazine quoted New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo marched in the New York City gay pride parade. "You're going to see this message resonate all across the country now," he predicted. "If New York can do it, it's O.K. for every other place to do it."
He went on to say in his article:
“…but most states can't do what New York did. Their legislatures can't legalize gay marriage, because their voters have passed ballot measures that prohibit it under their state constitutions. The ballot measures were enacted years ago, when gay marriage was unpopular.”
Now, this is interesting considering that these ballot measures were only enacted 10 years ago, the latest but three years ago in 2008. To listen to the writer, one might think that they were enacted back in the fifties or the sixties, a sense he’s deliberately cultivating.
Now many of the old voters who opposed same-sex marriage are being replaced by young voters who support it. But the old electorate, through its constitutional amendments, has handcuffed the new electorate. The living are being ruled by the dead. One has to admit he has style! We are only a few paragraphs into these piece and already he’s into the character assassination. The “old electorate” vs. the “new electorate”? One electorate handcuffing another? All very bold terminology and imagery, but none of it either appropriate or necessary.
He continues his commentary:
“Twenty years ago, gay marriage was a fringe idea. Ten years ago, it was gaining support, but opponents still outnumbered supporters. In a 2003 Pew survey, taken shortly before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay couples were entitled to marry, the national margin of opposition was 53 to 38 percent. In a 2004 Gallup survey conducted shortly after the Massachusetts ruling, it was 55 to 42 percent. In a Washington Post/ABC News survey, it was 55 to 39 percent.”
Make no mistake about it, gay marriage is still the fringe idea. All polls, all of them, when the questions are asked fairly and objectively still demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of people in the United States still view marriage as one man and one woman. It is only when the questions are skewed and twisted that the results come out differently.
Mr. Saletan goes on:
“Conservatives hustled to put anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments on state ballots. One reason for their haste was the Massachusetts ruling, which set off alarms that judges might impose gay marriage in other states. Another reason was that Republicans needed a scary issue to mobilize the religious right in the 2004 elections. But the third reason was that the polls, from a conservative standpoint, were moving in the wrong direction. Conservatives often fret that traditional moral assumptions are unraveling. In the case of gay marriage, they're right.”
It is not only “conservatives” that “fret” that traditional moral assumptions are unraveling. And while we’re here for a moment what a condescending way of putting that statement. Political conservatives “fret” over their issues while liberals are very concerned over theirs? The condescending can one be! But then, that’s fairly typical isn’t it - after all, they’re better than we are!?
He says that conservatives hustled to get these matters on State ballots because they were concerned, at least for one reason - because of the courts. And well it might be! At least in the northeast the courts have a well earned reputation for not acting only Law enforcers and interpreters but also as Law makers - something they ought not be doing. Having seen this all too many times, the people of Massachusetts sought to prevent it.
He also has the nerve to mention the use of “Scary Issues” as a tactic in trying to get the public to vote. Of all the nervy and offensive ploys! If anyone is good at trying to scare people into voting their way it is certainly liberals!
He says thirdly, and implies that this was the chief reason, that ultimately it was because the polls were moving in the wrong direction. This is a sneaky little thing because it also implies dishonesty. It implies that they knew that those who moved the law into place knew that very soon the majority of people would be against the position the law was taking. Horse Hockey!
Now, sadly, this is not a matter that is unique to the conservatives, this is common to all politicians I suspect, but every one suspects everyone else of having “more than 1iron in the fire”. I do not believe that there are many truly honest politicians in office. It is my conviction that the nature of political office forces one to make so many compromises and so many “deals” in order to survive and prosper that by the time one arrives at high office there is no longer any such thing as an honest man. Now, surely, there are exceptions, but those exceptions are few and far between, and I am convinced that they do not survive very long at the national and state levels.
My point here is that I do not believe that this is the case in this instance. I do not believe that those who wrote these laws did so with anything in mind other than the protection of traditional marriage. Now, because the other side is cynical, this is inconceivable to them. They cannot understand having only one “iron in the fire”. In their minds, there had to be some ulterior motive. “There has to be something in it for me ”.
The writer goes on:
So they took the issue to the polls. By 2002, voters in three states had approved constitutional amendments against gay marriage. In 2004, another 13 states joined the list. Two more followed in 2005, eight more in 2006, and three more in 2008. That's 29 states.
He then goes on to cite a slew of statistics and studies concerning the trends of the popularity of gay marriage in a number of states (that not surprisingly, support his premise - New York of course, Oregon, Virginia, California (no surprise there), and Nevada). He traces the change in public opinion over time, via polls in those states. He also, as noted above speaks of the great number of states that enacted constitutional measures, in his words, “against gay marriage” (all of them termed it otherwise - all of them in one way or another termed as being on protection of traditional marriage, and for good reason). 29 states with constitutional amendments in place by 2008, just 3 years ago, though to hear the author tell it, it was decades ago and the one who voted these measure in are all dead and gone and these constitutional measures are a “prison inflicted by the old on the young” Considering that the first of these amendments was put into place barely 10 years ago, I can hardly consider the voters for that measure ancient.
But I do understand that his point is, basically that was then and this is now. I just heartily and wholly disagree with its’ spirit.
He finishes his article with:
“The question now is whether the new majority will get its way. To undo the constitutional amendments of the past decade, supporters of gay marriage will have to pass ballot measures in those states. In Nevada, they'll have to do it twice. Passing ballot measures is hard. People tend to vote against them out of suspicion and fear, particularly when you're messing with the constitution.
From a conservative standpoint, that's how the system should work. The point of amending state constitutions while the polls were still against gay marriage was to protect the culture of the traditional family from the onslaught of normalized homosexuality.”
Even the language of his statement, and he is trying to be, at least to some degree, kind, thought it increasingly clear exactly what his point of view is. He pictures the poor older people, crouched in their homes, creeping out to pull the lever and vote and then rush back and die after they had voted and inflicted their heinous will on and ignorant on the younger, vibrant and alive generation that followed them, locking that generation in prison chains not of their own making. Chains that bind and chafe and that would make them miserable long after they (the older generation) ware gone.
The implication of the writer is not merely that the older generation lacked wisdom, but that they were both ignorant and even malicious. He, and I am afraid, his ilk treat all of those who dare to disagree do so because they are either lacking information or are malicious. In their view, it is not possible that they (the person in view - the writer for instance) might be actually wrong!
He finishes off his article with this statement:
“But if the culture of the traditional family as enshrined in these constitutions is wrong—if marriage is moral and healthy regardless of sexual orientation—then the walls erected by those ballot measures are a prison inflicted by the old on the young. And that legacy, unlike marriage, is a bond that death alone can't break.”
The “if” there is one of those writer tricks used to let the reader know that there really is no “if”. In his wisdom (everyone at Slate is wise, wiser than us mere mortals, as especial wiser than those backwards conservative folks that want to imprison the young) the writer clearly does believe that marriage is moral and healthy regardless of sexual orientation - but how has he arrived at that conclusion? On what basis does he draw such a momentous and obviously controversial conviction? If it is on the basis of popular opinion then he needs to rethink it because popular opinion is still decidedly against it, even in his own polls, depending, as he, himself said, on the way you ask the questions.
Or does he simply make that conclusion based on his own feelings and intuition? Has he been confirmed in that by the opinion of those “religious leaders” that have done the same thing; trusted their own minds and hearts, rather than looking to the Word of God and His revelation for guidance and instruction?
It is my conviction that, perhaps, even surely, that he has done so as the fruit of the matter of the depravity of man. So many look at this as a deliberate and malicious... I am not convinced that it is so, except in the sense that man is rebellious and is seeking to overthrow God. So many people see all of these things as plots and conspiracies, men against men.
That is the way that many see the “Gay” movement; a plot by a man to destroy society. But that surely is not what it is. It is, rather, something far more serious. It is an expression of man’s rebellion against God. Thus, it does not matter what popular opinion says!
For the Bible believer, popular opinion falls sadly, dramatically short for all issues. As Biblical Christians, it is not so much that we do not care what people think (I’ve been accused of that), so much as we care far more what God thinks. Regardless of what the unredeemed believe concerning the origin of the Scriptures and the nature of the Bible, it is His Word and it is His revelation to us. As such bears authority which cannot be ignored.
That has implications that touch on all areas of life and all areas of our interaction with other people. Sooner or later, if we love our God and we love his Word, we have to choose between the two. That’s what Jesus said! “You cannot serve two masters” was his message to the Jews when He walked on earth. “Choose you this day…” was the prelude to that statement.
Just as that they came for the Jews when Jesus our eye on the scene in ancient Palestine, so, I fear, that day has arrived for us in modern America.
No comments:
Post a Comment