CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINT: Matt Taylor replies to Mark Barton

On the MA civil union proposal, Mark Barton writes: "a near-majority of [anti-gay] legislators ... have voted for it--as a second choice. ... So the remaining issues are, did any significant number of the moderates have a genuinely neutral intent...?"

Matt T: In Mark's opinion, civil union is intended as a slap at gays, and he may be right, but this is a hunch, not a demonstrable fact. There exist good faith arguments for civil union that don't rely on anti-gay bias, therefore animus is not the only reasonable explanation for the proposal.

Mark B: "...the court found, I think correctly, that civil marriage didn't reflect any of the things that the state claimed were distinctive and important about traditional marriage..."

Matt T: Maybe the state made a poor argument in favor of the civil union proposal, but cases shouldn't be decided on the skill of each sides' lawyers. There are legitimate reasons to prefer civil union over SSM, whether or not the state made reference to those reasons.

Mark B: "...some people in the South got some really severe cognitive dissonance following Loving v. Virginia. Why should I even care? ... why should I be magnanimous? ... why should the [SJC] presume to be magnanimous on my behalf?"

Matt T: It's understandable that we would resent the majority straight culture which for so long has marginalized and oppressed gays. Yet dwelling on that resentment may be a barrier to greater acceptance. No straight person alive today invented anti-gay bias; they inherited it from prior generations, and for them to change their attitude requires effort on their part for which they see little reward. Anything gays can do to make straights' attitude change easier is ultimately in our own interest.
posted by Eve at 7:51 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home