"TAKING AWAY RIGHTS": Mark Barton replies to David Benkof

David Benkof: 1) SSM isn't a "right," it's a redefinition of an institution in society.

Mark B.: It could easily be both. In Massachussetts SSM was found to be a radical change from tradition and a right by the institution whose job it was to make such findings. The Georgia legislature apparently feared that it might be found to be a right in Georgia or it wouldn't have acted.

David Benkof: 2) Even if there was a such thing as a right to marry a same-sex partner, the Georgia constitutional amendment wouldn't be taking it away from any Georgians because that state has never had SSM.

Mark B.: Even if people had been successfully intimidated from attempting to exercise it by unconstitutional acts of the Georgia legislature that purported to make marriage opposite-sex only, it could still have been a right.

David Benkof: 4) If Smyre indeed supports keeping the present definition of marriage, what does he propose to do if not amend state and federal constitutions?

Mark B.: Very possibly he proposes to do nothing. He's probably for bringing murderers to justice as well, but against amending the constitution to allow police to torture suspects, even though that would undoubtedly lead to more well-deserved convictions. Sometimes one principle trumps another.

David Benkof: The gay community's leadership made a tactical decision in the mid-1990s (and there were dissenters) to sue for marriage through the courts. They knew at the time (I know, because I was there) that they were risking a constitutional amendment if they lost. This is how the game is played, you can't cry "unfair" halfway through.

Mark B.: If this is just a big game of political chess then of course it's not unfair. A supreme court challenge is one perfectly legal gambit--a constitutional amendment is another. But this is about people. Gay and lesbian people can't get government facilitation of their relationships of the sort that's taken for granted by the majority. That's transparently unfair, not only according to common sense but according to high-sounding principles that people have seen fit to write into constitutions and that many courts have upheld. Not all the tradition and all the sincere religious conviction in the world can make it fair.
posted by Eve at 3:10 PM | link

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home