Could California's gay marriage mean the end of the Culture War?
We think it began ending after Larry Craig's arrest, but The Nation's Richard Kim thinks the big bang came last week. And, despite what the right wing says, California's Supreme Court merely upheld legislative will, rather than legislating on their own accord:
In 2005 and 2007 the California State Legislature passed bills granting gays and lesbians the right to marry; on both occasions, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills. But by directly expressing their support for gay marriage through the democratic process, the State Legislature undercut the right-wing claim that gay marriage is something "activist judges" foist onto an unwilling public. Indeed, the majority on the state's Supreme Court, comprising three Republicans and one Democrat, weren't "legislating from the bench"; they were reaffirming legislative will. And despite his vetoes, Schwarzenegger has said that he respects the court's opinion and opposes an amendment to the California Constitution, something he calls "a waste of time."
The same-sex shift in California, Kim argues, can only bring good things to the Democrats. That's an understandable argument, but it would be even more true if the Democrats and the Republicans differed on gay marriage, which they don't.
The decision is even better because social conservatives are calling on McCain to take a tougher stand against gay marriage, but he can't, which means this voting bloc may give up on him entirely. And that's what would be good for the Democrats come November.
Editor
Andrew Belonsky Editorial Director
David Hauslaib Publisher
Jossip Initiatives
The Culture War within gay ranks will not end, since marriage is not necessarily the be-all and end all of gay life. The approximation to heterosexual lifestyle is hardly more than an illusion of assimilation.
Within straight society, I'm not sure that many people will ever be be confident that same sex "marriage" is a serious social adjustment.
I think that the atavistic purpose of marriage is to bear children. I think that no matter how much people appear to progress in other ways they want to believe that thet have a "purposeful" existences, and that procreating is one of them. (not my belief, but I think it's there).
The reason which I have gathered from talking to progressive straight people, and I can only take it at face value, is that it is the tradition, having to do with child bearing which people don't want to relinquish. Since gay people don't have that option generally they wouldn't "qualify'.
I can see that couples who are joined for the purpose of procreation or child rearing might deserve special entitlements., what abouyt the one's who aren't and are they any different from a gay couple in reality.
This is a legitimate question; but why would people who are only married have special priviledes under the law that others do not: ie single people getting insurance coverage that they wouldn't otherwise have.