Citizen groups in Ohio, Arkansas and Oregon are collecting signatures for November voter initiatives on state constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. In a number of other states, lawmakers are still debating parallel measures, which would also require voter approval. Lucky for us, The Washington Post is here to explain that it might well be a Bush-ite plot.

Critics, incuding some quoted in this WaPo story on the proposed Ohio measure, suspect a nefarious strategy to draw Bushies to the polls, and help swing the results his way. After all, they point out, many of the states already have laws in place against gay marriage. So who needs a constitutional amendment?

Except, as proponents of the amendments note, state laws can be challenged and overturned in court. David Langson, attorney for a Cincinnati group gathering signatures, tells The Post:

The reason we're pushing for a constitutional amendment is so we can take the issue out of the hands of a judiciary that we believe has gone completely haywire. . . . The reason I do what I do is to protect marriage.

At least this is a wedge issue based on solid predictions of the alternative scenario. Kerry's alarmist stuff on abortion rights carries no smack whatever, and more and more women know it.

And like it or not, plenty of Americans who (ATTENTION, GAY ACTIVISTS) are NOT homophobic bigots happen to oppose gay marriage. They have every right to oppose it as best they see fit, just as proponents do to advance it.

However, the balkanized and frankly desperate approach of gay marriage advocates is backfiring. For the most part, all they can find are little pockets of support, because opposition is relatively widespread outside The Soviet of Massachusetts.

I'm neutral on the subject, personally, and have highlighted a pro-gay marriage argument by the incomparable Banji Realness. However, procedurally, I believe that gay marriage should be decided by the states. I've written here before in favor of a vote on a federal constitutional ban, because it would have to meet stringent requirements to pass - approval by two-thirds of U.S. House and Senate members, and then three-quarters of the country's state legislatures.

A federal amendment might meet the second threshhold; the first is tougher. So, it probably won't happen at all. In which case, there should be little surprise, or outrage, that proposed state-by-state constitutional bans are bubbling up. After all, mere legislation isn't worth the paper it's written on anymore.

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at May 10, 2004 12:17 PM

---

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/286

---