Personally, I don't much care if gays can get married or not. I don't think that government should be involved in "licensing" marriage. It's a private contract.

But, having said that, the problem I see with the Supreme Court of WA approving gay marriage is that, once it is allowed in WA, loads of gays will move here. Included as a sub-group are lesbians, who are nothing if they are not, on average, full of hate.

So, while the immediate result may be rejected by the voters, give it a couple of years of homosexual couples moving here, and the END RESULT may be that the state goes ever further into "progressive" la la land.

Greetings to my favorite conservative blogger. Even though I'm a "liberal" myself, I still enjoy reading your blog immensely. I find most of your posts lucid and well reasoned.

On to my comment...

I haven't followed Newsom's fortunes much since early last year, but I expect that he remains popular in the eyes of most who live in San Francisco. Although I'm not sure what his political aspirations are, he probably IS in a poorer position to seek an office with a broader and more diverse constituency beyond the confines of the bay area.

This brings me to the question(s) I have:

I'm not sure what you mean when you describe Newsom as "pandering" on the gay marriage issue. Since polls have shown that a majority in the bay area are in favor of gay marriage (58%), wasn't he simply giving the people who elected him what they wanted? Certainly, you can take issue with the way he went about trying to accomplish it (deciding on his own that state law was unconstitutional without establishing this through legitimate channels), but your use of the word "pandering" hints that this is not what you were singling out in your post.

The other area where I wanted to plum your thoughts was this:

You seem to fault Newsom for pursuing the gay marriage issue (despite, as I've said, the support of SF citizens), but then when you mention that the WA State Supreme Court is likely to rule in favor of gay marriage you said they would do this "despite polls showing the public is opposed in Washington."

Arguably it is the job of a mayor to listen to his constituents. At the same time, since the job of judges is to interpret the law, they are not in the business of pleasing their constituents. To me, it seems misplaced to ask judges to take public polls into account when interpreting the law. I suspect that you and I feel differently about this, but that’s why I bring this up. I’ve never understood the outrage some people have when they dislike a judge’s decision and then point to polls as the reason it was a bad decision. What are your thoughts on this? Honestly, I am not trying to stir up trouble on your blog. Like I said, I really enjoy your blog and I’m sure you have thoughts on this topic.

On an entirely different topic… I have noticed in several of your posts you mention the childlessness of Seattle. I have found your passing mentions of this very intriguing. If you are at all inclined, I’d like to encourage you devote a post someday to this topic. I’d be very interested to read it.

Andy, nice to hear from you, and I appreciate your comments about my blog. To answer your questions, or at least try:

When I say Newsom is pandering on the issue of gay marriage, I guess I'd say that his SF constituents liking his stand doesn't make it NOT pandering. I understand you see it more as representing the position of the majority of his electorate. But I would stand by my use of the term. The gay marriage licenses he issued have been invalidated, there is little hope for winning legal status for gay marriage in California, and here he is, on the anniversary of his "historic" decision to contravene existing state law, still flogging the issue to little effect, other than adherence to the gospel of Leftist, identity politics. In my book, that's a gallumphing good pander.

As for the point on the judges, I agree they cannnot be bound by opinion polls, and that it's a poor rebuttal to a ruling one disfavors to cite an opposing poll. I mention (and link to) the Wirthlin poll on attitudes in Washington state toward gay marriage because I believe the results reflect a larger set of issues which the justices will have to consider carefully, most notably that the state legislature has already defined marriage here as between a man and a woman. That the DOMA bill passed into law in this oft-described-as-liberal state says something about public sentiment on the issue, and while I agree judges must not make their decisions on polls, or referendums or the like, at the same time they cannot either be utterly impervious to societal values and the resonance of something as important as the traditional definition of marriage to a great many people in this state. Things which, as it happens, are reflected in the poll I cited.

I appreciate your suggestion about doing a more in-depth post on childlessness in Seattle. I'd like to drill down deeper on that before too long.

Your blog of world travels, by the way, looked fascinating. Is it still being updated? Or is there another place you're blogging?And where are you based now? Also Seattle?

Matt, I think your reasoning is flawed. As you admit, citing an opinion poll when talking about what the courts should do is weak. At the same time, so is citing the fact that the legislature made a decision 10 years ago with respect to what rights should be open to a minority. Courts are not meant to be an arm of public opinion, they are here to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens, irrespective of the prevailing public opinion (be it through polls or as represented by elected officials).

The larger question is whether or not the religious beliefs of the majority should be used to bar a minority from having access to the civil rights and responsibilities associated with marriage. Also key to your understanding is questioning your belief of whether or not you think sexual orientation is an inherent characteristic, or a choice. Belief in the former makes it hard to justify differential treatment in the civil realm - it is nothing short of discrimination. Belief in the latter though should also lead to the question of why the majority should be able to impose its view on the minority, when the minority's exercising of its liberty in no way infringes upon the rights of the majority (save for offending its sensibilities).

While I don't agree with all of the tactics of the LGBT community, and do think that a better effort should be made to reach out to moderates, I also don't think that gayhs and lesbians should sit patiently at the back of the bus, hoping that public opinion polls will change, and that the majority will become less offended that gays and lesbians want some degree of equality in access to civil rights.

Matt, it might very well be accurate to describe Newsom as pandering. I definitely see where you are coming from. I guess there are two interpretations, it could be seen as pandering or it could be that this is an issue that Newsom truly believes he is right about and he is out there promoting it based on his belief of its "rightness". But perhaps these two interpretations are not mutually exclusive.

On the topic of judges and public opinion, I agree that interpreting the law is not a purely mechanical process. At some level it becomes a value judgment and that is where societal values informs the decision. Interestingly, what is the distinction between "societal values" and "public opinion"? One sounds more admissible in making decisions about the law, but how do they really differ? Perhaps societal values are more stable than public opinion? Perhaps societal values are those opinions for which there is a solid consensus in the population (to the point where there is little debate)?

Applying this to gay marriage, I have to think that societal values with respect to marriage are neither stable nor out of the debatable realm. The poll you link to places support for gay marriage in Washington somewhere between 39% and 41%. While not a majority, I'd have to say that that does NOT indicate there is a consensus FOR traditional marriage. Hence, the debate I guess. But is enough broad difference of opinion on the topic that societal values probably can’t be invoked as a defense.

My blog is sorely out of date. It was mainly created to keep in touch with family and friends while we were traveling. We thought about keeping it going once we got back, but to be honest our lives were much more interesting and blog-worthy when were globetrotting. Now that we’ve moved back and have jobs our day-to-day lives are much duller. There has been talk lately of reviving the blog. Most of the entries on it are by my Wife. I’m mostly the tech support/web design guy.

We are permanently based in Seattle now. In fact, we live on Capital Hill. I read you recent post about Capital Hill with much interest… we live near on of the parks you mentioned. Come to think of it, maybe our lives aren’t as dull as I thought.

Ok. Why should it matter who people sleep with and why is it anyone's business? I personally think that the entire nation needs to notice that we all aren't alike and we don't intend to be either. Gay marriage should be entirely legal because if people ARE allowed to get a sex change, why not be able to marry the same sex?

Iguana:

Your post confuses me a little, particularly the part about lesbians. I was unaware that gay women are considered a "sub-group" of the gay population, or any population at all. In fact, your entire statement about lesbians seems off-kilter.

I have a good friend, "Hilary," who is a lesbian, has been since she was very young (I think she knew at 12 or so.) She is the kindest and most loving person I've ever met. The depth of her love for her girlfriend "Janet" (also a close friend of mine) far outshines that of most couples.

On the whole, it saddens me to see how often homosexuals of both genders are stereotyped. And I'm not saying that there aren't flamboyant, nasal, fashion-conscious gay men out there... I'm not saying there's no such thing as a lesbian who wears flannel and hates men. But in my experience, these are not the norm. In fact, quite the opposite.

I know it's too much to ask that people in America stop passing judgement on one another. It would be idealistic to expect tolerance and acceptance from the majority of society.

But sometimes it takes idealism to make a change. Sometimes it takes a kind of radicalism to achieve necessary changes. After all, Martin Luther King, Jr. was considered a radical of his time. So were those who supported women's right to vote. America is in the habit of denying rights to citizens deemed "second-class," "abnormal," or "unnatural" by the majority. It is the duty of those citizens to make their voices heard.

The line between progress and chaos is often very thin. This country has already proven that morality cannot be legislated (Prohibition, anyone?). I think it's safe to say this nullifies at least 50%, if not much more, of the argument against gay marriage -- I can't think of any I've heard that don't have some sort of moral basis. The rights of the majority cannot be allowed to interfere with the rights of the minority.

Anyway -- I've gotten off topic. Iguana, I don't expect to change your mind; if you believe all lesbians are hateful, there's nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. But if, by chance, that was a generalization... well, I hope you may come to understand what a gross overstatement that was. Lesbians are not by and large filled with hate... although, given what they're up against, I can hardly wonder why some are.

Send to this to her...ASAP

It's good to see that most Washingtonians remain opposed to gay marriage. You know that gay marriage advocates are in trouble they can't get majority support for it even in the blue states. Opposition to same-sex marriage is pretty much off the dial in conservative parts of the country like the South and Central Plains and parts of the Midwest.

It's good to see that most Washingtonians remain opposed to gay marriage. You know that gay marriage advocates are in trouble they can't get majority support for it even in the blue states. Opposition to same-sex marriage is pretty much off the dial in conservative parts of the country like the South and Central Plains and parts of the Midwest.