GAYS DEFEND MARRIAGE

During the Prop. 8 campaign, one important point raised by opponents of the initiative including myself is that it is far too easy to amend the California Constitution. (On this blog, I called the threshold “shockingly low.”) Whatever one thinks of same-sex marriage, it shouldn’t be a controversial notion that constitutional amendments require supermajorities and not 50 percent plus one.

So, I would encourage Californians to raise the bar for amending the state’s constitution by popular vote from 50 percent to 60 percent, at least. The problem is, of course, that many of the same people who wanted to raise the threshold during the fall campaign are now planning a new initiative to overturn Prop. 8 and they only want a 50 percent bar to get their repeal passed.

Once again, Northwestern University Professor Andrew Koppelman has distinguished himself among supporters of same-sex marriage for his clarity, timeliness, and provocative thoughts. From his latest piece:

Retribution is appropriate only if there is harm. Imagine you discover that someone has spent all afternoon sticking pins in dolls representing some people he doesn’t like (but has no just complaint against), hoping that this will cause their painful deaths. You’re entitled to decide that he’s a nasty person. But does he deserve punishment? For what, exactly?

If they can be rendered harmless, antigay bigots, even the morally reprehensible ones, will be just like the guy with the pins and the dolls. Nasty, maybe (though I know people on that side of the political divide who, I’m convinced, are honestly doing their best to pursue the right as it is given to them to see the right). But why is it important for the law to beat up on them?

More pertinently, why is beating up on them so important that it’s worth letting same-sex marriage die in New Hampshire altogether rather than give those people any accommodation? 

There are people who are reprehensibly embracing self-aggrandizing fantasies that are hurting real people. But I’m sorry to say that they’re not the Christian conservatives. They are the people on my side, the gay rights side, who are willing to sacrifice the hopes of New Hampshire gays who want to marry, out of pure malice toward their political opponents.

As much as I like Professor Koppelman’s challenge, I actually think he’s missing part of the point. My side isn’t fighting for religious exemptions because it’s so important to us to secure the right to Just Say No to catering lesbian weddings. We’re trying (I should say I’m trying since I never got elected anything) to mark territory during the very birth of gay marriage for the concept that it’s “OK” to believe that same-sex marriages aren’t marriages and to treat them as such - in the culture, in our discourse. That is a relatively big fight, and I can understand why gay activists in New Hampshire and elsewhere would go to the mat to protect the concept that not considering gay marriages to be equal is bigotry and thus unacceptable.

The smaller fight, whether Christian photographers in Nashua have to work at same-sex nuptials, is - as Koppelman indicates - only so much voodoo.

On Tuesday, I was invited to appear on CNN to discuss Miss California USA and the scandal surrounding her comments when asked by Perez Hilton what she thought about gay marriage. I haven’t blogged about this yet, and since my segment got bumped I thought I’d share with the blog some of my thoughts on the situation:

1. Hilton’s question was vastly different than the typical question to a pageant contestant. They are usually pap such as:

What will you do as Miss USA to bring world peace?

How can society make the world a better place for our children?

What is the number one issue you’re concerned about and how will you address it if you win the pageant?

There aren’t questions on abortion, capital punishment, or affirmative action. What Hilton did was change the rules in a way that he knew - no matter what Prejean answered - would garner publicity for the gay marriage cause and, especially, for himself personally. He abused his role as pageant judge.

2. My friend Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse pointed out to me that the notion of a gay man judging women’s beauty jibes with my column on Playgirl and how straight women’s libidos get shaped by gay men’s sensibilities.

3. The question, which Hilton “knew” had only one “right” answer, was, in his mind, along the lines of asking about Brown vs. Board of Education or the passage of the 15th Amendment (ending slavery). I have blogged earlier about my disagreement with the racism comparison. But even if society is moving toward considering opposition to redefining marriage to be the equivalent of racism (and I’m not sure it is), it’s not there yet. Particularly in California, where a half-million residents more favored Proposition 8 than opposed it. Prejean represents the mainstream in California, yet Hilton treated her as if she had some fringe opinion.

4. I saw Rachel Maddow (with whom I was friends in college) on MSNBC make fun of the beauty contestant stumbling over herself in answering the question, using phrases like “opposite marriage” (which I now use on this Web site - I think it’s pithy, not stupid). But I don’t blame her, being a couple of votes away from winning the pageant of her dreams, and being asked an unfair question, for being extremely nervous.

I can’t believe I missed this, but about three weeks ago, Colorado adopted the Salt Lake City plan. Good going, Colorado!

If more states would follow Colorado’s lead, we could solve the gay-marriage issue forthwith with rights for same-sex and other unmarried couples but without undermining the institution of marriage.