Marriage Neutering Advocates Doubt 2010

It's not looking good for those who want to repeal the California Marriage Amendment in 2010. In an article more suitable to a publication targeting homosexual readership, this piece by Maura Dolan in the Los Angeles Times discusses the squabbling inside of the movement to neuter marriage over the timing of a California ballot measure and a federal lawsuit.

A measure to reinstate marriage rights for gays and lesbians on next year's ballot has stirred anxiety and doubts among some gay rights activists.

So much unpacking to do in just that first sentence...

1) "reinstate marriage rights"? There are no marriage rights in the sense the phrase is being used. It is a matter of trying to remove the bride+groom requirement from state marriage licensing – removing the requirement that both sexes participate.

2) "for gays and lesbians" – no, for same-sex couples, or brideless or groomless couples. Everyone, regardless of orientation, has the same rights either way.

3) "gay rights activists" – more specifically, marriage neutering activists. I'm for "gay rights", if you're talking about privacy, freedom of association, property, protection from assault, etc.

The proposed measure, sponsored by a group called Love Honor Cherish, would overturn Proposition 8, last year's initiative that reinstated a ban on same-sex marriage.

It would repeal the California Marriage Amendment, which restored the will of the voters over the meddling of a court when it came to marriage licensing.

[Much more after the jump.]

"We want our rights back," said John Henning, a lawyer who is executive director of the group. "This is not about farm price supports. This is about whether I can be married or not."

Good news, Mr. Henning! You can be married, the same as anyone else. Find an eligible and willing woman. If you don't want to do that, you don't have to. But don't say you are being prevented from marrying by external forces. Only your own feelings and decisions are preventing you.

Despite their views, Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles-based political strategist, launched the federal lawsuit and hired legal giants Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to take the case. The suit is expected to go to trial next year in federal court in San Francisco.

Griffin questions whether a minority's constitutional rights should be determined by a majority.

First of all, who determines the Constitution? A handful of judges? No, they can interpret and apply. There was a process used to adopt it, and there is a process to amend it – involving popularly elected representatives. There is no right explicit or implicit in the Constitution for a state-issued marriage license. Secondly, everyone would have access to neutered marriage licenses – not just a minority. So this is not a "minority right".

The article then goes on to cite Loving vs. Virginia again, even though that case did not neuter marriage, nor was "interracial" marriage a novel concept antithetical to the core meaning of marriage. It was licensed in most states, and unlike today, denial of marriage licenses to a couple could often deny them the freedom of association.

An analysis based on polling and demographics by 30 groups found a four-point advantage [for marriage neutering advocates] in 2012 over next year, Kors said.

This is based, no doubt, on assumptions that 1) older marriage defender voters will die off at rates faster than supporters of marriage neutering; 2) teenagers supportive of neutering marriage will reach voting age and will register to vote and vote; 3) these things will happen at greater rates than current sideliners or supporters of marriage neutering will become more traditional in their thinking about marriage, as we've seen generations do as they age.

And maybe it will turn out that way. Marriage defenders should be actively persuading others to our viewpoint. We need to demonstrate the importance of marriage and the importance of distinguishing it from other kinds of voluntary associations.

According to this article from the Associated Press...

Rick Jacobs, founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, said Monday that polling and other research his organization commissioned shows that gay marriage supporters do not have the financial backing, leadership or edge in public opinion to try to overturn Proposition 8 in 2010.

The announcement by Jacobs means that a coalition of small gay rights groups that is gathering signatures to qualify a gay marriage measure for the November ballot will be working without support from established organizations.

They're going to keep pushing. It is just a matter of when and where. Expect marriage neutering propaganda, both overt and heavy-handed, and subtle, to increase.