The latest Field poll indicates that the constitutional amendment forbidding it will not pass. (HT: Volokh.)
It's up to the voters, as it should be. The major danger if the anti-gay-marriage amendment fail is not the outcome in se, but that electoral validation of the court decision would embolden the courts to even more expansive social "leadership".
Since society has an interest in stable relationships, I'm for civil unions but, out of some vague Burkean impulse, I favor retention of the traditional usage of 'marriage'. However, I suspect that 'leaders' on both sides are trying to polarize their supporters and keep the donations coming in; IMO the last thing they want is compromise and civil disagreement[1].
Even better, per a site whose link I didn't save, is to get the state out of marriage and treat the institution as a contractual matter.
Afterthought. Maybe a good source of insight about marriage is people who have succeeded at it. I wonder if marital status correlates with opinions about same-sex marriage. In particular, is there a relationship between quality of voters' marriage experience and their views? (The duration of a marriage is an obvious, but neither the sole nor an infallible, indicator of quality.)
[1] If the amendment fails, La Raza will find Anglo 'immorality' a convenient issue when they start making their moves.
No comments:
Post a Comment