Gay Marriage in Utah
Sen. Scott McCoy writes an article on gay marriage – which is particularly interesting between the lines.
Sen. McCoy first warns of “political rhetoric and demagoguery” (no doubt, which will be spread exclusively by Republicans), while informing us that the California gay-marriage decision won’t mean much for Utah “in the short term.” He notes that his pending marriage to his partner won’t be recognized in Utah “for now.”
So, what do those qualifiers – “in the short term” and “for now” – mean? They mean that Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage, even though there is no doubt that most Utahns want no part of that.
The “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize laws and legal arrangements from other states. So, the plan of gay-marriage advocates is to use the courts to force other states to recognize California same-sex marriages – Utah being no exception.
There is a particularly juicy bit of irony in this, since Sen. McCoy and Democrats can’t stop beating the political drum that Republicans are out of touch with Utah voters, because the Legislature passed vouchers, and the people then said “no.” Well, just a few years ago, 66% of Utahns said “no” to gay marriage. Hmm.
So, while high-minded Democrats share facts and information about vouchers (which is a dead issue), we can only hope that those lowly Republicans don’t spread political rhetoric and demagoguery about same-sex marriage (which is far from a dead issue).
UPDATE (6/19/08): Glen Warchol's blog has a good discussion going on regarding the topic.
Sen. McCoy first warns of “political rhetoric and demagoguery” (no doubt, which will be spread exclusively by Republicans), while informing us that the California gay-marriage decision won’t mean much for Utah “in the short term.” He notes that his pending marriage to his partner won’t be recognized in Utah “for now.”
So, what do those qualifiers – “in the short term” and “for now” – mean? They mean that Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage, even though there is no doubt that most Utahns want no part of that.
The “full faith and credit” clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that states recognize laws and legal arrangements from other states. So, the plan of gay-marriage advocates is to use the courts to force other states to recognize California same-sex marriages – Utah being no exception.
There is a particularly juicy bit of irony in this, since Sen. McCoy and Democrats can’t stop beating the political drum that Republicans are out of touch with Utah voters, because the Legislature passed vouchers, and the people then said “no.” Well, just a few years ago, 66% of Utahns said “no” to gay marriage. Hmm.
So, while high-minded Democrats share facts and information about vouchers (which is a dead issue), we can only hope that those lowly Republicans don’t spread political rhetoric and demagoguery about same-sex marriage (which is far from a dead issue).
UPDATE (6/19/08): Glen Warchol's blog has a good discussion going on regarding the topic.
posted by steve u. at 6/17/2008
Subscribe
17 Comments:
Steve,
It's called "heads I win, tails we flip again". Everyone does this. How many times did hate crimes legislation come up tails before it finally came up heads?
At least voucher supporter like you (and me) are willing to admit that vouchers are dead. We're not asking for a second coin toss.
Any judge or lawyer who attempted to use the "full faith and credit" clause to force a gay marriage from another state into Utah would be out of their mind. After all, the Constitution is very clear: "And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." And DOMA is equally clear. Case closed.
What I hear Scott saying is that over time people will change their view of same-sex marriage. I agree. I used to be opposed to same-sex marriage and over several years my position has changed.
Why did it change? Because I got myself more educated about homosexuality. I also have family members who have come out of the closet and are now living in openly gay relationships that have every aspect of my own marriage relationship except that they don't have the civil benefits that I enjoy.
I look at beliefs that were prevalent in the past and how these racist or sexist beliefs have faded over time (thank goodness). I see the same happening with same-sex marriage. In the future, there will be a time when we will look at amendment 3 for what it is -- a wholesale denial of civil rights to homosexual couples. I look forward to supporting courageous legislators like Scott McCoy (regardless of political party affiliation) and support their efforts to provide equal rights to all.
Derek,
You very well might be right. My hope is that the issue is handled pursuant to democratic process, not by judicial fiat. Judge-made law, like California's decision, is disrespectful to basic principles of rule by the people and, thus, disrespectful to the people.
As I read Rep. Urquhart’s response to my blog post on gay marriage in California it became clear to me that he really hasn’t read it very closely. Rather, he tries to scare Utahns for political gain.
Here is what he asserts: “Scott and Democrats are working to force Utahns to recognize gay marriage.”
What? I nor any elected Democrat in the state of Utah has ever tried to “force” Utahns to accept or recognize gay marriage.
In fact, in my blog, I specifically say that I won’t try, and I caution other gay and lesbian Utahns not to try to “force” gay marriage on Utah through lawsuits. I suggested rather than ram gay marriage down Utahns’ throats, we should understand Utah law and we should lead by example and live honestly. That’s not forcing anything on anyone.
This demonstrates a big difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. Democrats don’t try and force their values on other people. Republicans with a super majority do. Rep. Urquhart raises the classic example: vouchers. He and his colleagues forced vouchers and their values on the Utah public even though Utahns overwhelmingly opposed and ultimately rejected vouchers and the anti-public education values that underlie them.
So who really is forcing things on whom?
Senator, you have a few glaring flaws in logic here.
"Democrats don’t try and force their values on other people."
Except in California, where a law approved by a 60% majority of voters was overturned on the most tenuous of grounds. It's probably best to not open that can of worms any further.
"He and his colleagues forced vouchers and their values on the Utah public even though Utahns overwhelmingly opposed and ultimately rejected vouchers and the anti-public education values that underlie them."
Big difference here. Vouchers were passed by the legislature and THEN rejected by the voters. At the time of the vote in the legislature, polls showed a pretty even split on the issue; attempting to reinterpret the final vote on the issue is disingenuous at best.
In California, however, the opposite happened: a small group overrode the will of the people. Trying to compare the two is apples and oranges.
Jesse,
The Court is California was a majority Republican appointed court. Odd you blame the their decision on the Democrats here in Utah.
I assume you will agree that if the folks in CA defeat the constitutional amendment that the decision will be legitimized.
Interesting on the rationalization on vouchers that it was only rejected after the vote by the legislature. I don't remember any poll showing support for vouchers by the public either before or after the passage by the legislature. Maybe you could give me a cite to one.
Also, important to note that the CA legislature actually passed marriage equality twice. The governor did veto it. Now however, every branch of government in CA has endorsed the Court's decision and oppose the amendment.
Scott,
On a personal level, I wish you and Mark the best. This must be a very exciting time for you.
But, c'mon. You're not arguing that Utahns shouldn't have this forced on them through the courts. You're just laying out the best strategic way to do exactly that. Not only do you want to avoid the will of the people. You want to avoid the courts of most of the states, in order to forum shop and find those that will be the most active in thwarting the will of their citizens.
You write, "Utah courts are not likely to lead out on marriage equality for Utah. (Nor arguably should they.) Those first legal recognition battles will be fought elsewhere in more favorable venues." Until Utahns eventually are forced to accept same-sex marriage. Right?
Steve,
Thanks for your kind words. Your readers should know that we are friends and I have a great deal of respect for you.
Scott
Sen. McCoy: I didn't say that Utah Democrats have any blame, but the lawsuit in question was filed by the City and County of San Francisco, governments both in Democratic control. Trying to say that that Democrats were not heavily involved in the decision to overrule a popular vote is outright false.
Just like with Massachusetts, California is welcome to do whatever it wants so long as it doesn't act as a sledgehammer to be used against other states AND the general consensus of the public backs said action. (I will say, though, that the people haven't gotten a chance to vote on the issue in Massachusetts thanks to a legislature unwilling to give them that opportunity.) That's federalism in action.
As far as pre-vote polls on vouchers, KSL and the Deseret News did a poll in January of 2007 showing a split of 48-46 in favor of vouchers or tuition tax credits. (Source)
It also appears to be a bit of double-talk to use support by the legislative and executive to legitimize the decision made in California while using the same support in Utah as an example of ignoring the will of the people. You simply can't have it both ways.
Jesse,
You are right. You didn't say that Utah Democrats were to blame. Sorry for that. But it is not fair for you or Rep. Urquhart to generalize and say that because Democrats did something or drove a process in CA or MA, that therefore, they will do the same thing here. I may support marriage equality but that doesn't mean every Democrat does, especially every Democrat in Utah. Thus part of my view that the "Scott and the Democrats" phrase used by Rep. Urquhart in his blog was purposefully chosen and aimed at drawing political lines.
Rep. Urquhart,
Sen. McCoy (my senator) tried to articulate very clearly what the California decision means for Utah, as a whole and for the LGBT population of this state. I consider that the most important point in his commentary is committed couples would continue to live their lives as a family and be who they are for themselves, friends, and family. True policy change happens when folks really see the issue on its own merits, with all politics left aside. The equality of marriage should not be a political decision on what the left or right is winning out if it. What we need to have in mind is that the California decision affects real people and real families in a very positive way by giving them not only security and stability under the law, but other legal and financial benefits which were long overdue. The recognition of marriage equality is a community issue, and with the time folks will see that won't be that bad after all: we might try to have a better community by including everybody in it.
I thank you for providing this dialogue through your blog.
Notice no response from Sen. McCoy to Urquhart's inclusion of Sen. McCoy's language that "Those first legal recognition battles will be fought elsewhere in more favorable venues." Although Sen. McCoy strains to call Rep. Urquhart wrong on the line about "Scott and Democrats..." the point of Rep. Urquhart's post was this sentence, which Sen. McCoy makes no attempt to refute. In essence McCoy's point was, the gay community in Utah should just hold on and not stir the pot because other states will eventually push this through until Utah is forced to acquiesce (likely by federal courts). I think that's the fair reading of Sen. McCoy's post and it's what Rep. Urquhart was trying to call attention to.
This is a specious comparison for a number of reasons.
1) Gay marriage is constitutional right under the state constitutions of Massachusetts and California. We don't take a poll to see whether a constitutional right is popular before we enforce it.
By contrast, I have never seen a case where someone has argued that someone has a constitutional (federal or state) right to vouchers to go to private/parochial schools. While SCOTUS has said it is not unconstitutional to use public money for vouchers in the Cleveland case, it said nothing about there being a right to vouchers.
2) This is not the case of judicial fiat. True, in 2000 the voters in CA created a state law to ban gay marriage. But since then the legislature has twice passed bills affording gay couples the right to marry/have civil unions...only to be vetoed by the governor. These judges were appointed by Republicans and Democrats and are up retention every so often.
Moreover, if people don't like the court's ruling, they can pass the constitutional amendment and/or vote the justices out of office. Last time I saw a poll, 51% of Californians approved of the decision.
3) Sen. McCoy's wise counsel for gay activists in Utah to hold their fire when it comes to law suits is just that--smart strategic advice. Given the current political climate in Utah and in the federal judiciary, a suit would likely fail and set back the cause for decades.
Better to fly out and get married in CA and wait for the courts to become more favorable to gay marriage than to force a losing hand.
"Better to fly out and get married in CA and wait for the courts to become more favorable to gay marriage than to force a losing hand."
Exactly my point. Translation: Better to wait for constitutional explorers to discover those hidden constitutional rights in liberal states, and then use those activist discoveries to force the issue on other states.
California didn't find new language in the California Constitution that had been written in invisible ink. The judges (human and flawed, like the rest of us; but unlike legitimate policymakers, not subject to popular election) simply made up something to match their world view.
Because of a few very well covered comments and activities of Utah legislators I went online, found the site for Utah Gay Pride, and donated. In addition to the card that identifies me as a scoutmaster in the BSA, I also carry a card that identifies me as a 'Gay Activist'. As long as basic civil rights and human dignity are denied to this segment of our population I will remain a supporter and donor.
This being Utah, let's not forget the true "force."
From the DN:
"The biggest donors overall so far in this years legislative races include: Rocky Mountain Power, $31,750 split among 51 candidates; the Utah Association of Realtors, $28,000 to 20 candidates; gay rights activist Bruce Bastian, $28,000 to 11 candidates; EnergySolutions, $26,110 to 66 candidates; and Parents for Choice in Education, $21,654 to 17 candidates."
Post a Comment
<< Home