« Something Strange on the Way to Writing this Post | Main | Baltasar Garzón and the tension between national and international laws »

January 24, 2012

Comments

Christie won't sign the bill because he knows if he does he will forfeit any chance at a national GOP nomination until at least 2020, if not longer. So, he will sacrifice equality for his own personal gain, in the best American tradition.

Ugh--you are correct, but note that Obama did the same thing in the 2008 debates. Christie is fine with gay marriage, so is Obama. It's crappy, but fair minded candidates with national aspirations have to be behind the curve on this, at least for a while longer. To Christie's limited credit, defaulting to a plebiscite gives everyone cover and undercuts any grouching about the results.

The real question is whether he will insist other Republicans toe his line or not. And since Christie just nominated an out gay man for the state Supreme Court, he may already be on shaky ground as far as the national GOP is concerned.

he may already be on shaky ground as far as the national GOP is concerned

Today's GOP may not and hopefully will not be the GOP 8 years hence. Christie would not be at home with today's hard line social conservatives. If the hard liners lose three elections in a row, assuming they lose in '16 in addition to '12, they could find themselves on the way out.

Washington state is headed toward marriage equality. I hope we make it this year. I think our out-going governor decided to make it an issue this year to boost turn out for the Demos in the next election. Juat a guess.

Mctx - that's a fair point.

Fight, fight, fight, for Washington State. Win a victoryyyeeeee....(hapless Wa. St. Cougars fight song).

The 48th soviet of Washington strikes again. In all fairness, Gregoire waited until the last year of her office to step up and take the lead on this issue. Politically, she has nothing to lose. But good for her anyway.

Interesting how in Washington state, any sufficiently controversial law leads to a referendum. I guess it's better than having people try to strike it down with a constitutional amendment. And there's a fair chance that the "gay marriage has never passed a popular vote" attack will finally die.

I remember when Democrats dreaded a referendum on same-sex marriage in a presidential election year!

I find myself hoping that we don't end up with a Supreme Court decision on this. At least not for a while yet. The reason that abortion has poisoned our polticis for four decades is that the Court intruded while local political action was still in its early stages.

Similarly in this case. The states are moving, gradually (and rather faster than anyone would have guessed not very long ago) but steadily. Another 3-4 years and we can expect gay marriage to be legal in states including a majority of the nation's population. At that point, a Court decision would still outrage some people, but they would know (whether they could bring themselves to admit it or not) that they had lost the political argument, not just the court case.

On the other hand, if the Court moves too soon, we could have yet another grievance poisoning our politics at all levels. And, much as I personally would like to see the day that any two consenting adults can marry each other, I don't want to see more of what we have had.

And there's a fair chance that the "gay marriage has never passed a popular vote" attack will finally die.

Though, come to think of it, it's actually likely that people will just keep using it when it's no longer true.

I remember when Democrats dreaded a referendum on same-sex marriage in a presidential election year!

Yep, Rove's 2004 rash of state ballot initiatives are looking worse and worse in the rear view mirror. Referendums are slower and harder than judicial fiat, but as they accumulate, the anti-gay rationale compares even less favorably with good old, traditional democracy.

Note: I am not saying the right to equal treatment should be a matter of the electorate's say-so. I am saying that, after several electorates have their say-so, the counter argument is increasingly diminished.

Well, it's still a close enough thing in WA that the referendum might actually kill it if there's a sufficiently strong scare campaign. I'm hoping gay-marriage supporters are capable of putting on a better show than in California in 2008.

I do get the impression that the LDS church feels burned by the Prop. 8 fight and probably won't attempt anything on that scale again, but that doesn't mean somebody else won't.

but that doesn't mean somebody else won't.

There is a finite, and shrinking, number of well-heeled opponents. They shot their wad on Prop 8. They don't have the wherewithal to repeat that over and over again.

The situation in Maryland this year may be similar to that in Washington State. Marriage equality has a fair chance of passing the legislature, and the governor would sign it, but opponents are then likely to get a referendum put on the November ballot to block the law, and that's going to be an ugly fight and a close vote.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad