Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    My Take On NY Gay Marriage Bill

    My Take On NY Gay Marriage Bill

    If you believe that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” then you have to agree that states control their own legal definitions of marriage, and that such definitions are subject to the state political and judicial processes. 

    That political process in NY State was ugly at times, but it resulted in passage of a definition of marriage which, while contrary to the historical and religious definitions, likely is acceptable to the majority of people in NY State.  The religious protections built into the law held much sway, including the fact that the law by its terms may not be severed (meaning that if the religious protections are stricken by a court the entire bill must be stricken). 

    The political process is not over, and I would expect those opposed to the law to exercise whatever state legal and state political powers they have.  That is their right just as it is the right of those supporting the bill to seek to preserve it, and I reject the analogy to racism which permeated the argument and which was used as a political lever. 

    My hunch is that the new law will have much more long lasting acceptance because the political process was allowed to work, as opposed to states such as California where gay marriage was imposed by judicial fiat based on strained legal reasoning against the popular will.

    I also would suggest that the rise of the Tea Party movement contributed to the process which resulted in passage of the bill, because the Tea Party movement introduced a degree of libertarianism into the conservative movement, such that social issues have taken a back seat to economic issues.

    The real challenge will come when those who relied on states’ rights to pass gay marriage in New York State seek to override states’ rights elsewhere.

    Here is my take in fewer than 140 characters:


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Voyager | June 26, 2011 at 4:38 am

    I suppose what bothers me about this is the assumption that a rejection of gay marriage must be a religious precept, and could not have any basis in any other view of the world.

    Are the non-religious permitted to disapprove of homosexuality? Do I have the right to view it as destructive behavior if I am not a church-goer? Or has my right to my own opinion been removed?

    The state may have any authority not expressly delegated to the federal government, but neither has the authority to take away inalienable rights.

    angela | June 26, 2011 at 5:45 am

    Thank you, Professor Jacobson. Posts like this are why I read your blog.

    retire05 | June 26, 2011 at 6:36 am

    Chicklet, you point out that hetero marriages fail at 50%. How many gay marriages will fail? I warrent that number will be higher due to the very nature of gays. If monogamy was the norm among the gay community, the spread of HIV/AIDs would not have been as rampant as it was.

    Single parent households are not desirable, but same sex households are also not desirable since it takes two parents, of the opposite sex, to help develope a child into a fully rounded adult.

    But the bottom line is NOT just same-sex marriage. The bottom line is the goal of the movers and shakers in the gay community. People like Kevin Jennings, who wants to teach gay sexual acts to elementary school children. You see, when you convince people that dying your hair purple is normal, you will have more people dying their hair purple and you won’t be alone. Purple hair will become accepted. And what better group to teach that purple hair is normal than to impressionable young children? Gramsci knew this. Why don’t you?

    So let’s just tear down all social norms. Attack those of faith, demean the traditional sense of marriage, encourage out of wedlock childbirth. And with any luck at all, within one generation you will have a Marxist society that is doomed to fail.

      Saw nothing in chicklet’s comments that “…Attack those of faith, demean the traditional sense of marriage, encourage out of wedlock childbirth.”

      As a former evangelical, I can certainly ‘appreciate’ the revulsion that social-conservatives have towards gay marriage. But what I find amusing are the few who rely on their peculiar expertise on the “…nature of gays…” and the “…transient nature of gay relationships…” to support their position.

    I just love the cynicism of your tweet. Bahaha

    Given the transient nature of “gay” relationships the divorce lawyers will now have a renewed income stream. Lot’s of new victims to be made. I’m one of those who believe that much of the rise of homosexuality is driven by the hateful behavior of selfish spouses, whether that be male or female which ends up in divorce. The victims of divorce are the children who having seen the hatefulness of the spouse and the PC nonsense of the courts vilifying one gender in support of the hateful spouse have set in their minds the unjustness of marriage relationships.

    Now we have come full circle, the stereotypes of gender now broken down by same sex marriage will now vilify whom? In 20 or 30 years from now, this little social experiment will end in flames by the 90+% divorce rate among same sex marriages. In the process it will break the courts once and for all of their own hateful discriminatory gender practices. In the end the results will strengthen traditional marriage between males and females because all will see the failure of PC social engineering. One of the great strengths of humanity is learning from mistakes, especially that of others. Take the long view.

    Milhouse | June 26, 2011 at 11:59 am

    “Awing1” wrote: I hope you are right about the Tea Party professor, because the “members” I have met are under the impression it is about Christian revival rather than sensible libertarianism.

    I don’t believe you. Not for one moment. You’ve probably never met anyone involved in the Tea Party movement, and are just making this up out of your hate-filled imagination.

      Awing1 in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2011 at 2:45 pm

      I’m making it up out of my hate-filled imagination? First of all, I grew up in a small town called Ontario in Upstate New York where 7 of our 9 elected officials are Republican (Page 9 ). In fact, I still volunteer at the ambulance corps there (I’m Alex Wingate ). The majority of the people in our town claim to be members of the TEA Party. While it’s somewhat an amorphous movement, the majority of the people I have met from my town that support and claim to be members of the TEA Party truly believe it is about Christian revival. Why would I make that up? And how is saying that at all hate-filled? I’m not saying that Christian revival is what the TEA Party is truly about, hence I hope the professor is right, just that in my experience people who claim to be members of the TEA Party that I’ve met do believe that. Even if I said that is what the TEA Party is all about, I don’t see how that’s hate filled.

        Milhouse in reply to Awing1. | June 26, 2011 at 9:28 pm

        And I don’t believe you. Everyone knows what the TEA party movement is about; out-of-control government spending, the resultant precipitous rise in the public debt, and the fear that this will eventually have to lead to higher taxes. The name says it all: Taxed Enough Already. There have been well over a thousand TEA party rallies over the past two years; when has any of them ever been about social issues? When has any of them ever raised the concerns of some particular religion? How could any honest person form the impression that the first genuine broad grassroots movement in recent political history is really about some sort of religious takeover?

          Awing1 in reply to Milhouse. | June 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm

          I’m aware of what the TEA Party officially supports, my comment was what members that I have met seem to think its about. Stories like this and this don’t strike me as being about proponents of limited government. I suggest you go out and as a larger variety of those who support the TEA Party what it is they believe the movement is about before you try to publicly disparage me again. Regardless of what you believe, these people do exist and I have met them, in fact I grew up with them and worked with them fairly regularly.
          I support the TEA Party’s stated objectives, I merely fear a fair number of the members don’t actually know what those objectives really are, or understand their full implications. Also, you still haven’t explained to me how my original comment suggested I had a “hate-filled imagination”, was that just an attempt to use an ad-hominem attack to make your accusation sound like it had more credibility then it really does?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend