In a past post, I had stated a reminder that “marriage” involving a government license was not always the case, and that the anti-state view on this is (naturally) that politics have no business being involved in sanctioning or rejecting relationships at all. What followed was a poll suggesting that, when it comes to state recognition of same-sex marriages, thus respecting the rule that government should be non-discriminatory until it is non-existent, opposition craters when assurances are made that churches wouldn’t be forced to perform gay ceremonies. That was never a threat except in the skulls of politicized bible-thumpers who scream about “the homosexual agenda!!”, but whatever, no big deal.
Well, that observation mattered a lot last weekend:
When New York became the sixth and by far the largest state to legalize same-sex marriage, following a grueling overtime session in the state Legislature Friday, it immediately transformed the national debate over the issue, legal experts said. […]
“I think that having same-sex marriage in New York will have tremendous moral and political force for the rest of the country — in
part because New York is a large state, and in part because it hasn’t come easily,” said Suzanne Goldberg, a professor at Columbia Law School.
The New York Assembly passed same-sex marriage legislation twice before, in 2007 and 2009, but in both cases it stalled in the state Senate, as it nearly did again this week. The bill passed late Friday after legislators agreed on language allowing religious organizations to refuse to perform services or lend space for same-sex weddings. [emphasis mine]
To recap: a restatement of separation of church & state, which people against same-sex marriage actually oppose based on their rhetoric, that amounted to a fig leaf on a non-issue, was enough to greenlight the expansion of an example of how blurred that line already was, so that gays in New York can have their intimate, loving relationships recognized by the denizens of NY state’s requisite cubicle hives as a bunch of numbers and rubber stamps…
If contradictions were cocaine, this pile would be enough to remake Scarface twenty times.
On the simple civic matter, to have a range of privileges created on which it is said that group identity is a criteria to block people from them is plainly improper and should be stopped. That something so obvious proves such a chore to do speaks volumes on state legitimacy and the lack thereof. Culturally though, I can’t help but ponder what it means for us as affirmation of the deeply personal and a day at the DMV converge.
Surprised: someone at freakin’ National Review spoke somewhat positively about this.
Not surprised: their audience overwhelmingly cried foul.