I've set out my own views on gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals in earlier posts here and here.My argument has always been one of strategy, not results.
I still think establishing civil unions in all fifty states would be the quickest and most effective way to bring the right of marriage to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation, but the direct litigation campaign has taken precedence.
Today's federal district court decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger is the first fruit of the direct litigation route and has brought the constitutional arguments concerning gay marriage sharply into focus.
Gay marriage proponents could hardly ask for a more common sense and matter-of-fact exposition on how California's Proposition 8 fails to pass constitutional muster.
While I'm persuaded by the reasoning, and take a professional interest in the craftsmanship, I also recognize I'm sympathetic with the outcome.
The more rational me recognizes that Judge Walker's decision rests entirely on a legal house of cards -- a very generous articulation of "fundamental rights."
The history of this debate over "fundamental rights" is as long and contoured as the history of the nation itself.
The current composition of our Supreme Court manifests a certain chapter in that debate, but a chapter which is highly unlikely to establish same-sex marriage as fundamental.
This Court is dominated by a political desire to circumscribe the expansion of "fundamental rights;" counterbalanced at the margin (Justice Kennedy) by a libertarian distrust of the state's authority to punish or sanction certain behaviors.
The identification of same-sex marriage as a fundamental right is not simply unpersuasive in their eyes. It's an incitement. A blatant example of how unprincipled and unhinged our constitutional jurisprudence has become. Further evidence of how unelected judges oppress individual conscience by championing their own personal values as "fundamental rights."
Indeed, the current court may prove to be the high water mark of this tide against expanding fundamental rights. Perversely, a Supreme Court ruling in this case may prove to be a sign that tide has begun to ebb.
Let's assume Perry works its way through the Ninth Circuit this year and reaches the Supreme Court in their October 2011 term. We should see a decision in June 2012, almost certainly reversing the district court, very likely on a 5-4 vote.
The final word? Hardly.
November 2012 we vote once more for president.
Will Perry be a symbol of the Supreme Court restricting our individual freedom to choose a mate or will it be a symbol of the Supreme Court vindicating the sanctity of the institution of marriage? You want to know where the majority of voters stand nationally, just watch the Republican Party squirm these next two years.
As with the abortion debate, same-sex marriage is an argument they don't want to win because the on-going debate is so valuable to them as a recruitment and fund-raising tool. The aggrieved and oppressed retain a unity in their opposition which falls apart in their ascendance. Republicans do much better as victims in opposition.
It's going to be messy and it's going to get loud, but that's how this conversation plays.
In terms of constitutional jurisprudence, I think same-sex marriage is a matter of equal rights and not fundamental rights. The equal rights argument is irresistible. The fundamantal rights argument is implausible until the vast majority of Americans are persuaded this is a matter of equal rights. Once that occurs, equal rights are fundamental rights. That is simply a matter of time, but it's clear from today's decision in Perry, it will be a long and winding path.
