"Walker was right to say that separate isn't equal. Civil unions are hardly ideal. But his decision treats civil unions as if they were trivial or worthless. By refusing to give them any weight and declaring them not just inadequate as a matter of policy but prohibited as a matter of law, Walker uses the Constitution to put compromise out of bounds. [snip]"So I think the decision is a radical one, but not, ironically, as it pertains to homosexuality or to marriage. No, Walker's radicalism lies elsewhere: In his use of the Constitution to batter the principles of its two greatest exponents - Madison and Abraham Lincoln, a Burkean who was steadfast in his belief that ideals must be leavened with pragmatism.
"History will, I believe, vindicate Walker's view of marriage. Whether it will see him as having done gay rights a favor is less clear. For all its morally admirable qualities, his decision sets the cause of marriage equality crosswise with moderation, gradualism and popular sovereignty. Which, in America, is a dangerous place to be." - Jonathan Rauch, writing for the New York Daily News. Rauch, who gay-married in Washington DC in June, is the co-founder of the homocon site, Independent Gay Forum.
No comments:
Post a Comment