Do The Gay Marriage Math -- Part Two
---
There has been some buzz about this piece from Chuck Muth, a commentator heretofore unknown to me:
Praise for the piece here and -- unsurprisingly -- here. See also here.
The piece actually contains quite a bit more disjointed stream-of-consciousness ramblings, but this seem to be the passage that the "too much too soon" crowd is hanging their hat on. So this is the passage that I will now destroy.
Now granted, I have pledged to engage in The New Civility, so I will try to be diplomatic. For example, I can certainly be forgiving of a non-lawyer who doesn't know the New York State Unified Court System and mistakenly calls Justice Ling-Cohan "Judge" or mentions the "New York Supreme Court" when he means the "New York State Court of Appeals." This is New York -- we're bass-ackwards and we don't care.
On the other hand...why the bleep should I take seriously someone who doesn't even know (and can't be bothered to research) the constitutional amendment process? It's three-fourths of the state legislatures, not three-fifths! That's thirty-eight states rather than thirty -- not an unimportant detail.
(And I reject the premise that this is an honest typo: Muth's piece has been on the Web for a few days now and several commenters on other blogs have spotted the rather obvious error. It has still not been corrected.)
So, the sky is still falling, we're still making enemies (did they like us before?), everything is going to be reversed (which would only mean that we went from not having gay marriage to not having gay marriage). States are enacting mini-DOMAs and anti-gay-marriage amendments (which only means that states that would not have offered gay marriage any time soon are being intellectually and politically honest about it -- with all the ramifications that will ensue).
But that's all old news. The Chicken Littles, unwilling to acknowledge that they have been, um, wrong about almost everything ever since the Massachusetts victory, have to keep pounding the table and issuing booster-shot articles and blogposts to keep their foundering thesis alive.
So know they're coming full circle and digging up their FMA scaremongering again.
I have said it before and I say it again: FMA is dead, dead, dead.
Do the math:
Step 1 -- The Senate -- 67 votes needed. The Republicans hold a 55-44 majority (one independent); 55 is not going to change into 67 in 2006 or 2008 or 2010. And let's not forget the less-than-radical Republicans of the Northeast (e.g., Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter). I challenge anyone to devise a real-world roll call that adds up to 67 votes. Probability: Absolute Zero.
Step 2 -- The House -- 290 votes needed. The Republicans hold a 229-205 majority (one socialist). House politics are not my area of expertise, but given the scandalous re-election rates in that chamber, its composition tends to change at glacier speed. Even in 2004, in how many House races was gay marriage a major issue? How many districts are undergoing "Red Shift" such that the issue might matter in 2006 or 2008, especially given other wedge issues such as Social Security reform or immigration policy? Probability: Slim.
Step 3 -- The States --38 must ratify. Here is where the "too much too soon" crowd engages in some rather disingenuous sleight-of-hand. Thirteen states passed anti-gay amendments, legislation or initiatives last year, with more in the works this year. Thirteen last year plus thirteen this year plus thirteen next year and there's 39, even more than needed to ratify the FMA. Red (State) Alert!
But this is, of course, utter nonsense. Gay marriage is, at worst, a double-barreled shotgun. The first cartridge was fired this past November; the "damage" is done. This year there will be a markedly smaller boomlet. The "backlash states" have already backlashed! If Massachusetts didn't get the non-backlash states jittery, then why should New York?
This is the core thesis of the Muth piece, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In exactly which state legislatures are we likely to hear the following: "One state with gay marriage -- eh, whatever. But two states with gay marriage -- Holy F*ckin' Sh*t! The gays are coming! The gays are coming! Quick -- someone call Pat Buchanan while I email James Dobson!"
Ridiculous.
I've shown you my razzle, now here's my dazzle: If 38 states are needed to ratify the FMA, then by definition only thirteen states are needed to defeat it (what a deliciously patriotic -- and therefore ironic -- number). I can think of three right off the top: New York, Vermont and -- duh -- Massachusetts. Add New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Maine and Delaware -- you're up to twelve. Illinois? Michigan? Minnesota? You wouldn't even need to think about "battleground states" such as Nevada. (Remember, there were 19 Blue States in Election 2004 -- very bad if you're John Kerry but very good if you're opposing a constitutional amendment.)
To summarize -- Probability: Absolute Zero.
It's honestly getting to point where one might ask whether the "too much too soon" crowd suffers from some form of pathological self-loathing. Or perhaps they're taking a page out of the radical feminist and black activist playbook -- after all, it pays to be persecuted.
In any case, there is a difference between rational measured caution and irrational timid terror. People like Muth and his acolytes have now gone way over the line.
We're here, we're right, get used to it.
UPDATE: Some people are questioning my list of states that are "safely" anti-FMA, especially since some actually enacted anti-gay legislation. And that's fine -- as I said above, micro-politics is not my focus. But keep in mind that, for the most part, anti-gay legislation and (state) constitutional amendments have been passed by referendum/initiative. Ratification of a constitutional amendment must be performed by the state legislature, not by popular vote. One would think/hope that elected officials, especially state politicians who may have higher ambitions and who would prefer not to be saddled by an anti-gay voting record, would show some restraint. The empirical evidence supports this (admittedly probabilisitc) view. And remember, most states have bicameral legislatures, in which case it becomes doubly difficult.
Bottom Line: Which is more likely -- one or more Red States failing to ratify the FMA, or seven Blue States "defecting" to it?
Related Post:
Do the Gay Marriage Math -- Part One
If DOMA does get struck down, that will further inflame a large and vocal segment of the public and fuel congressional efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Unlike today, such an amendment, post-DOMA, could well garner the 2/3 vote needed in both houses of Congress to send the ban to the states. And just by looking at the number of states which passed gay marriage bans last November, there's a good shot that such an amendment could get the 3/5ths ratification needed to approve it.
Praise for the piece here and -- unsurprisingly -- here. See also here.
The piece actually contains quite a bit more disjointed stream-of-consciousness ramblings, but this seem to be the passage that the "too much too soon" crowd is hanging their hat on. So this is the passage that I will now destroy.
Now granted, I have pledged to engage in The New Civility, so I will try to be diplomatic. For example, I can certainly be forgiving of a non-lawyer who doesn't know the New York State Unified Court System and mistakenly calls Justice Ling-Cohan "Judge" or mentions the "New York Supreme Court" when he means the "New York State Court of Appeals." This is New York -- we're bass-ackwards and we don't care.
On the other hand...why the bleep should I take seriously someone who doesn't even know (and can't be bothered to research) the constitutional amendment process? It's three-fourths of the state legislatures, not three-fifths! That's thirty-eight states rather than thirty -- not an unimportant detail.
(And I reject the premise that this is an honest typo: Muth's piece has been on the Web for a few days now and several commenters on other blogs have spotted the rather obvious error. It has still not been corrected.)
So, the sky is still falling, we're still making enemies (did they like us before?), everything is going to be reversed (which would only mean that we went from not having gay marriage to not having gay marriage). States are enacting mini-DOMAs and anti-gay-marriage amendments (which only means that states that would not have offered gay marriage any time soon are being intellectually and politically honest about it -- with all the ramifications that will ensue).
But that's all old news. The Chicken Littles, unwilling to acknowledge that they have been, um, wrong about almost everything ever since the Massachusetts victory, have to keep pounding the table and issuing booster-shot articles and blogposts to keep their foundering thesis alive.
So know they're coming full circle and digging up their FMA scaremongering again.
I have said it before and I say it again: FMA is dead, dead, dead.
Do the math:
Step 1 -- The Senate -- 67 votes needed. The Republicans hold a 55-44 majority (one independent); 55 is not going to change into 67 in 2006 or 2008 or 2010. And let's not forget the less-than-radical Republicans of the Northeast (e.g., Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee, Arlen Specter). I challenge anyone to devise a real-world roll call that adds up to 67 votes. Probability: Absolute Zero.
Step 2 -- The House -- 290 votes needed. The Republicans hold a 229-205 majority (one socialist). House politics are not my area of expertise, but given the scandalous re-election rates in that chamber, its composition tends to change at glacier speed. Even in 2004, in how many House races was gay marriage a major issue? How many districts are undergoing "Red Shift" such that the issue might matter in 2006 or 2008, especially given other wedge issues such as Social Security reform or immigration policy? Probability: Slim.
Step 3 -- The States --38 must ratify. Here is where the "too much too soon" crowd engages in some rather disingenuous sleight-of-hand. Thirteen states passed anti-gay amendments, legislation or initiatives last year, with more in the works this year. Thirteen last year plus thirteen this year plus thirteen next year and there's 39, even more than needed to ratify the FMA. Red (State) Alert!
But this is, of course, utter nonsense. Gay marriage is, at worst, a double-barreled shotgun. The first cartridge was fired this past November; the "damage" is done. This year there will be a markedly smaller boomlet. The "backlash states" have already backlashed! If Massachusetts didn't get the non-backlash states jittery, then why should New York?
This is the core thesis of the Muth piece, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In exactly which state legislatures are we likely to hear the following: "One state with gay marriage -- eh, whatever. But two states with gay marriage -- Holy F*ckin' Sh*t! The gays are coming! The gays are coming! Quick -- someone call Pat Buchanan while I email James Dobson!"
Ridiculous.
I've shown you my razzle, now here's my dazzle: If 38 states are needed to ratify the FMA, then by definition only thirteen states are needed to defeat it (what a deliciously patriotic -- and therefore ironic -- number). I can think of three right off the top: New York, Vermont and -- duh -- Massachusetts. Add New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Maine and Delaware -- you're up to twelve. Illinois? Michigan? Minnesota? You wouldn't even need to think about "battleground states" such as Nevada. (Remember, there were 19 Blue States in Election 2004 -- very bad if you're John Kerry but very good if you're opposing a constitutional amendment.)
To summarize -- Probability: Absolute Zero.
It's honestly getting to point where one might ask whether the "too much too soon" crowd suffers from some form of pathological self-loathing. Or perhaps they're taking a page out of the radical feminist and black activist playbook -- after all, it pays to be persecuted.
In any case, there is a difference between rational measured caution and irrational timid terror. People like Muth and his acolytes have now gone way over the line.
We're here, we're right, get used to it.
UPDATE: Some people are questioning my list of states that are "safely" anti-FMA, especially since some actually enacted anti-gay legislation. And that's fine -- as I said above, micro-politics is not my focus. But keep in mind that, for the most part, anti-gay legislation and (state) constitutional amendments have been passed by referendum/initiative. Ratification of a constitutional amendment must be performed by the state legislature, not by popular vote. One would think/hope that elected officials, especially state politicians who may have higher ambitions and who would prefer not to be saddled by an anti-gay voting record, would show some restraint. The empirical evidence supports this (admittedly probabilisitc) view. And remember, most states have bicameral legislatures, in which case it becomes doubly difficult.
Bottom Line: Which is more likely -- one or more Red States failing to ratify the FMA, or seven Blue States "defecting" to it?
Related Post:
Do the Gay Marriage Math -- Part One
Posted by KipEsquire on
10 February 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
