A Stitch in Haste

"A constitution is supposed to protect human rights, not limit them. Proposition 2, however, sets out to 'protect' an institution, marriage, from a group of law-abiding citizens who pose no threat to it."
--Austin American-Statesman, editorial, 5 November 2005

Texas voters are likely to approve a bigot amendment constitutionalizing its already-existing same-sex marriage ban.

Yawn.

A few hasty stitches:

--Gay marriage did not exist in Texas before this vote. And it will not exist in Texas after this vote, regardless of whether the result is for or against.

--The initiative is so badly worded that a literal reading (i.e., by a judge who is not being "activist") would require that all marriages be outlawed in Texas, even "traditional" marriages. If the issue is so important to the moral fabric of society and the procreative future of all humanity, then one would think that its sponsors would want to get it right.

--The turnout is feared to be as low as ten percent. If referenda and initiatives are meant to reflect "the will of the people" (as if the "will of the people" trumps basic human rights and dignities), then why not impose, as legislatures do, a quorum requirement for any ballot proposition to be binding? (See also this related post.)

--The best way to drive gays into the courtroom is by not leaving them any alternative. If you don't want gays suing and seeking redress from "activist judges," then perhaps the wiser strategy is not to give them something to sue about.

--Moreover, state constitutional amendments are an express lane to federal courts interpreting the federal constitution (e.g., the Nebraska litigation). Stated differently: Be careful what you wish for ... you might get it.

--One more thing about those "activist judges." In Texas, they're all popularly elected, even on the Texas Supreme Court. Go figure.

The "backlash" is now petering out. There is this Texas initiative and another bigot proposal in Maine that is not even about marriage (i.e., bigotry for the sake of bigotry). There will be a handful of laggard initiatives in 2006, mostly in redneck Southern states. And then life, legislation and litigation will go on.

Meanwhile, which currently looks more likely to endure, all things considered: the gay-rights movement or radical conservative, fundamentalist Red-State mania?

Twenty-five years from now, the bigots will be apologizing for their shameful anti-gay votes just as many are apologizing today for their shameful civil rights records a generation ago.

The anti-gay backlash was like the screeching cries of a teething baby: you knew it was coming, you knew there was nothing to be done about it, and you know it will soon be over.

More thoughts from Dynamist, Fake Gay News, Catallarchy.