DJ sums up most the more technical aspects of this better than I could.
First off, let me say this ... we wo't win this fight. We won't. Times have changes, attitudes have moderated, and there is a growing acceptance of gay marriage. I know I have changed my mind. It might sound like a cop-out, but I agree with Justin Amash's position that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage anyways. I first started thinking about this when I got married. My wife and I actually got "married" ten days before we actually did when we filled out our marriage license in Fredericksburg ... with a fee, of course.
And that is really where I have my problem. Politicians at every level have used marriage to play favorites with taxes and tax breaks. It has become an institution to play favorites. Vote for me, you'll get a tax credit for having a kid. How is that fair? What about married couples that decide not to have kids? What about people who love each other and don't want to get married? Why is the government so interested in taking more money from them?
And to make sure it doesn't seem like I'm skirting the issue or trying the blend it into my own ideology, I firmly believe that two consenting adults should be allowed to be married and enjoy all the benefits that come with it. I want to get rid of the benefits, but that probably won't happen so we should make this happen. I'm also not going to use the lame excuse that I know gay people and that has changed my mind. Its not that. Thomas Jefferson is by far my favorite American founder because of his ability to put complex thoughts into simple expressions. This country was founded on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. I refuse to believe the government should get in the way of any of that. Of course there must be rule of law and there are certain cultural parameters that must be met.
I refuse to stand in the way of homosexual couples pursuit of happiness. Whatever my personal values are, nothing is more offensive to my sensibilities than the government denying people their own lives. I fail to understand the harm that some fear is real. I don't fear it because when a society has real freedom and liberty, I truly believe happiness will follow.
Whatever Mark Herring's actions are, and I know that many on the right are complaining about his tactics quite loudly, I assure you this is something that we will not win. This will happen, because I believe it is the right thing to do. I'm no legal expert so maybe Herring has violated his oath of office, but this is the kind of issue that will set us back. What I hope is the General Assembly will give the voters a chance to take a look at this again and put to vote a repeal of Marshall-Newman so we can see where it goes. Let the people decide.
I'm glad Herring is forcing us to deal with this. I'm sure many of my friends out there will disagree with me on this for whatever reason and I respect that. But it boils down to government trying to regulate the pursuit of happiness and I know how this will end.
If I thought for a second that government would get out of marriage all together, I might say fine. But this amendment wouldn't just go away, but be replaced with a law forcing recognition. Considering what has happened to the couple in Oregon who owned that bakery, that is absolutely the wrong way to go. We don't need new laws making another protected class.
And make no mistake; this is exactly why Mark Herring is wrong. His fight won't end with the elimination of this amendment to Virginia's Constitution. He will take it that next step. He didn't campaign on this to begin with, and it is clear he has little regard for rule of law. Rather than government working to regulate the pursuit of happiness of homosexuals, it will instead start to regulate the very liberty of those who consider it a sin.
If a change is desired, Mark Herring is not the one who should pursue it, unless you want a future where churches are coerced into performing ceremonies they disagree with and business owners are thrown in jail for choosing to hold to their values.
Posted by: CR UVa | January 25, 2014 at 01:48 PM
@CR UVA
You are wrong on several levels. First of all the bakery you are talking about is in Washington, not Oregon. Second of all the lawsuit had nothing to do with marriage equality coming to Washington. The bakery violated a Washington law that was already in place before marriage equality -- in the state of Washington it is against the law to refuse service based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation. The bakery would have violated the law regardless of there being legal same sex marriage. It would be the same if the bakery refused service to Jews or Christians, blacks or Chinese.
Churches will never be forced to perform ceremonies of people who are not members of their congregation. I'm married to a Jewish woman; we're both agnostic. There is not a church (or synagogue) in the country in the nation that would be forced to marry us, nor would we seek that.
Also, when Herring was campaigning he did let it be known that he is in favor of marriage equality.
I am very happy with his decision. The rights of individual adults to marry who they love should never be put to a vote. I don't have the right to tell you who you can marry and you don't have the right to tell be who I can marry.
It would be an embarrassment if Virginia is one of the last states to be forced to recognize the basic civil rights of two adults being able to marry -- just as embarrassing as "Loving V Virginia" is, the case that got rid of laws criminalizing interracial marriage nationwide.
Posted by: Eric Koszyk | January 25, 2014 at 05:15 PM
@ CR UVA,
Whoops. I confused the recent case in Oregon of a bakery with the case last year in Washington of a florist.
Still, the case in Oregon makes my point. Oregon does not have marriage equality yet, it only has domestic partnerships. The case against the bakery had nothing to do with marriage equality or, for that matter, domestic partnerships. The bakery violated a 2007 state law which makes it illegal not to serve people based on account of their sexual orientation. The bakery would have also violated the law if it had discriminated against blacks, whites, Jews or Christians, since that is also against Oregon state law.
The 2007 law provides an exemption for religious organizations and parochial schools but does not allow private business owners to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Posted by: Eric Koszyk | January 25, 2014 at 10:43 PM
Religious freedom trumps sexual orientation.
You say churches won't be forced to perform SSM unions. But many didn't think Photographers or Bakeries would be forced to participate in the celebration of gay marriage either.
Three bakery cases in Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, with the photography case taking place in New Mexico
Posted by: midwestconservative | January 28, 2014 at 07:49 PM