So let's vote on same sex marriage

[Danzig]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ic_issue_.html


Why Obama’s Words Didn’t Go Far Enough
Marriage equality is a federal constitutional right—not a state issue—and it’s time to start acting like it.
By Dahlia Lithwick and Sonja West

Posted Friday, May 11, 2012, at 7:10 PM ET

When President Obama announced his support of same-sex marriage, he talked broadly about “equality” and “fairness.” He spoke of “opposing discrimination against gays and lesbians” and making sure that nobody is treated as “less than full citizens when it comes to their legal rights.” It was a powerful moment—historic and emotional. In the Aaron Sorkin version, the orchestra would have soared at this point as the supporting cast members exchanged teary-eyed yet knowing nods.

But then President Obama described how these rights should be protected and the music stopped with a squawk. Same-sex marriage, he said, is not in fact a federal issue but should be left to the states. He praised as “a healthy process and a healthy debate” the current patchwork of state referenda, amendments, laws, and judicial opinions that our marriage federalism has produced. He said he didn’t want “to nationalize this issue” and added that the states are “working through this issue … all across the country.” Adam Serwer and the New York Times editorial page were quick to point out that this doesn’t represent much equality and fairness for Americans who live in, say, North Carolina, a state that just did away with both gay marriage and civil unions by referendum. Lyle Denniston goes further, suggesting that the president opposes the Defense of Marriage Act because it’s an attempt to federalize marriage.

The “marriage is a purely state issue” rhetoric has been around for some time. It’s become a familiar default argument, maybe because it sounds fair and feels safe. But having “evolved” this far on gay marriage, the time has come to evolve our own thinking on what is really at stake when we talk about marriage equality. We must embrace that this is a constitutional and not a democratic issue. Equality is not a popularity contest. This is hardly a radical argument. It’s Supreme Court doctrine: Our rights to be treated as equal and full citizens do not evaporate when we cross state lines. Rather there are certain essential liberties, even in the realm of marriage, we all enjoy regardless of our ZIP code.


a resounding to the bolded! it's why i'm somewhat pleased, but not completely so, with barrack and his half-stepping. and as i learned with pinochle, you should never, ever half-step. yet another instance where he's sort of leading, but not quite. he's the mclellan of his day. has plenty of arms and soldiers, but won't ever, ever make a concerted plan to attack.