In the wake of the GOP's success last night, Andrew Sullivan surveys the fallout from the passage of state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and in some cases going beyond that to rule out civil unions:
In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I'm not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses. But it is deeply, deeply dispiriting nonetheless. A lot of gay people are devastated this morning, and terrified. We have seen, and not for the first time, how using fear of a minority can be so effective a tool in building a political movement. The single most important issue for Republican voters, according to exit polls, was not the war on terror or Iraq or the economy. It was "moral values." Karl Rove understood the American psyche better than I did.
The fear is real, and is deeply felt by my gay friends and acquaintances. Even as I support the president and his party in the war against the theocratic fascists of militant Islam, I will continue to speak out against attempts by the religious right in this country to impose their own view of morality through legislation. Yes, the majority should speak, but the constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities. Even if you are not for changing marriage to extend it to same-sex couples, how can you justify denying legal mechanisms that strengthen gay families, protect children, and allow for hospital visitation and rights of inheritance? Do we need to institutionalize discrimination against our fellow citizens in the name of "protecting" the institution of marriage?
Recent Comments