in his New York Times column today, titled History in Real Time. As is usual for Blow, i is a column well worth the read.
He begins by writing
Witnessing a historic moment is such an odd and exhilarating thing. It is hard to register the full scope of it because you are chest deep in it.
He goes on to observe that regardless of how the Justices rule in the cases argued the past two days,
there is no denying that something historic has just happened: an aggrieved group has taken a stand and given voice once again to the American — and indeed Democratic — ideals of justice and fairness and freedom.
He continues with a brief observation about the argumentation (including referencing Justice Ginsburg on "skim milk marriage) and recent pattern of Democratic politicians declaring their support of marriage equality while Conservatives appear "resigned - or overcome" by what is happening.
He then has an excursus on Bill O'Reilly, noting with surprised approval his remarks to Megyn Kelly on the weakness of the arguments offered by opponents of marriage equality while also taking the talk show host apart on his remarks about the Easter Bunny, including providing the proper historical background to demonstrate what a fool O'Reilly can appear to be.
But is the concluding portion of his column that most makes this on especially worth reading.
He begins this portion of the column by writing
history will record this period in our country’s development as a struggle over the weight that religious mores should have in our system of government and code of laws.
This is either to be America’s Era of Enlightenment or Entrenchment.
Let me briefly leave Blow to offer some observations of my own.
It is worth noting that at least some of the Justices seemed more than a little aware of how society is moving on this issue, so that regardless of their personal feelings on the subject of marriage equality, reluctant to rule in a fashion that might be judged harshly by history. Thus I fully expect that Proposition 8 will be dead, although to get a majority may mean simply denying standing to the proponents who brought the case on appeal, which in some fashion would allow the original ruling by Judge Walker striking down the proposition to remain in force without making any broader ruling.
As for the Defense of Marriage Act, it seems pretty clear there is a majority for finding the denial of Federal recognition of same sex marriages authorized by the states unconstitutional.
It is important to note, however, that Section 2 of DOMA, which allows states not to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states (in contradiction to the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the Constitution) are NOT before the Court in this case. Were this the Warren Court, or perhaps going back to the Stone-led Court which issued West Virginia v Barnette, we might expect that once a majority of the Justices agreed on the unconstitutional nature of the Federal restrictions, rather than wait for a separate case the Court would also simultaneously strike down Section 2. Given Kennedy's propensity to support states' rights, that is not going to happen, and the issue of marriage equality will continue to be a political issue - which is likely not to work to the Republican advantage - after all, we already have Senator Hagen, up for reelection, taking a position that will likely keep the issue alive through the 2014 election in North Carolina.
I now return to 's column Blow, and here I have a problem. The rest of the column is so well written that in fairness the only thing that gives it justice is to quote it all, and that would of course be well beyond fair use and thus violate copyright. I will try to give enough of a sense while staying within the appropriate boundaries.
He posits a choice on how we decide, with apposite pairs:
"ancient religious texts or current scientific ones?"
"dictates of supposed deities or the prescript of universal dignity?"
He does not deny anyone guiding their lives by their faith but they should not "extend it to the governance of others’ lives."
There is a bit more, also quite pointed.
And then there is his conclusion about same-sex marriage:
I haven’t heard a single credible argument — either intellectual or moral — that can long sustain the codification of this particular injustice.
Nor have I.
Nor have the more than 8 in 10 young people who support marriage equality.
Read the Blow.
Pass it on.
Peace.