Steve, That logic is pathetic.

William is discussing ethics, and come back with how to count days on a calendar. "Apples v. Oranges" doesn't even begin to describe how far off your counter point is.

I believe he is absolutely right. Because the abortion debate was decided by the courts, and not by voters, pro-lifers can argue that they were 'cheated' by unelected courts rather than heard through the democratic process. This is true even though pro-lifers most likely would have lost the overall battle, given poll data.

This is why liberals must avoid the courts and work for compromise at the state level, like civil unions and domestic partnerships. If they use the courts, it may only fan the flames of the religious right and ultimately hurt them in the end.

Just a little observation on ALL the comments above:
Strong views/opinions from both sides of the abortion topic. When stating an opinion about it - some of you thought it was wrong, some of you thought it was right/acceptable.
Now let's look at all of the comments and pick one out that the opinion on gay/lesbian marriages is wrong - can't find one.
Interesting!

William, if you think life begins at conception, are you willing to base age-based rights/privileges (drive, vote, smoke, drink, cheaper car insurances, etc.) from the date of conception? After all, my birthday is in October, and at that point I will turn 28. If life really began at coneption, why didn't I turn 28 in January?

So, KJ, whom do you think should determine when the government and courts need to subvert the democratic process "for the greater good" and to "guarantee civil rights?"

If conservatives regain control of SCOTUS and decide that it is necessary for the courts to intervene in states' rights to ban abortion is that OK?

After all, many people think abortion is the murder of innocent babies, and surely if the government must intervene to guarantee gays the right to marry, it must intervene to guarantee infants the right to life.

Is it OK if a conservative SCOTUS overruled states' rights to abolish affirmative action on the grounds that it descriminates against whites and Asians?

Surely, if the courts must intervene to make sure black and white people have equal quality water fountains, then they should intervene to make sure descrimination is not used in contracts, hiring, or college admissions.

After all, these are much more important than water fountains.

If you think that the courts should usurp states rights ONLY when YOU agree with what the court is doing, then you are a hypocrite.

Dan, you said, "I believe it is for the states to decide what the "Legally rational basis" may be rather than the Federal Govt."

I'm not an attorney, but I believe "rational basis" must meet some defined legal tests. Rational basis cannot simply be "that's the way it's always been (argumentum ad antiquatum)" or "that's what the majority wants (argumentum ad populum)." The Supreme Court has specifically ruled against such logical fallacies.

Going back to my earlier hypothetical; what if the majority of citizens of a state decided only left-handed people may legally marry, and there is no rational basis to allow any other legal marriage? Would you support that? Why or why not?

KJ: "How can majority opinion, or mob rule, objectively recognize the rights of some, but not all, of the citizens of any given state without expressing a legally rational basis for infringement of those rights?"

I believe it is for the states to decide what the "Legally rational basis" may be rather than the Federal Govt.

Dan, you said "KJ: Your argument further reinforces my opinion that these are matters best handled at the state level."

Why? What if it is the majority opinion in a given state that only left-handed people should be allowed to marry? Would you support the state's right to limit marriage only to left-handed people?

While that idea might seem far-fetched, I don't believe it is unreasonable. I believe issues of human and civil rights should not be left to the whimsy of politicians whose primary objective is re-election! If left-handed people are favored now, who will be out of favor? How can majority opinion, or mob rule, objectively recognize the rights of some, but not all, of the citizens of any given state without expressing a legally rational basis for infringement of those rights?

KJ: Your argument further reinforces my opinion that these are matters best handled at the state level.

I should also add that amendment eight states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I think that pretty strongly states the founders' support for individual liberty.

Dan, you omitted one very important phrase in the tenth amendment. The amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I believe the states may not limit, without at the very least a rational basis to do so, the human and civil rights of the people. That is an important concept in that amendment, IMO, that power is inherently individual.

William says, "KJ, almost all our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian teachings.

If you deny this you must be completely divorced from reality."

Well, William, I've been accused of a lot of things but being divorced from reality is not among them. We can look at the ten commandments one-by-one if you'd like, but to do so would only factually support my argument that our system of civil laws are based on harm and consent, not on any religious theology.

I understand you desperately want to believe you are correct, William. Your opinion would be better served, however, if you supported it with facts instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks. You have only attacked me as a person; you have failed to undermine my opinion.

Can you be a bit more respectful of others instead of sending the debate into personal attacks? Good debate is based on logic and verifiable fact, not on attacks and innuendo.

Jana, the answer is simple...State level. The Constitution states that all powers not listed are guaranteed to the states, therefore these are state matters.

I'm sorry, what was the question again?
"Will abortion linger as a hot-button issue while gay marriage recedes?"
APPLES and ORANGES, or better - APPLES and CARS. Of course gay marriage and abortion issues are different ball games. I think they need to be played in different ball parks. That is my opinion and this is my right to have one, however -
People, this thread has lost it's way.
The question is more of a "how" these issues were handled and still being handled - Federal vs. State level - not who is right, wrong, moral, or immoral about the topics themselves.
It's turning ugly in here.

Dan W, English Common law and Justinians laws are based on what.........?

Thought so.

KJ, almost all our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian teachings.

If you deny this you must be completely divorced from reality.

It's a commonly known FACT that even liberals ackowledge.

'If you don't believe in the concept of a soul, then it's difficult to define any way in which a week-old clump of cells is a living human. '

thank you blarg, well put.

'pre-born' is an idiotic construction which is meaningless.

I can see that William has an intense concern about abortion, and I wouldn't try to change his mind about that. I believe, however, that William may only intervene in an abortion decision that involves himself and his intimate partner, and that he has no standing to insist that everyone must conform to his strong beliefs even though we do not share them.

I suggest to William and to other anti-choice men that the best thing they can do to prevent abortion is to take all necessary steps to ensure they do not create an unintended pregnancy. Birth control and family planning must be our first and greatest priority if we are to sincerely address the number of abortions performed in our country.

I would also suggest that if William and people who support his position sincerely believe every pregnancy should be carried to term, they must whole-heatedly support publicly financed programs to assist low income women with the expenses of pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing. To fail to support such assistance is, IMO, hypocritical and an indication that the anti-choice position is not actually pro-life, but only pro-birth; that is the elephant in the living room the anti-reproductive choice faction must address.

As a linguist maven, I am unable to define "pre-born child"; I can accept it as an oxymoron.

William says, "And by the way, the laws against murder, theft, rape, perjury/lying, and most other laws are based upon the Ten Commandments or other Judeo-Christian religious teachings.

So are all those laws unconstitutional as well?"

Actually, William, you are wrong. This is an oft-used but incorrect argument posed by some folks but it really cannot withstand scrutiny. Of all ten commandments, only three, the prohibitions against murder, theft and lying, can be even loosely connected with our system of civil justice. Our laws are more appropriately said to be based on English Common Law and on the Code of Hammurabi (ca 1760 b.c.).

The bases of our laws are harm and consent, not religious ideology.

More importantly, those laws can be justified in a non-religious moral framework. While that may be possible with anti-abortion laws, it's a much harder case to make.

If you don't believe in the concept of a soul, then it's difficult to define any way in which a week-old clump of cells is a living human. I don't really want to debate the ethics or science of abortion here, but you have to admit that most people object to it on religious grounds. That is not true of murder and other crimes.

To be fair, William isn't commenting on Gay and Lesbian rights, he is arguing that a fetus should be considered a person who has those inalienable rights as well...

(Stating, not agreeing)

William's arguments are all over the map, with very little logic or fact to support them.

The fact is that the USA is not a pure democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic. The founders wisely foresaw that the majority, by sheer mob rule, could inflict tyranny on any minority, and ensured that minority rights of citizens would be protected.

Our society has evolved and embraced the needs of certain despised minorities over time. Two obvious examples to support that evolution are the enfranchisement of women and the recognition (not the endowment) of civil rights for African Americans.

William seems to think rights, whether civil or human, are the property of the majority and the majority may decide who is worthy of them. I believe that to be patently un-American and contrary to the ideal of individual liberty. Basic civil and human rights do not belong to anyone; they are inherently individual and based on citizenship of this country and this planet.

Once again, I issue a challenge to those who oppose equality for gay and lesbian Americans: support your opposition with logic and verifiable facts. If you do, you'll be the first.

William: Actually those laws are based on Justinians code and English common law.

William: 'And personnaly I would draw the line where the fetus could survive (assisted) after birth.' This would rule out late term abortions I believe.

My meaning is that if a fetus can be delivered and can survive with medical care then it should be allowed to be delivered.

As a practical guide I think up to the first trimester. That may contradict my above statement but that is what I generally consider to be the most definative guideline.

Not sure if gay marriage will will become less of an issue, but certainly cutting off the debate on abortion has created many people on both sides who are completely unreasonable in their positions because they feel powerless.

And by the way, the laws against murder, theft, rape, perjury/lying, and most other laws are based upon the Ten Commandments or other Judeo-Christian religious teachings.

So are all those laws unconstitutional as well?

Dan W, so I take that to mean you support late-term/partial birth abortion?

Even many liberals are opposed to that.

As for your crust, your mom already cut it off.

I will pour you a glass of orange juice if you so desire though :-)

William: I said when people mention religion it ends the argument. "The congress can pass no law respecting any religion..." Thus any law with a root in a religion is unconstitutional.

With out mentioning religion we can continue...

I personnaly make the distinction of never. I am personally against abortion, but I am pro choice. My choice and my wifes choice is not to have abortions for us. However, we dont feel we have the right to make that CHOICE for someone else.

And personnaly I would draw the line where the fetus could survive (assisted) after birth.

And please cut the crust off my sandwich...

William: Your argument loses merit because we cannot decide on the definition of "Life". Until the baby is actually born it is not a living, breathing person.

It legal terms, I cannot take a deduction for my child until it is born therefore it does not exist as a legal entity.

Hey William:

Sport, methinks Chris is gay, not a fetus. Better luck next time, kiddo.

Dan W, you can oppose abortion without being religious. It simply depends on when you consider a fetus to have crossed the line into becoming a person.

Do you think it should be legal to abort a baby the day before it is born?

If not, how do you know where to draw the line?

Furthermore, the 1st amendment prevents the establishment of a CERTAIN religion as the official religion of the US.

You would know this if you actually tried reading the Constitution, instead of pretending to know what it says.

A citizen can USE their religious beliefs to form opinions that influence their vote.

So your assertion that "the 1st amendment will end the argument" over abortion if anyone mentions religion is uninformed, incorrect, and completely rediculous.

I think your mommy's calling you. Your Peanutbutter 'n Jelly sandwich is ready.

Drindl: The fundamentalists lose the Abortion argument the second they mention God or heaven/hell. When they try to frame it as a religious argument the First amendment ends the argument against them.

Chris, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!!

Those poor infants being aborted have only one life to live and this is it!

But they are being murdered savagely by the thousands before they are even born!

Justice for everyone should never be hampered by the hate and idiocy of some!

I mean, babies are really DYING while we sit around discussing Roe v. Wade!!!

We need to overturn Roe NOW!

This positive spin of "it's happening, you just gotta be patient" really makes my blood boil!

We have to use the courts to intervene and overturn Roe NOW to give those babies their civil rights that have been denied since 1973!

--------------------------------------------

Chris, I hope you see how dumb and hypocritical your stance is.

The issue of gay marriage is that gay marriage is not the issue - it's the equal rights of homosexuals. We pretend we're dealing with the issue by breaking off this little piece and passing it around like a hot potato. The issue, however, won't be resolved because if the Supreme Court made it the law of the land tomorrow, homophobes woud still hate and homos would still be discriminated against, lawfully.

I don't want to wait for my rights to be recognized by my state or my national government. It is my belief I only have one life and this is it. I can't afford the time. I make out as I must, but justice for everyone should never be hampered by the idiocy or hate of some. The positive spin of "it's happening, you just gotta be patient" makes my blood boil.

As you may have guessed, that long post above that is unsigned is by me (the real me.)

William

Personally I think allowing unelected judges and other elite government beaurocrats to decide which issues should be above politics and what should be done about those issues is dangerous.

If you believe that civil rights, gay rights, and abortion rights should be guaranteed by government fiat without being approved through the Democratic process, then what right do you have to complain about the Patriot Act, or the War in Iraq, or Don't Ask Don't Tell, or Kelo v. CT?

After all, the gov't elites decided those things were OK/necessary, so who are you to complain.

By your logic, you must obey the gov't beaurocrats because they know better.

I don't buy into that philosophy. Under the democratic process, elite government officials and judges don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be allowed, and they don't get to impose their ideas on the people.

What I am about to say will probably be very unpopular, and wacky Libs will try to smear me as "David Duke" or whatever, but as George Orwell said:

"If you cling to a truth, even against the whole world, if it is the truth, you are not mad."

I STRONGLY disagree with the idea that government officials and judges need to intervene in the democratic process to guarantee rights or institute rules that liberals believe are necessary.

If you subscribe to that above philosophy, then why shouldn't conservative officials and judges intervene in the democratic process to ban abortion, which they believe is murder?

Surely every unborn child must be protected from murder and guaranteed the right to life.

Do you see why it's hypocritical to believe that it is OK for the courts to intervene and end segregation or legalize abortion and gay marriage, but it's NOT OK for the court to intervene to protect the unborn, or to impose other conservative ideas?

You can't have it both ways. Either you think the government should intervene, or you think it shouldn't.

And if you think it should, then you have to acknowledge that conservatives can use the courts to do the same thing.

Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

Personally, I believe that even if the goal is to "achieve the greater good" it is still WRONG and UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNDEMOCRATIC to subvert the democratic process.

It was wrong (and unconstitutional) of the courts to desegregate the South since by doing so it subverted the democratic process.

If you think that was OK because the end justified the means, then you have to acknowledge the right of conservatives to use the courts or legislative branch to ban abortion and institute other conservative ideas.

The problem with liberals is that they find it impossible to mind their own business and always feel the need to impose their views on everyone else.

Guess what?

It's none of your business if a gay couple in GA can't get married, or a woman in OK can't have an abortion, or an interracial couple in VA can't get married, or if there are anti-sodomy laws in MS, or if there are separate water fountains in TN, or if illegals are being rounded up and deported in wherever, or if people in NC can own assault rifles.

Mind your own business, and let the people of each state decide what is best for them. People in a state who don't like the rules there are free to move.

What works in MA may not work in FL.

Let the people of the Several States decide what is best for them, and stop trying to impose your views on everyone else.

Subverting the democratic process through the courts and other means is a double-edged sword.

If you liberals insist on forcing YOUR values on OUR states, we will do our utmost to force OUR values on YOUR states.

You reap what you sow.

Note: In 1954, SCOTUS didn't rule that legal separation (segregation)was unconstitutional. Actually, Brown v. Board upheld the doctrine of Seperate but Equal (Plessy v. Furgeson.)

SCOTUS ruled that segregation was unconstitutional b/c seperate IN PRACTICE WAS NOT equal.

But according to Brown v. Board, Separate but Equal would be perfectly constitutional if IN PRACTICE, not only in theory, separate facilities were still of equal quality.

I AM NOT SAYING I SUPPORT SEGREGATION. So don't try to smear me as "david duke."

I am simply opposed to the subversion of the democratic process by gov't elites for the "greater good" b/c it sets a VERY DANGEROUS precedent.

While there may be some truth to Rauch's argument, I think there's a bigger difference. Gay marriage primarily affects the gay people involved. Abortion, on the other hand, affects someone who has no say in the matter. If a federal law was passed that inconvenient newborns could be murdered, everyone would be outraged. The only difference between that and abortion is your belief on when life begins.

samvol,

It's the Burger court not the Warren court that decided Roe. You really just exposed your lack of knowledge with that.

Rauch's argument is hardly original. This idea that Roe did damage by inflaming debate has been around for a while. And to a degree it is likely true that without Roe there would be less heat since the women deprived of abortions would be the ones in parts of the country that least value their opinion anyway.

But there are plenty of differences between abortion and gay marraige, so it seems a bit silly to assume that these differences are not relevant. The supreme court also short circuited legislative debate in outlawing contraception and inter-racial marraige. Neither has produced the continued acrimony of the abortion debate.

Similarly Rauch's pointing to the '06 election when gay marraige was muted ignores that Iraq muted the abortion issue as well. Social issues are going to be on the back burner until the Iraq fiasco clears up. To draw significance from this about the social issues is silly.

'However, I think that the extremes in the abortion debate are so far apart that a settlement crafted democratically in the middle wouldn't satisfy them.'

Well, exactly. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian, and I can tell you that there is no middle. If you can't convince certain religous groups that birth control of any kind is moral and acceptable, how are you to come to a consensus with them about abortion. For a great many people who are fundamentist, they are right and you are wrong.

They are going to heaven and you are going to hell. End of story. There is no middle gruond between heaven and hell. They might have one possibly, but they will always feel that it was wrong and that no one else should be able to.

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy associated with these issues - as the cite about the prevalance of sexually abusive priests -- but it's because we can't accept cognitive dissonance -- the fact that we might believe something is wrong but still do it.

"Rauch has a point but "abortion" and "gay marriage" are not in pare materia. The first cuts across all sections of society, and all socio-economic classes, and the second involves the "rights" of fewer than 7% of the total population."

Your claim of 7% of the population simply is not supportable. The fact is that no one knows the percentage of our population that is gay or lesbian, because many people who are homosexual remain in the closet.

Also, we don't base recognition of civil rights on the percent of population affected by denial of those rights. Even if gay or lesbian people in the USA are only .001% of the population, their rights must be recognized and protected.

Marriage as a Civil Right was defined by the Supreme Court in its Loving v. Virginia decision in June, 1967. It is amazing that only 40 years ago mixed-race marriage was banned by some states in the USA. It will be amazing within the next decade that same-sex couples have been denied that right as well.

drndl, an existentialist would say that personhood / identity is constructed through the choices one makes and the experiences one has. not sure what that says about the "personhood" of a fetus, but sth to consider.

ons other thing that no one has mentioned is the impact on society of each new addition to the population. i am not in favor of a 'one child' policy a la China in the '6os, but it is simple math... each new addition (especially an unwanted / unplanned for addition) represents a financial obligation undertaken by all of society. when we either don't have or are unwilling to allocate the resources necessary to provide food, health care, education etc. for a child, issues arise... and many of those who insist on an outright ban on abortion have no idea what we should do about those issues.

"I agree with Rauch to an extent. I truly think that gay marriage should definately be left up to the states. I think it's working fine that way, and should continue to be that way. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."

If one is part of a same-sex couple, marriage is, most definitely, broken. It's only working fine if one desires marriage and it is not denied because of innate and unimportant traits in a part of our society.

Why should gay/lesbian Americans who work, pay taxes, contribute to their communities, worship (or not) as they choose, raise children, and function in every manner as a family be denied the legal rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with legal marriage? Why should those same Americans be relegated to a second-class legal status called "civil union?"

I have yet to see a cogent, logical, factual argument against same-sex marriage. If someone here presents one, it will be a stellar accomplishment.

Drindle, You are so right about human nature... rabid anti-abortion Senator Bob Barr even drove his second wife to an abortion clinic. Typical moralist "do as I say, not as I do...."

http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/26newsb.html

Chicagoean, dream on. There won't be less of a religious right regardless, their anti-abortion, pro-war issues aren't really about morals.... they're about power for their leaders.

And, need I remind everyone of the sexual abuse of innocents by priests and preachers who expound their abhorrance of gays. Bring me a barf bag.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Perhaps its sensible to ask the public to engage in a decades long national discussion about a civil rights issue to reach some national consensus, but its profoundly unfair to leave those affected by it in limbo while that debate takes place. This country sat around for decades trying to reach consensus on the access black Americans should have to quality education, voting privileges, and basic human rights and in the interim generations of people had to suffer for it.

Just how long do those affected by a "national, consensus building discussion" have to wait to exercise their civil liberties? Should they be subject to a life relegated to poverty conditions thanks to a teenage unwanted pregnancy while the various interest groups duke it out with their Congressmen for influential supremacy? Should gay people in states who don't share the "national consensus" on homosexual marriage just cool their heels until their state also achieves an internal consensus?

Say what you want about about the Roe decision, but those who have needed access to family planning resources have by and large gotten them while homosexuals continue to have second-class rights. Whether or not radical elements are involved is really beside the point -- that argument is more for the comfort of those not directly impacted.

Abortion isn't new in human history. Look in any herbal (including quite old ones) and you'll find several abortifacients (substances that cause abortion). It's my understanding that through much of the history of the Catholic Church, just to give one example, abortion was actually somewhat acceptable until 'the quickening' of the fetus (until movement was detectable). Religious scholars said that the fetus did not have a soul until that point and was, therefore, not yet a human being. I think the abortion debate is still about when one thinks personhood happens (be it at conception, some time during pregnancy, birth...).

That said, I mostly disagree with the premise of today's blog. There is certainly something to be said for coming to a settlement democratically, rather than having one imposed. However, I think that the extremes in the abortion debate are so far apart that a settlement crafted democratically in the middle wouldn't satisfy them. I am pro-choice, but if I truly thought that a zygote, embryo, or fetus was a full person, I don't think it would matter whether the laws allowing abortion were the result of consensus or court ruling. I would feel that my society was allowing murder and I would want the law changed. Likewise, some pro-choicers, as evidenced in this thread, feel that effectively requiring pregnancy is tantamount to issuing a death sentence to pregnant women. In other words, at both extremes the stakes are extraordinarily high in this debate.

If the gay marriage debate is more likely to be settled amicably, I think it is because the stakes aren't nearly as high for people at the extremes.

I would think in this day and age there would be no ignorant people left out there and yet I see a sad level of ignorance in some of the comments above. Since the beginning of time there have been Gay people and there has been abortion. So for anyone to say that these are issues are new must not have had history teachers that were competent. First I will start with Gay marriage. If a law was passed federally to ban gay marriage do you actually think any of the states would take their time to go up against a federal law? No. Doing so would take the measure to the supreme court to have the law be overturned and the present state of our supreme court is not a good one. Those justices sitting up there wouldn't care whether a national ban on Gay marriage was constitutional or not. They would vote based on their morals and we've all seen a preview of what they think.
Now on to Roe v. Wade. For the idiots out there. That case was soley for the purpose of giving a woman the right to CHOOSE. Making it legal for her to decide whether or not she had to keep a baby or not. For all those people out there who disagree with abortion tell you what. You go and find these mothers who want to get rid of their babies, you tell them you're going to pay for all their medical expenses and you're going to adopt the child. There you go, or are you in the same rut as most Americans, can't afford to have and raise a child without going into serious debt? Before all of you consevatives, or christian fundamentalists start harping about it's murder, it's wrong, or it's immoral, think about bringing a child into a world of poverty, think about bringing a child into a world where they can potentially be screwed up for life and end up in jail or worse, dead. So for the actual sake of democracy no one can tell a person what to do with their bodies, no one should be able to tell me I can't get a tatoo, a peircing, or an abortion, and think that they are riteous in their beliefs. To me what people do in their personal lives do not affect other people unless they want it to, so how about we all get over it and we just mind our own business. Or are we just following the example of nosing around in other people lives that our dear old president set for us?

Though I feel we are comparing apples to oranges. I cant help but think what a catalyst the Supreme Court's decision was to bridge a gap between church and state. I think that there would be less of a "religious right" if there were more consensus. On the same token I still feel that the SC's decision was correct and that if we did wait for said consensus on abortion we would still be embattled for the right for a woman to choose what is done with her body. I think the same sex marriage issue is more of a financial than a moral aspect. Where as abortion is primarily viewed as a moral issue and not a financial issue. Hence apples and oranges.

Without the Warren Court intervention into the the racial divide we would still have "separate but equal schools" poll taxes segerated public facilites. We would still be "trying to reach a consenus" on whether Afro-Americans are "ready" for full citizenship. The Warren Court desegregated interstate transportation a full two to three years before the 1964 Civil Rights Act (who all remembers the joke "consenus" Civil Rights Act of 1957? Sometimes the Court reflect a "consenus", Plessy v. Ferguson, somethimes it breaks that consenus "Brown v. Board of Education, Wade v. Roe. Live with it!!

The consensus for gay marriage has been found but not implemented. Civil unions are the fairest compromise that exists.

The consensus for gay marriage has been found but not implemented. Civil unions are the fairest compromise that exists.

I agree with Rauch to an extent. I truly think that gay marriage should definately be left up to the states. I think it's working fine that way, and should continue to be that way. If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

On the abortion issue. It deals with life vs. death, and I think from that view point the law must make a clear standard. To me, abortion is a right vs. wrong issue, and I certainly see no room for compromise. I believe except when the life of the mother is in danger, abortion should be illegal because otherwise, your taking an innocent life that could have survived.

He makes sense as far as what issues have enduring anger connected to them, but that's an explanation of psychology, not a justification for stalling on basic civil rights. Neither of these issues should ever have been in the courts -- there was never a reason to ban abortions, or impose (basically religious) restrictions on which adults may marry.

While I agree that same-sex marriage will likely lose its wedge-issue status and become more commmonplace in a few generations--that course is far from being guaranteed. The 2004 elections brought home the fact that our country/society can, in fact, move backwards. Opposing forces have since moderated those setbacks to some degree, but only with a good deal of work and commitment from dedicated people.

In short, if you assume that America will always be moving ahead in terms of equality and tolerance, you're setting yourself up for some nasty surprises.

For those who protested Democrats cancelling a debate sponsored by Fox, here's the perfect solution. Have that debate, then have a republican debate sponsored by Air America. Fair and balanced.

'Matt Stoller has an article at Politico about why the netroots worked to keep the Fox from hosting the Democratic primary debates, because Republican Propaganda Is Not News. Mark Green, newly-minted as Air America Radio's president, responded to Fox Noise hysteria over this "stalinist" (and, thankfully, successful) demand by offering to have AAR host the Republican primary debates.'

If the states are the best place to decide cultural issues, then would that mean that the SCOTUS acted improperly in overturning segregation laws with Brown v. Board?

Also, samvol, I'd hate to tell you this, but you are not helping your conservative brethren with your research, because it was not the Warren Court that decided Roe v. Wade. Earl Warren retired in 1969, a year after he made his announcement, but he decided to stay on until a replacement was named and Abe Fortas died on the vine in Oct. 1968. Roe was decided in 1973, under the *Burger* Court with only two justices (White, a Kennedy appointee, and Rehnquist) voting against it.

As far as the gay marriage question goes, personally, I would have no problem with eveything being defined as a civil union, but would the voters of MA have been accepting of gay marriage if the SCOMA hadn't decided what they did and people saw that gay marriage wasn't the end of the world? After all, even the initial sponsors of the constitutional ban on gay marriage came around. I think abortion is a little bit different in that it will always be controversial because questions about when life begins (which is the real argument behind abortion) are never giong to be definitively answered no matter how laws relating to it are deicded. Quick question, though, if abortion is murder and it is decided that way, does that mean that people will get the right to vote 18 years from conception rather than birth?

Rauch has a point but "abortion" and "gay marriage" are not in pare materia. The first cuts across all sections of society, and all socio-economic classes, and the second involves the "rights" of fewer than 7% of the total population. Where it counts is culturally, and that gives it exaggerated legal effect. I don't agree with the premise that reserving "reproductive rights" to the states would have made much of a difference. With the pervasiveness of demand, it would have been eventually federalized through District Court challenge from one state to another, and we'd be in front of the Supremes in any event. I do like the idea of gay marriage being left to the states and with "full faith and credit" in the U.S. Constitution, being eventuallly recognized, or given legitimacy on a state by state basis. Contrary to the neo-con/conservative party line, individuals do not choose their sexual orientation, and should not be penalized for it, all other things being equal.

Good point, Drindl. There's also an op-ed in today's Post by Alan Simpson, saying we should get rid of "Don't ask, don't tell". When a former Republican senator from Wyoming supports gays in the military, times are definitely a-changin'.

I agree with Rauch. The difference between the two issues is that in the case of abortion there is actual harm involved.

Court interference in gay marriage made it a political issue. The movement to ban gay marriage really caught on only after the Massachusetts high court ordered it.

If consensus is the goal, rather than government approval or disapproval of gay marriage, then court interference is a very negative thing.

A majority of states now have constitutional provisions banning gay marriage, but passed by ever smaller majorities. This suggests that a move toward some acceptance of gay unions would be possible, except that state constitutions will need to be re-amended to accommodate that. If the Supreme Court had done what the Massachusetts court did, the issue would still arouse high dudgeon. As it is, proponents will have to muster popular majorities, rather than legislative majorities, to authorize gay marriage.

On abortion, the Court short-circuited debate, and prevented consensus. A majority of the population prefers some restricted access to abortion, but the Court set a default much father to the acceptance side than most people are comfortable with.

To R. Frtiz: if abortion is such a fundamental right, why have most other countries (including those in Western Europe) consistently rejected taking a no-holds-barred approach to it? In those countries, the abortion absolutists lost politically, the more moderate middle won, and the issue is no longer hot. Here, the absolutists dominate because the middle is willing to listen to each extreme's arguments against the other.

Cairo - Corruption in Iraq is now worse than it was during Saddam Hussein's regime, the Chairman of Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity (CPI), Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, said in an interview published Thursday in the Arabic-language Asharq Alawsat newspaper.

'There are eight ministers and 40 general directors against whom corruption charges have been brought and they had all fled abroad,' he said.

According to Al-Radhi, the commission was currently investigating the embezzlement of public funds to the tune of eight billion US dollars.

Independent observers in Baghdad report that it is very difficult to find an official who will discharge a public service without a bribe.

In the latest corruption index of the Organization Transparency International, Iraq was found to be the fourth most corrupt country in the world.

Drindl states above:

"But there have always been accidents and destitute and desperate women, and frazzled mothers who simply can't handle another one, and deadbeat men and shamed parents, so there will always be ways, as there always have been. It may be available only to the weathly [as was the case before Roe], poor women will die in back alleys [ditto] -- some may revert to infanticide [common in the last century]"

When you're a heterosexual white man, I'm sure the world looks a lot different than it does to women, gays, and people of color. "People have always suffered, oh well." Nice.

If you're white, straight, middle class, and male, it's easy to make staid pronouncements about other people getting enfranchised "over time," because it ain't your rights, and it ain't your time!

I can almost see you pater familias fatting your collective complacent bellies
while you pontificate about how the great unwashed will get their share sometime is the vague, not too near, future.

So you feel absolved, and you don't have to have your privileges challenged. No discomfort for you all, but you get to look all compassionate.

It took 72 YEARS for women to get the vote, and women are still under-represented in govenment almost 100 years after getting the vote. We still act like women are the brood mares of our species, and the debate on abortion shows it.

The whole debate on abortion presupposes that women will raise the "full human being" once it's here. If women stood up today and refused to raise any more children, the world would come crashing to its knees.

Oh well, all these disenfranchised people are just the collateral damage of normal, consensual politics. Totally acceptable, I guess, to the ones not feeling the damage.

An important point to consider in the abortion debate, which is often overlooked, is the implications of restrictions on abortion. Specifically, the implications for a woman whose health is endangered by her pregancy. There are women who seek abortion because it is an unwanted pregnancy, and there are women who seek an abortion because the pregnancy puts their life in danger or their baby has a fatal condition. State bans on partial birth abortion have brought this issue to light. Legislatures often require theses bans to have "health exceptions" where a woman can receive the abortion if her health is in danger; however, what makes a woman's life in danger is a subjective, gray area. State laws passed putting restrictions on abortion are a slippery slope that could have significant implications for many women, particulary those whose health is endangered by their pregnancy. I believe that this is a right to life issue for the woman. Leaving matters of abortion up to the states is worrisome, as illustrated by the fairly close call of the South Dakota abortion ban.

John Warner is an 80 year old Republican from Virginia, right? Would you have expected him to say this?:

'Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a former Secretary of the Navy, said, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral.'

Five years ago even, that would have been stunning. But now it's not. Well, maybe a little bit. But why have things changed? Because gays have come out and serve openly in the higher echelons of the Republican Party, for one thing. This administration has been, despite their protestations, extremely gay friendly.. many of the inner circle are gay, although some more quietly than others. But it's telling that the 'conservative' VP's daughter is the first gay woman in a very public political situation to become pregant with her female partner.

I've never seen an argument against gay marriage that didn't eventually boil down to "I think gay people are gross" or a misunderstanding of the concept of marriage. I think as people realize the arguments against gay marriage are so weak, and as society becomes more accepting of homosexuality, opposition to it will decline.

Abortion is another story. I'm pro-choice, but at least there are some valid arguments against abortion. Some of them are philosophical, some are scientific. So I expect the debate over abortion to continue for much longer than the debate over gay marriage.

Interesting point. But as other posters have said, should matters which most people regard as fundamental rights - the "right" to marry , the "right" to control one's body or the "right" to life or even to drink alcohol (all constrained to some degree in most societies) be left to voters' whims? How many Americans in 1850 would have voted to abolish slavery? American society has generally moved in a more liberal direction over its history, shown by increased civil rights, etc, but occasionally moves backward, as with Prohibition.

In a federalist system, cultural issues probably need to work themselves out at the state level. Perhaps, in time, the gay marriage issue will be resolved and a national consensus reached. Then again, maybe not. In these debates over federal vs. state intervention and states' rights vs. constitutional solutions, whatever happens to pure justice? Black Americans waited a century before the national government intervened. Perhaps the Supreme Court acted too soon regarding abortion. But regarding gay marriage, how many loving, committed couples must suffer at the hands of religious extremists before justice is served? Can we wait a generation or two or three? Sometimes, justice can not wait.

'[Gonzales'] appearance underscored what two Republicans close to the Bush administration described as a growing rift between the White House and the attorney general. Mr. Gonzales has long been a confidant of the president but has aroused the ire of lawmakers of both parties on several issues, including the administration's domestic eavesdropping program.

The two Republicans, who spoke anonymously so they could share private conversations with senior White House officials, said top aides to Mr. Bush, including Fred F. Fielding, the new White House counsel, were concerned that the controversy had so damaged Mr. Gonzales's credibility that he would be unable to advance the White House agenda on national security matters, including terrorism prosecutions.

"I really think there's a serious estrangement between the White House and Alberto now," one of the Republicans said.'

I also completely agree with shoebeacon: It's wrong to force a women to carry a child to term when she doesn't want to.

It's wrong in the way slavery is wrong, in the way forced homogenization of native cultures is wrong, and yes, Mr./Ms. MtMav, the way murder is wrong. Some women die in childbirth, or have permanent disabilities. Did you ever think of that, Mr./Ms. Let's-Force-Women-Who-Accidentally-Get-Pregnant-To-Give-Birth?

The Supreme Court stepped up at the time of Roe-vs-Wade and did what was right to protect WOMEN'S right to life. It's unfortuneate that so many people equate the potential life of an unborn child with present and actual life of a women.

The Supreme Court also stepped up and did what was right with inter-racial marriage. And fortuneatly, thank goodness, there is no mainstream political backlash to that decision that has survived.

I don't know whether Gay Marriage will eventually be legalized by the courts, or by rational people retaking the government.

Whichever happens soonest, and whatever works, that's what I think.

On http://www.solidpolitics.com Hugo Chavez Paid Rudy's Law Firm $250,000.

'Even. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the administration's most faithful legislator, said "the appearances are troubling" for Gonzales. "I'm concerned," Cornyn said with Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) at his side. "This has not been handled well." The best Cornyn could offer Gonzales: "In Texas, we believe in having a fair trial and then we have the hanging."

Ouch. Not looking good for Alberto. Is he a goner? Wager, anyone?

For shoebeacon: I agree that, as you state, *Some rights should be fundamental* such as the fundamental right of the pre-born child to pursue *Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness* as the framers intended.

It is 2007 people! Why is it STILL conservatives business if anyone has an abortion or if Gays get married? If you personally don't want to have an abortion, don't have one and mind your own business. If a Gay or Lesbian person is born in this country and abides by the laws and rules of this country and work hard, why should they be denied the benefits of marriage that heterosexuals are allowed and why should Gays and Lesbians be denied entry into the military or the ability to adopt children who would otherwise have miserable, disconnected lives in foster care? Conservatives, especially hypocrites like Gingrich, should keep their opinions and "affairs" to themselves. Live and Let Live and shut up! A taxpayer for over 40 years and an Honorably Discharged Gay Army Veteran, with Honors!

Thoughtful piece, CC. I like the whys of politics rather than just the whatifs. I agree with poster above, gay marriage will be legalized on a state-by-state basis, but over time, just as the laws against interracial marriage slowly crumbled.

It may take another generation for it to become completely normalized and some will always fight it, but I think most people realize that there have always been gay couples and there always will be. If you truly believe in marriage and families, why prevent people who want to be a family, who may in fact have children already-- from marrying?

Abortion is another matter. It simply has not been around that long, it has not been legal that long, it can be reversed. One Supreme Court judge is all it will take. And I expect that will happen and then it will be immediately legalized in some states and probably never in others. There is too much of a divide between those who feel it is outright murder which should be punished and those who feel that medical decisions should be decided by those involved rather than government bureacrats.

And it's even possible to feel both ways at once. But there have always been accidents and destitute and desperate women, and frazzled mothers who simply can't handle another one, and deadbeat men and shamed parents, so there will always be ways, as there always have been. It may be available only to the weathly [as was the case before Roe], poor women will die in back alleys [ditto] -- some may revert to infanticide [common in the last century].

We may push it under the rug and publicly denounce it, but it won't go away, because human nature does not fundamentally change. There are many, many women who would say they are against it, who, finding themselves unexpectedly in a certain situation, will do what they feel they have to do.

I visited a clinic once doing research for an article, and was surprised at how many women had crosses around their necks and were wearing wedding rings.How many looked like middle-class housewives, and probably were.

You can try to stuff pandora back in the box, but you will never keep her there.

Sorry. I have a problem with Rauch's entire premise. Did the Court short circuit legislative debate by ruling that the right to choose is a personal one protected by the Constitution? Yes. Did the Court therefore somehow "mishandle" the abortion issue? Absolutely not. Waiting around for the states to get their stuff together is all very nice, but at a certain point the fundamental issue comes to a head and has to be answered. Should the Court have waited for the states before issuing the decision striking down laws against interracial marriage? or before striking down other anti-discrimination laws? laws requiring loyalty oaths? laws against use of contraceptives? laws limiting free speech? laws permitting forced confessions? Of course not. Are we still debating all those issues? Yes. But at least one fundamental aspect of the debate is settled and remains so.

I don't agree. Some rights should be fundamental, not subject to the whims of politics, reproductive rights for women is one.

I would agree. The Supreme Court sometimes gets ahead of where the country is and Roe is a classic example. I also agree that gay marriage is an issue that is slowly developing and the anti-gay marriage furor has probably peaked. Arizona voted down an anti-gay marriage amendment and Wis passed on (disappointingly) but by a pretty narrow margin. Given the polling among young people, gay marriage will be pretty univeral in 20-50 years and most people in the future will look at the anti-gay marriage movement (Karl Rove's invention) as an abherration on the road to full civil rights for everyone.

I also think it is significant that Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage and nothing bad seemed to happen. Thousands of same sex couples have married and the sky did not turn black, the oceans did not boil, earthquakes did not sunder her in two. In fact, the Red Sox won the World Series only after gay marriage was legalized. The truly watershed event will be if gay marriage is somehow put on the ballot in Mass. and the voters vote to keep it. Then all the rhetoric about gay marriage being imposed by an unelected judiciary (are judges in Mass. appointed or elected? If the Illinois S. Ct. were to legalize gay marriage would that be voter approved since we elect our judges here?)would be nullified.

Gay marriage will become less of an issue over time. I think not so much because it will evolve during the course of a long debate, but more because the people most opposed to it (conservative old people) will eventually pass on.

In 40 years, young people (who haven't even been born yet) will think the same thing about this debate as we do about the once widely held view that restaurants should have blacks only and whites only sections.

Abortion will be more complicated because young people have grown up with access to such services and in many cases, take that right for granted. If the right to procure an abortion is lost by the average woman or girl, then that could promote a violent backlash.

Regardless of whether you believe that abortion is an appropriate or inappropriate option, a woman must have dominion over her own body. If that right is removed by the state, if the religious right and their proxies in government can force a woman to remain pregnant against her will, then she is owned property - a slave. So, as was the case with slavery, I think that issue will swing back and forth between extremes for a long time.

Of course Rauch is right.

The country has always worked best when great issues that affect the lives of its citizen's are debated by the states without undue interference from non elected bodies.

I would suspect if the Warren court had stayed out of this issue you would see a much different take on abortian in this country now.

What some of us on the conservative side, NOT REPUBLICAN SIDE, have said for years was then and is still now correct.

The people will and can decide issues that do not affect the national purpose.

Cairo - Iyad Allawi, former Iraqi interim premier and leader of a secular party, said the planned Iraqi cabinet reshuffle would not bring hope to the war-ravaged state, adding that under the current political system some factions were 'incited into (adopting) fundamentalism.'

'What we're witnessing now is politically-driven civil infighting, not a religiously-driven sectarian (conflict),' the politician said.
'In addition to terrorism, (there) are certain Iraqi factions that have been incited into (adopting) fundamentalism because of marginalization and displacement.'

I think Rauch may have it right. We have to remember that the more radical elements of the Christian Right fight against abortion not solely on moral/religious grounds but also out of a feeling of disenfranchisement. Roe v Wade legalized abortion through judicial opinion rather than political debate. Supreme Court justices are not electorally accountable; they can't be lobbied, harassed and coaxed like elected politicians. In this sense, pro-life advocates feel as though they were cheated out of their democratic right to influence the decisions that affect their lives. Their conviction is righteous, religiously and democratically.

The debate on gay marriage will be played out in state legislatures. As we've seen, there will be a period of reaction against its legalization in MA, NJ and elsewhere. But legislation can be overturned as opinions become more moderate over time. Everyone gets to put in their 2 cents and consensus eventually emerges.

He's onto something. Abortion is as hot as ever while people are seeing that the sky doesn't fall in states where gay marriage has taken place.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com