> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of jdiebremse
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:31 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Gay Unions in NJ
>
>
> >
> > Seems like the NJ SC is not willing to push the Full Faith and Credit
> > issue. But I imagine it's a good-sized win for gay rights activists.
>
> If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
> what you want to be a "good-sized" win.....
It has been in the past. Constitutional rights exist as a restraint on the
majority. It doesn't always work properly, because of bad faith (for
example the Supreme Court approval of the internment of Japanese citizens in
WWII), but constitutional rights are intended to be a restraint on the
majority.
I can understand why people are upset with court interpretations that go
against their understanding of what is right and proper. My memory of this
goes back to "Impeach Earl Warren." Fortunately, for the US, this didn't
happen. If Frankfurter had taken a stand against internment, I have a hunch
he would have been at least as unpopular....and the possibility of
impeachment would, IMHO, have been larger than the risk Warren faced.
But, this doesn't make the Supreme Court right in every case, of course. I
tend to agree that the right to abortion up until birth is not in the
Constitution. I don't want to restart that debate here, but just to
indicate that I don't think you are totally wrong.
Also, as an aside, your view sounds very much like the view of a Log Cabin
Republican friend of mine. I know he isn't homophobic :-), and my guess is
that you are not either. I don't see it in your posts....the implied caveat
in my statement is a reflection of not actually being around you in RL.
> Many people have attributed the entrenchment of anti-abortion activism
> in this country to the fact that abortion was not legalized through
> democratic processes in the United States, as it was in most other
> democracies.
As my arguments elsewhere indicate, the US is somewhat different in how it
system works
>I can't help but wonder if the same thing isn't happening
> here....
I'm an experimentalist. To answer this question, I looked for polls that go
back before the Mass. Supreme Court ruling, and looked for the trends after
that. I looked at two questions: civil unions and marriage.
On Gay Marriage being legal, we have from Pew Research:
For Against
7/06 35 56
6/06 33 55
3/06 39 51
7/05 36 53
12/04 32 61
8/04 29 60
6/04 32 56
3/04 32 59
2/04 30 63
11/03 30 62
10/03 30 58
On Civil Unions, we have:
For Against
7/06 54 42
7/05 53 40
8/04 48 45
7/04 49 43
3/04 49 44
10/03 45 47
It seems clear to me that there is a slight trend towards accepting gay
marriages (averaging the three earliest and three latest polls we 30 +/-1.4%
vs. 35.7 +/- 1.4%...almost a 3-signma signal (assuming errors are
statistical).
There is also a clear trend in accepting civil unions. As far as SD goes,
it's not as clear because there aren't as many independent polls, but a 9
point shift is significant with a 2.5% statistical error.
Looking down, I found a poll which does not indicate quite as serious a
shift, and another that shows a similar shift. I found none that show
opinion swinging in the other direction.
IIRC, there is a strong demographic component to this, with people over 55
being the most likely to oppose gay civil unions and marriages.
Dan M.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
