Don’t call off the caterer just yet: New York’s same-sex-marriage court defeat is a gift in disguise.

By Kurt Andersen

Of course men who love men and women who love women should be entitled to all the advantages of marriage, legal and financial and ineffable, including the secret handshakes and special discounts on Juicy Juice and minivans. But we shouldn’t be gnashing our teeth and tearing out our hair just because New York’s appellate court ruled, 4-2, that the state constitution doesn’t require that gay people be allowed to marry. In fact, paradoxically, the decision looks to me like a blessing in disguise, a pseudo-setback. Because the more that marriage equality can be achieved politically rather than by judicial fiat, the better in the long run—not just for gay rights but for progressivism generally. When courts make certain “good” decisions too far ahead of public opinion and legislative consensus, the result can be hugely problematic, as we’ve seen since Roe v. Wade.

(more…)

Related posts

• Voters could end marriage for all? (Austin American-Stateman) (0)
• Sexual heights (My Messy Bedroom; hour.ca) (0)
• No Massachusetts marriages for out-of-state gays (Reuters) (0)
• links for 2008-05-30 (0)