I’ve got two columns related to gay marriage out today, though from different angles.

First, in the New York Post, I’ve got a piece on a group of gay-marriage cases before New York state’s highest court:

Gay-rights supporters around the state and the
country hope that the Court of Appeals’ verdict will make this the
second state where gay men and women can tie the knot. But anyone who
really cares about the long-term prospects for marriage equality should
be crossing their fingers that the court shows restraint and leaves
this matter to the Legislature.

Why is such patience necessary?

In crass political terms, to avoid a national backlash on par
with the one that greeted the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court in February 2004.

Read the whole thing below the fold.

GAY MARRIAGE: JUDGE NOT

By RYAN SAGER

June 1, 2006
– YESTERDAY, New York’s top court heard arguments in four
same-sex-marriage cases. Gay-rightssup porters around the state and
the country hope that the Court of Appeals’ verdict will make this the
second state where gay men and women can tie the knot. But anyone who
really cares about the long-term prospects for marriage equality should
be crossing their fingers that the court shows restraint and leaves
this matter to the Legislature.

Why is such patience necessary?

In crass political terms, to avoid a national backlash on par
with the one that greeted the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court in February 2004.

Polls show that the Bay State decision caused a massive
anti-gay-marriage (and, to some extent, anti-gay) flare up. U.S.
opposition to gay marriage shot up from 53 percent in July of 2003 to
63 percent in February of 2004, reports the Pew Research Center for the
People and the Press. That anger lasted through the November elections,
propelling 11 state anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments to
victory - along with (some would argue) George W. Bush.

As of this March, opposition was back down to 51 percent,
says Pew, with 39 percent in favor. Just when public opinion has calmed
down - and, not incidentally to most gay-rights supporters, just as the
Democrats have their best chance in 12 years at taking back the House
of Representatives - there could hardly be a worse time for a bunch of
judges to again short-circuit the democratic process. Think of it as
the biggest, shiniest election-time present Karl Rove could ever
imagine.

But that’s just the crass politics. There’s a much more important, substantive reason to leave marriage to the Legislature.

Despite all the arguments in court yesterday about equal
protection and whether the current definition of marriage has a
rational basis (i.e., whether there’s any good reason other than tradition to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples), the fact of the matter is that this is simply not a judicial question.

The law is what the law is. Asking judges to change the law, just because you think it should
say something other than what it says, is anti-democratic. And to ask
judges to read into the state Constitution a "right" to gay marriage
that none of that document’s framers ever could have imagined is to render this and all constitutions meaningless.

We gay-marriage supporters are asking no trivial thing here.
We’re asking the American public (or at least the public of New York)
to change a fundamental tenet of how our society is structured.

Sure, it’s a beneficial change, bringing millions of New
Yorkers into the commitment and security and legal protection that
marriage offers. It’s a compassionate change, the right change.

But it is also a tremendous change. And, as
such, it is the height of arrogance to believe that it should be
undertaken with anything less than full, open, public debate.

If gay-marriage backers are confident of their arguments, we
should be pitching them not to a judicial elite in a courtroom up in
Albany, but to the average citizen.

We’re winning the argument. Attitudes toward the idea have
changed tremendously since even the mid ’90s. Support for gay marriage
is closing in on being the majority position among those under 40 - and
civil unions already enjoy majority support there.

Meanwhile, states are moving toward marriage equality
via the legislative process. Last year, Connecticut enacted civil
unions with no court interference in the matter whatsoever. And that
process sparked a minimum of acrimony, since all groups had a chance to
be heard.

Next week, in a crass bit of base-baiting, the GOP-controlled
Senate will vote on the Marriage Protection Amendment, defining
marriage in America as between one man and one woman - and barring
states from recognizing gay marriage even if they want to. It’s
expected to fail by a wide margin - for now. But the more times state
or federal judges impose their will over the public’s, the more support
extreme measures like a constitutional amendment will gain.

If you’re rooting for gay marriage, root for a loss in court.
Then think about what you can do to change some minds when the
Legislature gets back to business next year.

editor@rhsager.com