Wow. What a week it has been, full of ups and downs and everything in between. I am rather delinquent with my candidate updates (blame that on studying for comprehensive exams and the never-ending parading of new GOP candidates), so I have decided to make a mega-post that can capture all my thoughts on these incredible few weeks.
First, let’s look at all of the new candidates who have thrown their hats into the ring since my last post. These candidates are in no particular order, except that the last two are Democrats. For this, I will just say why they will and will not win the party nomination.
Jeb Bush- Former Governor of Florida
Why He Will Win: Bush has several key advantages- name recognition, insider support, a huge war chest and a successful record as governor of a crucial state. He also appears to be one of the more moderate candidates, which is an asset for a general election and can speak fluent Spanish. Finally, he can capitalize on the number of opponents he faces to win primaries with smaller pluralities (especially in winner-take-all contests like Florida).
Why He Will Not Win: Many Republicans want a new face and a new name to carry them in the election. If Jeb’s last name was anything but Bush, he would be the undisputed frontrunner. Also, his moderate positions on Common Core and immigration do not and will not sit well with the conservative wing of the party (those who call anyone who takes a centrist position on anything a “RINO”).
Bobby Jindal- Governor of Louisiana
Why He Will Win: He was a rising star within the GOP, seen as the GOP’s answer to Obama about seven years ago because of his stellar resume. He is still a dynamic speaker who knows how to throw red meat to the base. If he gets the chance, he could remind people of his admirable leadership throughout the BP Oil Spill and mention his conservative credentials and policies he has imposed over the years.
Why He Will Not Win: His star has greatly faded; 2012 was when he should have run. Conservatives have an embarrassment of riches in terms of candidates to choose from, and Jindal no longer seems like the likely top choice of these voters. Furthermore, many of his over-the-top statements (like his notion that we should “get rid of” the Supreme Court in response to the gay marriage ruling) will frighten away donors and influential politicians in the Republican Party.
Donald Trump- Real Estate Mogul
Why He Will Win: If Trump wins, it will be because he bought enough votes to hand him the nomination or it will be because every primary will have featured 3 dozen names on the ballot and enough morbidly curious people will have cast joke votes for him.
Why He Will Not Win: Let’s see, for starters: he is an egotistical, narcissistic jerk who has no experience in politics, no real plan for anything, is vehemently disliked by millions of Americans, would turn America into a joke if he somehow defeated Hillary Clinton, and is running what many regard as a joke campaign. Not to mention the hair. And this is just the beginning. If Trump wins, I will retire from political science and become a marine biologist.
Lindsey Graham- Senior Senator from South Carolina
Why He Will Win: If ISIS successfully attacks America, Graham could surge in the polls for his bellicose foreign policy and national security credentials. He is also viewed as a relative moderate within the party.
Why He Will Not Win: The base loathes Lindsey Graham for his over-the-top foreign policy, but also for his personal battles with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, as well as his support for some degree of amnesty (often derided as “Grahamnesty”). It is difficult to see Graham winning the South Carolina primary, much less the nomination. Even the GOP has moved on from the post-9/11 politics of fear and hyper-interventionism, but Graham has not. He and John McCain are the remnant of that time period in the Senate and it will not translate into much support from primary voters.
Rick Perry- Former Governor of Texas
Why He Will Win: Texas has been a success story under Perry’s leadership. He has a proven record of strong leadership.
Why He Will Not Win: His 2012 campaign was atrocious and this campaign has yet to be much better (calling the Charleston shooting an “accident” while going out of his way to avoid calling it an “act of terrorism”). Many, even within the Party, regard him as a buffoon and know that he would never defeat Clinton if he somehow won the nomination.
Martin O’Malley- Former Governor of Maryland
Why He Will Win: He is ambitious and running a somewhat-populist campaign to the left of Clinton by trying to pull a Santorum in Iowa (visiting everybody and building up a grassroots effort). He is also, by far, the youngest of the Democrats running next year.
Why He Will Not Win: Bernie Sanders is doing a better job of running a populist insurgency against Hillary Clinton and Hillary is still light-years ahead of everyone else in that field. Also, the mess in Baltimore could hurt him, as could the fact that Maryland elected a Republican to succeed him instead of his handpicked successor.
Lincoln Chafee- Former Governor and Senator of Rhode Island
Why He Will Win: He is a statesman who has taken brave positions in the past (voting against the Iraq War as a Republican!)
Why He Will Not Win: He is not very well-known outside of New England and he was deeply unpopular in Rhode Island at the conclusion of his last term.
***
Next, I would like to talk about the massacre in Charleston last week. From the ashes of this tragedy, we have seen the best of mankind and some of the worst. Representing the very best of human nature was the response of the victims’ families to such an evil act. The grace, love, and forgiveness they have shown (even towards the shooter) is inspiring, to say the least. Similarly, the outpouring of support other Americans have given them represents the very best our country has to offer.
The worst of human nature, however, was on display with the shooting, itself. Contrary to what others may assert, it is indisputable that the shooting was an act of terrorism. Dylann Roof does not appear to me to be mentally ill (unlike Jared Lee Loughner or James Holmes), but is a sociopathic monster who lacks any sense of love or human goodness. More than that, however, he is a terrorist, plain and simple as that. He used violence on innocent civilians to try to achieve some kind of political end (the sparking of a race war). That is textbook terrorism and he should be tried and punished in accordance with the fact that it was an act of terrorism.
Some of the political responses, however, have fallen somewhere in between. Most prominent among the responses has been the movement to take down the Confederate battle flag from American society. To be honest, I have mixed feelings on this development. I think it is probably a good idea to remove the flag from government buildings: the flag was hoisted in treason against the United States and has come to symbolize (to some people) racism and slavery, and justifiably so. The Confederacy was a quasi-state established on a cornerstone of racism and slavery (in the words of Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy). On the other hand, I think some people have taken this crusade WAY too far. First, the National Park Service asking that nothing displaying the Confederate Flag be sold in gift shops- even at Gettysburg! That is simply ridiculous and does not make any sense- Union soldiers did not fire blanks at hallucinations on the hallowed ground of Gettysburg, they fired at thousands of Americans, many of whom were fighting in perceived defense of their state. Similarly, there have been calls for Americans to do away with southern cultural icons, such as the classic novel and film, Gone with the Wind. While I do not support romanticizing the Old South, I also think it is a mistake to treat the Old South like Mordor in our classrooms. The truth, as always, lays somewhere in between. Treasures like Gone with the Wind give us a more nuanced picture of slavery and the Old South, which gives us a more complete historical understanding of the Civil War, the South, and the issues of slavery and Reconstruction. I do believe that the Confederate Flag is more nuanced than simply being a representation of a bygone era of slavery, but because it is viewed that way by many people, I do support it being removed from state buildings and state flags (such as Mississippi’s).
The other major political call resulting from this shooting is, as usual, a call for more gun control. This I cannot in good conscience support. My main reason is that I do not believe any amount of gun control that can be called “constitutional” would have prevented the shooting and it places the blame on an inanimate object rather than an individual. Background checks already exist for gun shop purchases and yet Roof still managed to obtain the gun despite a pending felony drug charge. The call for more background checks, consequently, would only have the effect of making legal gun purchases more difficult, while illegal gun purchases would hardly be hampered. This is Security Theater, plain and simple. Such efforts would have no actual impact, other than making gun control people feel better about themselves because they would be “doing something.” For one thing, there are too many guns in America for gun control efforts to actually work- criminals will always get their hands on illegal products, as our Drug War has proven. For another thing, gun control efforts will have numerous unintended consequences that punish innocent people- just look at the case of Shaneen Allen in New Jersey, a law-abiding gun owner who faced years in prison because Jersey does not recognize her permit- and distract law enforcement officers from matters of actual import. Third, even if guns could be eradicated from America, terrorists would still have other means at their disposal to attack people (such as the thousands of bombs used by the IRA in The Troubles). As such, the only result from this eradication would be that normal people would be utterly defenseless against terrorists and criminals. Finally, the 2nd Amendment should render all talk of gun control moot, anyway. The vast majority of gun owners do not abuse their privileges and view their guns as the first line of defense for their families (which is the most important purpose of the 2nd Amendment). I do think that enough of them would resist efforts to take away their guns that we would see either numerous Waco-style standoffs or possibly organized armed resistance. All in all, my response to the predictable calls for more gun control in the wake of this massacre is to say that these measures are politically impractical and would be disastrous to implement even if they could pass these measures.
***
Finally, let us look at the two major Supreme Court cases that were unveiled to the American public this week.
First, King vs. Burwell challenged President Obama’s chief legislative accomplishment: the so-called “Affordable Care Act” colloquially known as “Obamacare.” The entire case centered on four words “established by the state” that the plaintiff argued meant that the federal government could not subsidize insurance in certain states. The government’s position was essentially that the phrase was an oversight in drafting the bill that did not reflect the intention of Congress. This challenge came three years after the ACA survived a challenge to its constitutionality. Once again, the Court sided with the government, but on a 6-3 vote instead of 5-4.
My reaction to this case is that the Court’s move was completely expected. Although I have been a vocal critic of Obamacare from the very beginning, I did not expect the Court to overturn it on what is essentially a technicality and typo. I have two main reasons for this: 1) the Court has already played legal gymnastics to defend it in the past, when the legal reasoning to overturn it was far stronger, and 2) Chief Justice Roberts has obsessively attempted to build up and maintain the institutional prestige of the Court ever since taking office. Eliminating the largest expansion of the welfare state in recent memory would severely damage the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of many observers and historians, especially on such a minute point. The Roberts Court as made some decisions derided as notorious- most notably Citizens United. The time for eliminating Obamacare in the Court was 2012 before any of it was ever implemented.
As such, opponents of the bill are down to what is really the last chance to defeat this horrid bill and they must elect a Republican to the White House who has the strength and resolve to remove an entitlement. If Hillary Clinton wins next year, Obamacare will be too institutionalized for any future attempt at repeal to ever work. Institutionalized welfare is, as history has shown, basically impossible for anyone to get rid of; anyone trying to get rid of NHS in Britain would probably be hanged, drawn, and quartered in the streets by an angry mob for having the gall to challenge their national religion. Obamacare has ruined many people so far, but as long as there is the belief that it is helping people once it is implemented, it will be near-impossible to undo, especially if Republicans have no concrete plans to adequately replace it. In the meantime, Republicans are spared the awkward position of having to come to the rescue of Americans disappointed by the change in the status quo- a position the Democrats were in after Obamacare was passed in the first place, a position that cost them majorities in both Chambers of Congress.
Second, the Court passed a landmark ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges that has ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional across the country. Like Burwell, I completely anticipated this outcome and agree with it (at least to some degree). My personal feeling on the legal issue of gay marriage is that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, but neither does the government have the power to deny it. If I was a justice on the Court, I would have concurred with the majority to allow same-sex marriage across the land, while concurring with Roberts’ point that the 14th Amendment has no bearing on the case. To me, “equal protection under the law” refers to all citizens receiving the same due process and protections from the government in criminal and civil proceedings. The questions of gay marriage, therefore, cannot be answered by the 14th Amendment. That said, I do not think the Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage nor empowers any government to do that (especially since it concerns federal benefits, which removes the 10th Amendment from the equation).
As long as this decision does not force the Church to perform gay weddings under the threat of ruinous lawsuits, I am happy with the decision. I have accepted the fact that gay people are born that way and should be allowed to enter into a contract that gives them government benefits for devoting their life to another human being. I may not agree with the constitutional reasoning for it, but I am glad that a group of people will no longer be marginalized by a government that is not a theocracy. The moral and ethical questions of homosexual behavior are now just between them and God; the government cannot destroy the rights of minorities to pursue happiness in this lifetime. All I ask is that the victorious party not destroy the lives of those who have retained their sincere beliefs on this subject. After all, only seven years ago, all major party candidates ran against same-sex marriage- even Hillary and Obama. The tidal shift in support for this idea in such a short time has been nothing short of astounding, but it will still be a few years more before gay marriage reaches quite the consensus that is enjoyed by the idea of interracial marriage.
Politically, this decision solves a lot of problems for the GOP in the long run. With the tide of political opinion changing so rapidly and so dramatically, opposition to gay marriage is no longer a tenable position to make, especially in national elections. Yes, it may help in smaller elections, but beginning next year, no one who does not at least support the legal right to gay marriage will win a presidential election. This ruling does give conservatives an out to both have their cake and eat it too. Marco Rubio and Ben Carson have already threaded the eye of this needle by declaring the issue settled, despite their personal, moral misgivings. Some social conservatives, of course, will not yield and are preparing to try to turn this case into the next Roe v. Wade. I do not believe, however, that the parallels between the two cases are strong enough to make such an assertion. Abortion is an issue of human rights in which both sides have defensible claims to defending human rights, and therefore pro-lifers are fighting an observable injustice- the dehumanization of the pre-born and various ways in which the mother is violated by the procedure. Palpable injustice in gay marriage, however, is really limited to the side that was victorious yesterday. Yes, there are some minor injustices that may arise thanks to this ruling, but nothing anywhere near the scale of injustice in America that followed Roe. Forty years from now, pro-life advocates will still be carrying on a just cause, while opponents of gay marriage will be in nursing homes and taken about as seriously as anyone who still opposes interracial marriage. With so many of my generation viewing gay rights as a civil rights struggle and supporting the idea of gay marriage, it is naïve to believe that anything close to the pro-life movement will emerge in response to yesterday’s ruling. Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land and candidates for office can either take the out the Court provided yesterday or step into a completely avoidable political minefield.
***
In conclusion, it has been a wild couple of weeks. I have not even mentioned the escape in New York or the Wahoo College World Series title. There have definitely been some positive changes, but also some odd developments. Was this the best week of Obama’s presidency? Perhaps, but hardly any of it is due to his action (his heartfelt rendition of “Amazing Grace,” notwithstanding). No matter what, these past two weeks will not soon be forgotten.
First, let’s look at all of the new candidates who have thrown their hats into the ring since my last post. These candidates are in no particular order, except that the last two are Democrats. For this, I will just say why they will and will not win the party nomination.
Jeb Bush- Former Governor of Florida
Why He Will Win: Bush has several key advantages- name recognition, insider support, a huge war chest and a successful record as governor of a crucial state. He also appears to be one of the more moderate candidates, which is an asset for a general election and can speak fluent Spanish. Finally, he can capitalize on the number of opponents he faces to win primaries with smaller pluralities (especially in winner-take-all contests like Florida).
Why He Will Not Win: Many Republicans want a new face and a new name to carry them in the election. If Jeb’s last name was anything but Bush, he would be the undisputed frontrunner. Also, his moderate positions on Common Core and immigration do not and will not sit well with the conservative wing of the party (those who call anyone who takes a centrist position on anything a “RINO”).
Bobby Jindal- Governor of Louisiana
Why He Will Win: He was a rising star within the GOP, seen as the GOP’s answer to Obama about seven years ago because of his stellar resume. He is still a dynamic speaker who knows how to throw red meat to the base. If he gets the chance, he could remind people of his admirable leadership throughout the BP Oil Spill and mention his conservative credentials and policies he has imposed over the years.
Why He Will Not Win: His star has greatly faded; 2012 was when he should have run. Conservatives have an embarrassment of riches in terms of candidates to choose from, and Jindal no longer seems like the likely top choice of these voters. Furthermore, many of his over-the-top statements (like his notion that we should “get rid of” the Supreme Court in response to the gay marriage ruling) will frighten away donors and influential politicians in the Republican Party.
Donald Trump- Real Estate Mogul
Why He Will Win: If Trump wins, it will be because he bought enough votes to hand him the nomination or it will be because every primary will have featured 3 dozen names on the ballot and enough morbidly curious people will have cast joke votes for him.
Why He Will Not Win: Let’s see, for starters: he is an egotistical, narcissistic jerk who has no experience in politics, no real plan for anything, is vehemently disliked by millions of Americans, would turn America into a joke if he somehow defeated Hillary Clinton, and is running what many regard as a joke campaign. Not to mention the hair. And this is just the beginning. If Trump wins, I will retire from political science and become a marine biologist.
Lindsey Graham- Senior Senator from South Carolina
Why He Will Win: If ISIS successfully attacks America, Graham could surge in the polls for his bellicose foreign policy and national security credentials. He is also viewed as a relative moderate within the party.
Why He Will Not Win: The base loathes Lindsey Graham for his over-the-top foreign policy, but also for his personal battles with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, as well as his support for some degree of amnesty (often derided as “Grahamnesty”). It is difficult to see Graham winning the South Carolina primary, much less the nomination. Even the GOP has moved on from the post-9/11 politics of fear and hyper-interventionism, but Graham has not. He and John McCain are the remnant of that time period in the Senate and it will not translate into much support from primary voters.
Rick Perry- Former Governor of Texas
Why He Will Win: Texas has been a success story under Perry’s leadership. He has a proven record of strong leadership.
Why He Will Not Win: His 2012 campaign was atrocious and this campaign has yet to be much better (calling the Charleston shooting an “accident” while going out of his way to avoid calling it an “act of terrorism”). Many, even within the Party, regard him as a buffoon and know that he would never defeat Clinton if he somehow won the nomination.
Martin O’Malley- Former Governor of Maryland
Why He Will Win: He is ambitious and running a somewhat-populist campaign to the left of Clinton by trying to pull a Santorum in Iowa (visiting everybody and building up a grassroots effort). He is also, by far, the youngest of the Democrats running next year.
Why He Will Not Win: Bernie Sanders is doing a better job of running a populist insurgency against Hillary Clinton and Hillary is still light-years ahead of everyone else in that field. Also, the mess in Baltimore could hurt him, as could the fact that Maryland elected a Republican to succeed him instead of his handpicked successor.
Lincoln Chafee- Former Governor and Senator of Rhode Island
Why He Will Win: He is a statesman who has taken brave positions in the past (voting against the Iraq War as a Republican!)
Why He Will Not Win: He is not very well-known outside of New England and he was deeply unpopular in Rhode Island at the conclusion of his last term.
***
Next, I would like to talk about the massacre in Charleston last week. From the ashes of this tragedy, we have seen the best of mankind and some of the worst. Representing the very best of human nature was the response of the victims’ families to such an evil act. The grace, love, and forgiveness they have shown (even towards the shooter) is inspiring, to say the least. Similarly, the outpouring of support other Americans have given them represents the very best our country has to offer.
The worst of human nature, however, was on display with the shooting, itself. Contrary to what others may assert, it is indisputable that the shooting was an act of terrorism. Dylann Roof does not appear to me to be mentally ill (unlike Jared Lee Loughner or James Holmes), but is a sociopathic monster who lacks any sense of love or human goodness. More than that, however, he is a terrorist, plain and simple as that. He used violence on innocent civilians to try to achieve some kind of political end (the sparking of a race war). That is textbook terrorism and he should be tried and punished in accordance with the fact that it was an act of terrorism.
Some of the political responses, however, have fallen somewhere in between. Most prominent among the responses has been the movement to take down the Confederate battle flag from American society. To be honest, I have mixed feelings on this development. I think it is probably a good idea to remove the flag from government buildings: the flag was hoisted in treason against the United States and has come to symbolize (to some people) racism and slavery, and justifiably so. The Confederacy was a quasi-state established on a cornerstone of racism and slavery (in the words of Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy). On the other hand, I think some people have taken this crusade WAY too far. First, the National Park Service asking that nothing displaying the Confederate Flag be sold in gift shops- even at Gettysburg! That is simply ridiculous and does not make any sense- Union soldiers did not fire blanks at hallucinations on the hallowed ground of Gettysburg, they fired at thousands of Americans, many of whom were fighting in perceived defense of their state. Similarly, there have been calls for Americans to do away with southern cultural icons, such as the classic novel and film, Gone with the Wind. While I do not support romanticizing the Old South, I also think it is a mistake to treat the Old South like Mordor in our classrooms. The truth, as always, lays somewhere in between. Treasures like Gone with the Wind give us a more nuanced picture of slavery and the Old South, which gives us a more complete historical understanding of the Civil War, the South, and the issues of slavery and Reconstruction. I do believe that the Confederate Flag is more nuanced than simply being a representation of a bygone era of slavery, but because it is viewed that way by many people, I do support it being removed from state buildings and state flags (such as Mississippi’s).
The other major political call resulting from this shooting is, as usual, a call for more gun control. This I cannot in good conscience support. My main reason is that I do not believe any amount of gun control that can be called “constitutional” would have prevented the shooting and it places the blame on an inanimate object rather than an individual. Background checks already exist for gun shop purchases and yet Roof still managed to obtain the gun despite a pending felony drug charge. The call for more background checks, consequently, would only have the effect of making legal gun purchases more difficult, while illegal gun purchases would hardly be hampered. This is Security Theater, plain and simple. Such efforts would have no actual impact, other than making gun control people feel better about themselves because they would be “doing something.” For one thing, there are too many guns in America for gun control efforts to actually work- criminals will always get their hands on illegal products, as our Drug War has proven. For another thing, gun control efforts will have numerous unintended consequences that punish innocent people- just look at the case of Shaneen Allen in New Jersey, a law-abiding gun owner who faced years in prison because Jersey does not recognize her permit- and distract law enforcement officers from matters of actual import. Third, even if guns could be eradicated from America, terrorists would still have other means at their disposal to attack people (such as the thousands of bombs used by the IRA in The Troubles). As such, the only result from this eradication would be that normal people would be utterly defenseless against terrorists and criminals. Finally, the 2nd Amendment should render all talk of gun control moot, anyway. The vast majority of gun owners do not abuse their privileges and view their guns as the first line of defense for their families (which is the most important purpose of the 2nd Amendment). I do think that enough of them would resist efforts to take away their guns that we would see either numerous Waco-style standoffs or possibly organized armed resistance. All in all, my response to the predictable calls for more gun control in the wake of this massacre is to say that these measures are politically impractical and would be disastrous to implement even if they could pass these measures.
***
Finally, let us look at the two major Supreme Court cases that were unveiled to the American public this week.
First, King vs. Burwell challenged President Obama’s chief legislative accomplishment: the so-called “Affordable Care Act” colloquially known as “Obamacare.” The entire case centered on four words “established by the state” that the plaintiff argued meant that the federal government could not subsidize insurance in certain states. The government’s position was essentially that the phrase was an oversight in drafting the bill that did not reflect the intention of Congress. This challenge came three years after the ACA survived a challenge to its constitutionality. Once again, the Court sided with the government, but on a 6-3 vote instead of 5-4.
My reaction to this case is that the Court’s move was completely expected. Although I have been a vocal critic of Obamacare from the very beginning, I did not expect the Court to overturn it on what is essentially a technicality and typo. I have two main reasons for this: 1) the Court has already played legal gymnastics to defend it in the past, when the legal reasoning to overturn it was far stronger, and 2) Chief Justice Roberts has obsessively attempted to build up and maintain the institutional prestige of the Court ever since taking office. Eliminating the largest expansion of the welfare state in recent memory would severely damage the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of many observers and historians, especially on such a minute point. The Roberts Court as made some decisions derided as notorious- most notably Citizens United. The time for eliminating Obamacare in the Court was 2012 before any of it was ever implemented.
As such, opponents of the bill are down to what is really the last chance to defeat this horrid bill and they must elect a Republican to the White House who has the strength and resolve to remove an entitlement. If Hillary Clinton wins next year, Obamacare will be too institutionalized for any future attempt at repeal to ever work. Institutionalized welfare is, as history has shown, basically impossible for anyone to get rid of; anyone trying to get rid of NHS in Britain would probably be hanged, drawn, and quartered in the streets by an angry mob for having the gall to challenge their national religion. Obamacare has ruined many people so far, but as long as there is the belief that it is helping people once it is implemented, it will be near-impossible to undo, especially if Republicans have no concrete plans to adequately replace it. In the meantime, Republicans are spared the awkward position of having to come to the rescue of Americans disappointed by the change in the status quo- a position the Democrats were in after Obamacare was passed in the first place, a position that cost them majorities in both Chambers of Congress.
Second, the Court passed a landmark ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges that has ruled bans on gay marriage unconstitutional across the country. Like Burwell, I completely anticipated this outcome and agree with it (at least to some degree). My personal feeling on the legal issue of gay marriage is that there is no constitutional right to gay marriage, but neither does the government have the power to deny it. If I was a justice on the Court, I would have concurred with the majority to allow same-sex marriage across the land, while concurring with Roberts’ point that the 14th Amendment has no bearing on the case. To me, “equal protection under the law” refers to all citizens receiving the same due process and protections from the government in criminal and civil proceedings. The questions of gay marriage, therefore, cannot be answered by the 14th Amendment. That said, I do not think the Constitution prohibits same-sex marriage nor empowers any government to do that (especially since it concerns federal benefits, which removes the 10th Amendment from the equation).
As long as this decision does not force the Church to perform gay weddings under the threat of ruinous lawsuits, I am happy with the decision. I have accepted the fact that gay people are born that way and should be allowed to enter into a contract that gives them government benefits for devoting their life to another human being. I may not agree with the constitutional reasoning for it, but I am glad that a group of people will no longer be marginalized by a government that is not a theocracy. The moral and ethical questions of homosexual behavior are now just between them and God; the government cannot destroy the rights of minorities to pursue happiness in this lifetime. All I ask is that the victorious party not destroy the lives of those who have retained their sincere beliefs on this subject. After all, only seven years ago, all major party candidates ran against same-sex marriage- even Hillary and Obama. The tidal shift in support for this idea in such a short time has been nothing short of astounding, but it will still be a few years more before gay marriage reaches quite the consensus that is enjoyed by the idea of interracial marriage.
Politically, this decision solves a lot of problems for the GOP in the long run. With the tide of political opinion changing so rapidly and so dramatically, opposition to gay marriage is no longer a tenable position to make, especially in national elections. Yes, it may help in smaller elections, but beginning next year, no one who does not at least support the legal right to gay marriage will win a presidential election. This ruling does give conservatives an out to both have their cake and eat it too. Marco Rubio and Ben Carson have already threaded the eye of this needle by declaring the issue settled, despite their personal, moral misgivings. Some social conservatives, of course, will not yield and are preparing to try to turn this case into the next Roe v. Wade. I do not believe, however, that the parallels between the two cases are strong enough to make such an assertion. Abortion is an issue of human rights in which both sides have defensible claims to defending human rights, and therefore pro-lifers are fighting an observable injustice- the dehumanization of the pre-born and various ways in which the mother is violated by the procedure. Palpable injustice in gay marriage, however, is really limited to the side that was victorious yesterday. Yes, there are some minor injustices that may arise thanks to this ruling, but nothing anywhere near the scale of injustice in America that followed Roe. Forty years from now, pro-life advocates will still be carrying on a just cause, while opponents of gay marriage will be in nursing homes and taken about as seriously as anyone who still opposes interracial marriage. With so many of my generation viewing gay rights as a civil rights struggle and supporting the idea of gay marriage, it is naïve to believe that anything close to the pro-life movement will emerge in response to yesterday’s ruling. Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land and candidates for office can either take the out the Court provided yesterday or step into a completely avoidable political minefield.
***
In conclusion, it has been a wild couple of weeks. I have not even mentioned the escape in New York or the Wahoo College World Series title. There have definitely been some positive changes, but also some odd developments. Was this the best week of Obama’s presidency? Perhaps, but hardly any of it is due to his action (his heartfelt rendition of “Amazing Grace,” notwithstanding). No matter what, these past two weeks will not soon be forgotten.
RSS Feed
