From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
The
Union Label
"New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state
the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer
same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions,"
the Associated Press reports.
That's an odd way of putting it, since the New Jersey Legislature always was free to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather than having "opened the door," the state Supreme Court is pushing the Legislature through, forcing it to make available to gay couples the benefits of marriage, though the nomenclature remains at the lawmakers' discretion.
The history of this issue is a striking example of the power of the judiciary to shape American politics and culture. In 1999, when the Vermont Supreme Court issued a similar decision, it seemed revolutionary. Gov. Howard Dean, confronted at town meetings by angry traditionalists, defensively said that the ruling didn't redefine marriage, which remains a union between a man and a woman. Dean nonetheless said he favored civil unions, and he signed the bill the court had ordered the Legislature to pass.
Five years later, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court mandated same-sex marriage, in name as well as in effect. And just over two years after that, the Vermont approach is the "conservative" one, or at least the "moderate" one, at least in New Jersey. Yesterday's vote among the justices in Lewis v. Harris was 4-3, with the dissenters asserting, à la Massachusetts, that same-sex couples have the "right to the title of marriage" as well as to its material benefits.
Two years ago the New York Times reported that President Bush--frequently vilified by gay-rights supporters for backing the Federal Marriage Amendment--endorsed the idea of civil unions:
In an interview on Sunday [Oct. 24, 2004] with Charles Gibson, an anchor of "Good Morning America" on ABC, Mr. Bush said, "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." . . .
According to an ABC transcript, Mr. Gibson then noted to Mr. Bush that the Republican Party platform opposed civil unions.
"Well, I don't," Mr. Bush replied.
So the country has traveled a long road since 1999, when Vermont's ruling seemed revolutionary. Of course, one should not overstate the case: Only a handful of states afford legal recognition to same-sex unions, and all of them are in the Northeast save California and Hawaii. Most states have enacted laws or constitutional provisions preventing same-sex marriage, and some bar civil unions too.
These provisions resulted from a backlash after the courts' rulings in Vermont and Massachusetts--a backlash that has probably served the electoral interests of Republicans, who, despite the president's liberal views on civil unions, remain the party less eager to expand gay rights. In the long run, though, the move toward legal same-sex unions may prove inexorable. All those state restrictions on same-sex unions could be struck down by five Supreme Court justices.
We have mixed feelings about all this. We sympathize with both the traditionalists' resistance to redefining marriage and gay couples' desire to enjoy both the tangible benefits of marriage and the affirmation that comes with legal recognition. We guess we're with President Bush in thinking civil unions are a reasonable compromise. But we'd also be happier if this were thrashed over democratically rather than forced upon society by the courts.
Wait,
Iraq Has Something to Do With Terror?
Peter Bergen, an al Qaeda expert who is affiliated with the center-left New
America Foundation, and who regards the decision to liberate Iraq as a "blunder,"
nonetheless warns against complete withdrawal, in a New York Times op-ed:
A total withdrawal from Iraq would play into the hands of the jihadist terrorists. As Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, made clear shortly after 9/11 in his book "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner," Al Qaeda's most important short-term strategic goal is to seize control of a state, or part of a state, somewhere in the Muslim world. "Confronting the enemies of Islam and launching jihad against them require a Muslim authority, established on a Muslim land," he wrote. "Without achieving this goal our actions will mean nothing." Such a jihadist state would be the ideal launching pad for future attacks on the West. . . .
Another problem with a total American withdrawal is that it would fit all too neatly into Osama bin Laden's master narrative about American foreign policy. His theme is that America is a paper tiger that cannot tolerate body bags coming home; to back it up, he cites President Ronald Reagan's 1984 withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and President Bill Clinton's decision nearly a decade later to pull troops from Somalia. A unilateral pullout from Iraq would only confirm this analysis of American weakness among his jihadist allies.
Bergen isn't a stayer of the course; he says "America should abandon its pretensions that it can make Iraq a functioning democracy and halt the civil war" and instead focus only on the terror threat. We disagree; but it's good to see someone on the other side who doesn't have his head in the sand about the Iraq-terrorism nexus. If Democrats win control of Congress, they'd do well to listen to Peter Bergen.
The
Battle for Minneapolis's Muslims
An odd kerfuffle recently erupted when some Somali cabdrivers at Minneapolis-St.
Paul International Airport refused to carry passengers who possessed alcohol,
claiming it violated their Muslim faith. The airport authority initially proposed
to accommodate the no-drink drivers by instituting a system of separate wet
and dry taxis, but it backed down in the face of public ridicule and outrage.
Now, the Star Tribune has a fascinating account of the dispute within the Muslim community. The paper describes the scene at a Somali-packed Starbucks:
An animated circle of Somalis gathered when the question of the airport controversy was raised.
"I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi."
Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."
Two of the Somalis present defended the idea that Islam prohibits cabdrivers from transporting passengers with alcohol. An argument erupted. The consensus seemed to be that only a small number of Somalis object to transporting alcohol. It's a matter of personal opinion, not Islamic law, several men said.
It turns out the "fatwa department" of the Muslim American Society issued a ruling on June 6 prohibiting Muslim taxi drivers from "cooperating in sin" by transporting passengers' alcohol. And what is the Muslim American Society? The Strib cites a 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation that found it "is the name under which the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood operates." The brotherhood, the Trib added, is "the world's most influential Islamic fundamentalist group."
Omar Jamal of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center tells the Strib: "MAS is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs. MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation."
Which suggests two lessons: First, fundamentalist Islam does have the potential to be influential within immigrant communities in the U.S., so vigilance is in order. But second, not all Muslims are fundamentalists. Our problem is not with Islam per se but with particular interpretations of it that are hostile to Western values.
Eugene
Robinson, Call Your Office--III
Michael Barone, along with seven fellow columnists, visited President Bush yesterday,
and he offers this observation:
Like many others who have been with Bush in the Oval Office, I have found him to be much more articulate and forceful in that setting than he often is in press conferences or in taking questions from traveling reporters.
"Articulate"? Isn't that code for someone who speaks standard English? Excuse us, but you were expecting a successful president to be inarticulate?
Hey,
Hey, LBJ!
"War on Poverty Slips From Election Agenda"--headline, Reuters, Oct. 25
What
Would We Do Without Experts?
"How High Is $20 Million? Not That High, Experts Say"--headline, San
Diego Union-Tribune, Oct. 26
What
Would We Do Without Records?
"Slaying Suspect Had a Temper, Records Show; He's accused of killing two
people, wounding a third"--headline and subheadline, San Francisco Chronicle,
Oct. 24
Life Imitates the Onion
"New Starbucks Opens in Rest Room of Existing Starbucks"--headline, Onion, June 27, 1998
"The people who work in Seattle's tallest building face a tough decision: should they get their caffeinated indulgence at the old Starbucks on the building's first floor or the new Starbucks, 40 floors up? And, if those lines are too long, is it too far to walk across the street, where a third Starbucks awaits?"--Associated Press, Oct. 25, 2006
'That's
It. No More Mr. Nice Coach.'
"Nice Coach Antonetti Criticises Ligue 1 Refereeing"--headline, Reuters,
Oct. 25
A
Victory Over Nepotism
"Woman Admits Hiring Grandson for Arson"--headline, Associated Press,
Oct. 25
That's What
We Call Heavy Drug Use
"Cops Take 45 Lbs. of Meth in Greeley"--headline, Denver Post, Oct. 25
Now
It Lets Someone Else Pick Up the Check
"Biometric Device Used to Pay for Meals"--headline, Associated Press,
Oct. 25
The Things We Do for Animals
"Wash. Landowners to Help Pygmy Rabbits"--headline, Associated Press, Oct. 25
"Drink Free Beer and Polka to Help Homeless Cats"--headline, Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times, Oct. 26
News You Can Use
- "Enjoy the Fall With Pumpkins"--headline, Daily
News (Los Angeles), Oct. 24
- "Gang Hairdo 'Not Smart Move' "--headline, Rocky
Mountain News (Denver), Oct. 26
- "Pileups Can Be Hazardous to Health"--headline, USA Today, Oct. 25
Thanks
for the Tip!--CXIII
"Health Tip: Dialysis Aids Failing Kidneys"--headline, HealthDay.com,
Oct. 25
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Wilson, Madrid Debate Doesn't Sway Voters"--headline, Albuquerque
Tribune, Oct. 25
- "Study Sees No Changes in People's Views About Women"--headline,
Hindu
(India), Oct. 26
- "Woman Won't Face Charges of Neglecting Hamsters"--headline, Pioneer
Press (St. Paul, Minn.), Oct. 26
- "Workers Find No Evidence of Beetles"--headline, Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.), Oct. 26
An
Expensive Typo
"Early-childhood-education and health programs on next month's ballot could
lose millions of dollars if a misplaced decimal point is interpreted technically,"
reports the Arizona Republic (hat tip: Steve
Bartin):
Proposition 203 is built around an 80-cent-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes to pay for the programs. But the ballot language calls for an ".80 cent/pack" tax increase, or 1/100th of what backers say they intended. That's less than 1 cent per pack.
Backers of the First Things First campaign always have promoted it as an 80-cent-per-pack tax increase. Even opponents have agreed it calls for an 80-cent hike. Proponents say a typo is to blame.
The First Things First folks must be kicking themselves for not making the error in the other direction. Imagine how well they could educate Arizona's kids on $80 a pack!
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to John Williamson, Paul Wood, Brian Dorn, Dave Vasquez, Wayne Bowman, Alan Ridgeway, Joseph Tully, Thom Seaton, Karl Kuehn, Jonathan Rachlin, Ted West, Scott Yates, Jeff Dobbs, John Forsberg, Samuel Walker, Skip Gillikin, Kyle Kyllan, Barak Moore, Michael Guzman, Mary Pinkowish and Steve Edwards. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: The U.N. arms inspector goes soft on Iran, but hard on Congress.
- Kim Strassel: A corker of a Senate race in Tennessee.
- Matthew Kaminski: Will France ever integrate its Muslim immigrants?
