Fine Lines
In fact, the current status of the same-sex marriage issue in our society is largely the product of a critical distinction between state constitutional law and federal constitutional law. Simply put, state constitutional interpretation is not reserved exclusively for judges. The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims. State courts stand at the intersection where constitutional law meets direct democracy. Indeed, the progressive movement engineered the traffic pattern. The road may lead to direct judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, unencumbered by voter amendment, as in Massachusetts and Connecticut, or it may lead to court decisions — such as those in Vermont, New Jersey and California — that find a constitutional right to all the rights and benefits of marriage. But every state constitutional court must acknowledge that in a system that preserves the right of citizens to amend their constitutions, a judicial decision may be the opening argument in a process that preserves the ultimate constitutional authority of the people.
One is tempted to like what one reads here, but it is also an argument for progressives for the federalization of marriage regulation – which strikes me as a terribly bad idea. And then, a LDS member in Iowa comments on what he sees as anti-Mormon bigotry endemic in . . . Utah?!
I noticed that after Utah and BYU athletic events, many bloggers simply use the occasion to display anti-Mormon hatred that had little relevance to the actual game. After a recent BYU loss, readers wrote items such as: “The Angel Moroni must have been taking a smoke break to allow this to have happened!” “On the bright side, Coug fans . . . at least you’ll have your whole Saturday to gamble, drink and hit the strip clubs before you go to church tomorrow.” A common assertion is that “BYU is the most hated team in America.” This is an irrational but characteristic statement of those who think like bigots.
Fascinating observations, and I am struck with two contrary reactions. The one observation is that is pretty ugly stuff, really nasty and bigoted (but also common to comments made about almost all religion-based schools) and the other is the caution that we have discussed here before that it is easy for Mormons to overplay the victim card after the last election cycle.The author observes parallels between Utah and the deep South. I have a lot of experience in the South (born at the University of Mississippi in 1957 ) and have travelled rural, southern Utah quite a bit, although Salt Lake City and environs not so much. I see the parallels in that there is a real sense of segregation in Utah, but how much deeper it goes, I am not sure.In the modern South, the segregation is accomodated by both sides. The real barriers are down, but few African-Americans choose to cross the border, thus it remains somewhat segregated if not institutionally so. My point is that attitudes, on both sides, are what maintain towns that you can draw a line through and divide. In such situations, is it better to cry “bigotry,” or take the risk and cross the border?Two stories…two fine lines…one legal the other attitudinal. Tough decisions all the way around.
Lowell adds: Regarding the so-called bigotry in Utah, it is difficult to compare that state to the rest of the USA. The “us” and “them” problem is one everyone there has stuggled with for 150 years. Add in the often bitter BYU-University of Utah sports rivalry, and you have a subject that encompasses much more than simple religious bigotry. There are idiots involved in every sports rivalry, and the Utah-BYU rivalry is no exception. (Full disclosure: I am a Utah grad and avid sports fan of that fine institution. I also recognize that there are probably more rivalry-related idiots on my side than on the BYU side. But we don’t have the exclusive franchise on such folks, I’m afraid.) Bottom line: There may be bigotry, but the sports rivalry is not the place to hunt it down or stamp it out.
Posted in Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Jerald on 21 Mar 2009 at 8:31 am #
There will always be people with a chip on their shoulder who express their displeasure in inappropriate and illogical ways (at least they appear illogical to casual observers).
In the online world you will always fine less-than-civil malcontents posting on almost any thread about any topic. I think it makes them feel empowered.
I think what shocked most of us LDS people during the last election wasn’t so much that the anti-religious Left was acting badly toward Romney and the LDS Church, but that a visible and vociferous segment of the religious were acting badly and that the MSM picked it up and ran with it so. Slipups (outbursts?) by John McCain’s mother, Mike Huckabee and his campaign, and some other prominent commentators and religious leaders temporarily took the wind out of some LDS folks who prefer to avoid contention.
I’m not sure when one can say the victim card is being overplayed when there seems to be little concern by most people about what happens to the “Mormons.”
We could argue, however, that playing the victim isn’t earning LDS people many points.
Maybe LDS folks need to get thicker skin to go with the turn the other cheek philosophy.
coltakashi on 23 Mar 2009 at 12:16 pm #
It’s nice to know that at least one “progressive” judge also respects the right of citizens to amend their state constitutions. It would be even nicer if the “progressive” members of the US Supreme Court also recognized that the ultimate sovereignty of the citizens underlines the authority of the Constitution they are assigned to enforce, and that it is up to the citizens to make fundamental alterations in its meaning and effect, not judges.
The truth is that the current Congress and Administration have little respect for the Constitution, demonstrated by seeking to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House, contrary to the express terms of the Constitution, which limit election to Congress to the “States”, and explicitly make the District a political creature that is NOT a State. Doing this will lead to the same demand being made by the Territory of Guam, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, which have just as much claim to “inequity” as the District does. Furthermore, it is clear that the District will eventually ask for two senators as well! It is no less unconstitutional than allowing it one voting Representative.
The simple solution for giving residents of the District representation in Congress is to retrocede the non-Federal lands in the district back to Maryland. The District will become a city in Maryland, and can elect not only a Representative, but also vote on Maryland’s two senators, not to mention participate in elections for the governor and other statewide officers and the legislature. Just as Congress gives cities with large Federal lands a payment in lieu of property taxes, Congress can continue to help fund the District, but in our settled state, a century after the Civil War, we don’t need to keep Federal control over residential districts. The Pentagon is in Virginia, not the District, but has not had any problems. Aside from Federal control over a few key roads like Pennsylvania Avenue and the National Mall, the Federal District of Columbia only needs to include the actual buildings and grounds of Federal entities.
CarlH on 23 Mar 2009 at 2:58 pm #
From my perspective, it is unfortunate that Prof. Clayson would have placed so much emphasis on comments posted in the context of a sports rivalry. While it cannot be gainsaid that the athletic rivalry between the University of Utah and Brigham Young University provides a rather spectacular stage upon which various prejudices and stereotypes play out in a very public arena, such a context is hardly one in which one would expect that all partisans are going to exhibit rational, thoughtful and kind-hearted behaviors, even absent a religious angle.
That does not, however, undercut a certain validity to Prof. Clayson’s point. Indeed, one need only look at both the nature and the volume of the comments to Prof. Clayson’s own op-ed piece to get a flavor for what passes as “dialogue” in the comments to news articles in either of Utah’s largest daily papers (and many of the smaller ones) with virtually any religious angle at all. But public comments on almost any topic on unmoderated newspaper websites rarely “degenerate” into constructive discussion and dialogue. I’m actually surprised that the two major Utah dailies have not followed other papers’ decisions to eliminate comment sections because of the divisive tone that so frequently dominates them.
For this Utahn, I’m pleased to see that the Salt Lake Tribune would even run Prof. Clayson’s article–as it at least suggests a willingness to acknowledge that there might be another side to what typically passes for the “side of the angels” in that publication, which quite openly prides itself on being a constant thorn in the side of the LDS Church (and for that matter the Republican Party, which its editors and staff seem to view, at least in Utah, as an arm of the LDS Church), and seems determined to stoke and perpetuate the 150-plus-year-old “us” and “them” problem that Lowell adverts to.