Andrew Sullivan says that “the right refuses to give up its argumentative crutch” concerning the link between activist judges and same-sex marriage. I’m one of the crutch-using righties he cites, since I acknowledge that judges originally imposed de facto gay marriage on Vermont in the form of civil unions, a decision that definitely helped shift the politics of the issue within that state. Does Sullivan dispute either of these points?
You’d never know I’d written about the inadequacy of the judges argument and the way something like Vermont would change the debate not just last week, but for the last few years. I first wrote that the argument couldn’t be confined to judicial activism shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s same-sex marriage decision in late 2003, as Sullivan recognized at the time. But at least he gave his readers the ability to click through the link and see that my post was actually titled “Gay Marriage, Without Judges.”
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.