I’m not sure that Jody is correct to say that “At this point, it appears the question isn’t whether same-sex marriage is going to be imposed on the nation by the courts—but how far the demand for acquiescence from the rest of us is going to be pushed.”

The majority of states have enacted some form of marriage protection, at either the constitutional or statutory level, and public opinion—even in CA—is still in favor of traditional marriage. Yes, the younger generations are more inclined than the older generations to support same-sex marriage. But with solid arguments they can be persuaded.

To that end, I’ll link to two short articles that offer some publicly-accessible lines of reasoning about same-sex marriage.

Here is a review of David Blankenhorn’s book The Future of Marriage that I co-authored with Robert P. George.

And here is an article I wrote after the release of two documents: “Beyond Gay Marriage” (bad) and the “Princeton Principles on Marriage” (good).

Both articles provide summaries of what the best social science, anthropology, and philosophy have to say in defense of marriage as traditionally conceived, along with analyses of where same-sex marriage will take us.

Opera is known for its ridiculous plots, but La Scala is taking it up a notch. According to the New York Times, they have commissioned the Italian composer Giorgio Battistelli to write an opera of Al Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth. The Times’ John Tierney has a marvelous satire of what this might look like. Here’s a sample:

Perhaps, as you complain, Petroleo does exude a certain glamour in his patter song promising magic lanterns and horseless carriages and flying machines. But when he seduces the chief Minemaiden, the music darkens with a menacing crescendo as they embrace, singing “Combustione! Combustione!” There is no mistaking the unholiness of their union, nor its catastrophic consequence once their daughter Carbonia is born.

I grant you it would be more chemically precise to give Carbonia twin siblings named after oxygen. But this would dilute the role and doom our chances of getting Anna Netrebko for Carbonia, and she is essential for the scene on Olympus. If it is to be credible, we must have a Carbonia with the sinister beauty to inflame the passions of Zeus, Poseidon, Aether and the other weather gods. . . .

I don’t share your fear that audiences will expect Prince Algorino to “offset his travel footprint,” so I don’t see the need for the tree-planting scene you suggest. Once the Weather Seer has explained Poseidon’s passion and shown him the rising seas, Algorino should immediately rush back to save Gaia. And why, with his lover in peril, would he pause en route to rescue a drowning polar bear?

In a web article last week, I reproduced my testimony before the Appropriations Committee of the Pennsylvania Senate concerning S.B. 1250, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit marriage to unions of one man and one woman. I argued that sooner or later someone will file a lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s current marriage laws and that such a suit will require the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to decide whether the general anti-discrimination provisions in the state constitution require the state to recognize same-sex marriages. I then argued that judges have no superior insight into the moral, philosophical and political questions that the issue of same-sex marriage raises, and so it would be better to settle the question democratically by allowing the people of Pennsylvania to vote on the matter.

Responding to this argument, some critics (including Michael Perry at www.mirrorofjustice.org, for which see here and here) have said that, if the key point concerns resolving the issue democratically rather than judicially, then I ought to support not the amendment actually proposed in S.B. 1250 (which limits marriage to unions of one man and one woman) but an amendment that would simply strip from the Pennsylvania judiciary the ability to decide the issue (e.g., “Nothing in this constitution shall be interpreted to require or prohibit the state from recognizing marriages between individuals of the same sex”). Such an amendment would prevent a judicial resolution of the issue and leave the matter in the normal legislative process.

There is some truth in this argument, and I would happily support such an amendment. Political realities in Pennsylvania are such, however, that if the legislature approves any amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution, it’s very likely to be in the form of the amendment actually proposed in S.B. 1250. Hence, for practical purposes, it’s S.B. 1250 or nothing. If there is to be a political debate in Pennsylvania about same-sex marriage, therefore, the Pennsylvania legislature has to bring S.B. 1250 before the voters.

This raises, however, another important point, which is that people on different sides of the same-sex marriage debate will tend to think differently about the relative merits of a democratic versus judicial resolution of the issue. In short, opponents of same-sex marriage have a special interest in a democratic resolution whereas proponents of same-sex marriage have a special interest in a judicial resolution.

For, if the state supreme court takes a same-sex marriage case, there are roughly two possible outcomes: either, the court decides that the state constitution requires same-sex marriage (as in the recent California decision), or else the court decides that the state constitution does not require same-sex marriage (as happened in New York). In the former case, the proponents of same-sex marriage win outright and opponents of same-sex marriage lose outright. In the latter, the issue remains in the normal political process, and both sides can continue to advocate for their views in the state legislature (even though the opponents of same-sex marriage will be somewhat helped, and the proponents of same-sex marriage somewhat harmed, because the non-discrimination argument made by the latter will have been authoritatively rejected in the courts).

From the point of view of opponents of same-sex marriage, therefore, allowing the judiciary a crack at the same-sex marriage issue has great down-side risk and little upside potential. From the point of view of proponents of same-sex marriage, however, the situation is exactly reversed: allowing the judiciary a crack at the issue has great upside potential and only limited downside risk. For this reason, opponents of same-sex marriage are likely to favor, and proponents of same-sex marriage are likely to oppose, even a constitutional amendment that merely strips the judiciary of authority to settle the issue.

Given these facts, if (as I think right) constitutional principle requires a democratic resolution of the same-sex marriage issue, the burden of generating a democratic debate on the issue by bringing a constitutional amendment before the people will tend to fall largely on the opponents of same-sex marriage. Even if democratic principles we all tend to agree on favor a democratic rather than a judicial resolution of the issue, it is unreasonable to expect proponents of same-sex marriage to assist in bringing before the people an amendment that is adverse to their immediate interests. But, if proponents of same-sex marriage cannot reasonably be expected to assist in generating a democratic debate about the issue (and may even work against bringing the matter in whatever form before the people), then by the same token opponents of same-sex marriage cannot reasonably be expected to bear the burden of generating the needed debate without framing the amendment in a way that, if enacted, settles the issue in a way favorable to them. In other words, if we cannot reasonably expect proponents of same-sex marriage to assist in generating a political debate largely contrary to their immediate interests, we similarly cannot reasonably expect opponents of same-sex marriage to generate the political debate otherwise than on terms largely favorable to their immediate interests.

It follows that, as a matter of constitutional principle and given political realities and what we can reasonably expect from people in the public square, bringing S.B. 1250 before the people is probably the best available solution of the same-sex marriage issue in Pennsylvania.

At this point, it appears the question isn’t whether same-sex marriage is going to be imposed on the nation by the courts—but how far the demand for acquiescence from the rest of us is going to be pushed. Will clergy who refuse to perform such marriages be punished? Will churches that lack ceremonies for such marriages be deprived of tax-free status.

“If past rulings are any guide, it is religious rights that are likely to be obliterated” when they run up against things like the California Supreme Courts utter assurance of the rightness of its rulings on same-sex marriage. Or so, at least, notes the American Jewish Congress’ Marc D. Stern in an op-ed today in the Los Angeles Times.

“Allowing same-sex couples to force religious individuals or organizations to act out of accord with their faith is not cost-free,” he adds. “Their dignity is no less affected. Unless claims rooted in equal protection under the law are to sweep away claims rooted in freedom of religion, a more sensitive balancing approach is essential.”

A worrying account and an essential read.

Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, has a good column in the L.A. Times today. He concludes: “If past rulings are any guide, it is religious rights that are likely to be “obliterated” by an emerging popular majority supporting same-sex relationships — and it seems unlikely that the California courts will intervene. That’s a shame.”

Stern echoes a lot of the points Maggie Gallagher made two years ago in a cover story for the Weekly Standard. That article is well-worth (re-)reading.

Archbishop Edwin O’Brien of Baltimore has made public a stiff letter of concern about the activities of the Legion of Christ and its lay affiliate, Regnum Christi, setting out guidelines to be met for its continuing operation in the archdiocese. In the course of his letter he notes the grave charges of sexual abuse made against the founder of the Legion, Fr. Marcial Maciel, which led in May 2006 to the Holy See’s directing him to retire to a life of penitence and prayer. Fr. Maciel died in January of this year. Jason Berry, who has been reporting on priestly sex abuse for many years, is now bringing out a new documentary on Fr. Maciel and the Legion, “Vows of Silence.” Following the action by the Holy See, Fr. Neuhaus wrote this in the Aug-Sep installment of The Public Square: “I do not know all that the CDF and the Holy Father know and am not privy to the considerations that led to their decision. It is reasonable to believe that they concluded that Fr. Maciel did do something very seriously wrong. To censure publicly, toward the end of his life, the founder of a large and growing religious community is an extraordinary, perhaps unprecedented, measure in Catholic history. Moreover, because the only public and actionable charges against Fr. Maciel had to do with sexual abuse, the clear implication is that that was the reason for the censure. In view of the public knowledge of the charges, it is not plausible that he was censured for some other and unknown reason.” The Legion has promised to comply with the guidelines specified by Archbishop O’Brien.

Today DC’s school vouchers come up for discussion in the House, and the outlook isn’t good. Despite the fact that these vouchers have saved many of the city’s underprivileged children from attending some of the worst public schools in the nation, Democrats do not seem inclined to continue them. Bill McGurn in the Wall Street Journal asks whether Barack Obama will stand up for change these kids could believe in, and David Keene in The Hill gives a detailed critique of the plan to drop the vouchers. Here’s a sample of Keene’s article:

The rise of the charter and voucher movements, along with the skyrocketing number of parents choosing to home-school their children rather than entrust them to a system that doesn’t work, represent a rational response to the problem. Union representatives and elected officials like Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) claim that rather than giving up on traditional public schools, these parents should stick with them and help fix them.

What she is really asking, of course, is for parents to accept the fact of an ugly and unacceptable status quo. The District’s schools have been a disaster for decades and have helped keep the children of District residents from achieving their dreams or the success every parent wishes for his or her children. What Ms. Norton and her cohorts are telling those who have found a better way is that the greater good dictates that they sacrifice the hopes and dreams of their children to the ideological and political demands of those who have failed and continue to fail.

That’s the ugly truth in Washington and elsewhere. Charter schools and private schools are under attack around the country today, not because they don’t work, but because they do. The fact that the victims of these attacks are often those poor and minority kids who most need a good education seems of little concern to folks like Ms. Norton.

Charter schools and vouchers were originally seen by many as a means not only of providing a way out for children trapped in failing schools that weren’t being fixed, but as a way to inject competitive pressure into a monopolistic structure and thus force the traditional public school systems to change and improve. Unfortunately, however, the existing system is responding to competition like most monopolies — by trying to close down its competitors rather than improve what it has to offer.

According to Maggie Gallagher, it’s not about marriage nor is it about Adam and Steve. In a nice article on NRO today, Maggie explains. Here’s her ending:

Here’s the conclusion I’ve come to after four-plus years of active participation in the same-sex-marriage debate: Gay marriage is not primarily about marriage. It’s also not about Adam and Steve and their personal practical legal needs. It is about inserting into the law the principle that “gay is the new black” — that sexual orientation should be treated exactly the same way we treat race in law and culture.

Gay-marriage advocates say it all the time: People who think marriage is the union of husband and wife are like bigots who opposed interracial marriage. Believe them. They say it because they mean it.

The architects of this strategy have targeted marriage because it stands in the way of the America they want to create: They hope to use the law to reshape the culture in exactly the same way that the law was used to reshape the culture of the old racist south.

Gay-marriage advocates are willing to use a variety of arguments to allay fears and reduce opposition to getting this new “equality” principle inserted in the law; these voices may even believe what they are saying. But once the principle is in the law, the next step will be to use the law to stigmatize, marginalize, and repress those who disagree with the government’s new views on marriage and sexual orientation.

Many of the harshest legal conflicts could be alleviated with religious-exemption legislation. But gay-marriage advocates will fight those religious exemptions tooth and nail (as they did in Massachusetts when the Catholic Church asked for one for Catholic Charities) because, they will say, it’s the principle of the thing: We wouldn’t give a religious-liberty exemption to a racist, so why should someone who opposes gay marriage get one?

Conservative gay-marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan may well tut tut that they don’t really agree with, say, kicking Catholic Charities out of the adoption business. If it were left it up to guys like them, they probably would not do it. But it won’t be left up to them (and they can hardly be expected to fall on their swords to prevent it either.)

Ideas have consequences. This is what “marriage equality” means.

This November, voters in California will have a chance in the privacy of the voting booth to either affirm or repudiate California’s supreme court decision.

What is at stake in the California marriage debate now taking place? The meaning of marriage, the idea of judicial restraint, and the official harassment and repression (by our own government) of traditional religious faiths.

Failure in California not an option. Conservatives and other people of good will need to recognize the battle we are in. We didn’t choose it, but for better or worse it is here.