|
Why homosexual “marriage” led a cautious governor to act like a dictator
Here is another good editorial, from the June 2 New York Daily News, explaining the supposed legal basis for Governor Paterson’s action in ordering state agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex “marriages,” and showing how weak that basis is. I’ve copied it into the same entry with the New York Post editorial on the same subject from last week. By the way, Paterson’s precipitous move on this front shows once again how non-discrimination is the true beating heart of a liberal. Paterson’s modus operandi as governor has been that of a moderate, a man of consensus, an executive who works with the legislature—the opposite of his high-handed, arrogant predecessor, Eliot Spitzer. But here Paterson acted completely unilaterally and even secretly to impose this radical change on New York State. Why the shockingly uncharacteristic behavior? Because homosexual marriage is not like the state budget or other political issues. Homosexual marriage is the next great step forward in the march toward complete non-discrimination and equality, and thus a sacred cause. So all the usual cautions and considerations be damned.
The same happened with President Clinton when, at the very beginning of his administration, to the surprise of many, and to his own lasting political damage, he made the inclusion of open homosexuals in the military his top priority and pushed it with everything he had. The opposition in Congress and public opinion was such that he was ultimately forced to give in and compromise on the issue, after having dissipated much political capital and good will on a lost cause. For liberals, “equality” for homosexuals is a transcendent moral object, leading them to cast aside normal political calculations. Email entry |