“Federal Judge Rules Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional,” Omaha World-Herald, 12 May 2005, http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=1638&u_sid=1409755.
The homosexualists law campaigns are marked by dueling fourth-generation insurgencies — on the one hand the homosexualists themselves, on the other the conservative coalition that has seized two branches of the national government and has foundations in many other places. Both have grown a lot since the 1970s, though the homosexualists less so. Now with the “culture wars,” these armies find themselves fighting each other head-on.
Take this news, from my future home-state
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon struck down Thursday Nebraska’s constitutional provision prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions.
The constitutional amendment, known as Initiative 416, passed in 2000 with 70 percent of the vote. It prevents homosexuals who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.
A group of lesbian and gay couples sued the state of Nebraska, contending the act barred “lesbian, gay and bisexual people from using the ordinary political process to seek important legal protections that all other Nebraskans already have.”
Forty states have so-called “Defense of Marriage” laws, but Nebraska’s ban is the only one that explicitly prohibits same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.
Where does this fall on the stages of 4GP on PISRR?
For the Homosexualists
- A 4GPS3 victory — seizing the government and directing police powers
- A Penetration victory — the first stage in PISRR — allow their Pre-Modern Political (family) networks to more openly exist
For the Conservatives
- A 4GPS3 loss but a 4GPS1 victory. This is an “outrage” — a singular event which draws attention to the cause. Think of the Mai Lai massacre for a similar 4GWS3 victory (the land was captured) that was a 4GWS1 cataclysm.
- A Reorienting event. This throws Nebraska conservatives into the first stages of the OODA loop, forcing them to reconquer ground previously occupied.
Last: Note the assymetric nature of the struggle. Conservatives attacked where they are strongest: public opinion. Homosexualists counter-attacked where they are strongest: the courts. Conservatives will counter-counter-attack where they are strongest: the Congress
Every side chooses the battleground where it has the advantage.
Update: Not that anti-Conservatives can’t fight in the Senate. Bush’s circuit court nominees enjoy only a 46.9% confirmation rate.
Update 2: My analogy was better than I thought. The court’s reasoning was that the law harms political networks! From Ramesh at Bench Memos
A federal judge (Joseph Bataillon, a Clinton nominee) has struck down a state ban on same-sex marriage. Nebraska voters amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The judge, following the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans (1996), ruled that the amendment had infringed on the rights to political participation of advocates of same-sex marriage: They can’t get their way just by persuading the legislature, since they would also have to overturn the amendment. The reasoning, like the reasoning in Romer (which prevented localities from passing laws against discrimination against gays), strikes me as awfully shaky.