2005-04-27T21:26:23Z2005-04-27T21:26:23ZGuess who2005-04-29T02:38:23Z<p>If I didn’t know better, I’d say <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives/022693.php">Glenn</a> was the political scientist and <a href="http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_04_24_dish_archive.html#111461789446887122">Andrew</a> the lawyer.</p>
<p>Of course, I might also express some skepticism about this phrase from Sullivan:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Gay couples who have had basic rights taken away from them since November</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I’d like to meet these gay couples who have been deprived of a right they actually <em>had</em> on November 1, 2004. Indeed, I tend to think the scorecard over the past few months is +2 for gay couples, as Oregon and Connecticut have civil union bills either passed or well on their way to passage. You could argue that in the states that passed anti-same-sex marriage amendments (including Oregon), gay couples lost constitutional recognition of rights that weren’t recognized by any of those states in practice anyway—and could only be recognized in the future by judicial fiat, since none of those states had ever intentionally created a right to same-sex marriage—but that’s something of a stretch.</p>
<p><span class="update">Update:</span> Daniel Drezner <a href="http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/002017.html">is underwhelmed by Sullivan’s political theory credentials</a> based on the <cite>TNR</cite> piece that <a href="http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi%3D20050502%26s%3Dsullivan050205">had something to do with the Sullivan-Reynolds debate</a>.</p>
<p><span class="update">Another Update:</span> I probably should correct the score to +1, as I forgot about Texas passing its (ill-advised, though probably constitutionally valid) law forbidding adoptions by gay couples.</p>
http://blog.lordsutch.com/archives/2704
http://blog.lordsutch.com/atom.cgi/entryid=2704