truenorthnewsandcommentary.com

 
“I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy. You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We’re selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I’ve read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don’t speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I’ll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed. . . . Frankly, a lot of academics are going to be timid because they don’t want to be viewed as opposing her. But you will see some focus on the opinions.”

 
– George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley (photo above), on MSNBC’s “Hardball” commenting on the qualifications of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

I know, that’s a fairly grandiose title for this post;  the gay marriage debate is about many things.  For one thing, gays want acceptance, and that basic human desire looms large in the discussion.  So does the desire of traditional marriage proponents to uphold the ideal of a family that includes both a father and a mother.

All those important elements aside, I think the crux of the public debate in the coming years will be this question:  In the context of marriage, is sexual preference the same as race? In other words, is opposition to gay marriage the same as opposition to interracial marriage?

Understanding the two principal competing answers to that question is crucial to understanding the nature of the national conversation that is under way right now.