Explaining The Nation's Non-Reaction To Gay Marriage

If a state legalizes gay marriage and nobody notices, can gay people still get married? What if four states do it in six weeks?

As more states legalize same-sex marriage, the lack of outrage is striking. Forget the Armageddon we were promised. There's hardly even been a press conference. It would appear that gay marriage is just not that big a deal anymore and that the Christian right -- long the main source of opposition -- isn't either. Both are scenarios I find encouraging, but I question whether the nation's collective shrug can be fully explained by the natural ebb and flow of politics and social mores. What if neither the Christian right nor the issue of gay marriage was ever as central in American politics as the media or the far right would have had us believe?

There was a time when an inflammatory remark from one of the leaders of the religious right would spark a media feeding frenzy. (Remember when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on gay people? That was leadership.) If you count New Hampshire, where a bill is awaiting the governor's signature, since the beginning of April four states (the other three are Iowa, Maine, and Vermont) have legalized gay marriage. Predictably, speaking on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Robertson reacted to Maine's legalization of gay marriage with an old chestnut: "What about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals? Mark my words, this is just the beginning of a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent."

Yet nobody seemed to notice Robertson's comments.

Just last year, the press made it seem as if the entire Republican presidential primary consisted of a competition for the endorsement of James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Now where is he? Four years ago he said same-sex marriage would likely lead to "marriage between daddies and little girls" and "marriage between a man and his donkey." Yet lately he has been more concerned about President Obama's decision to skip a National Day of Prayer event than about gay marriage. And Fox News, which not long ago would have been forced to add an extra hour to the day to fit in all the gay-marriage outrage, has decided to focus on tea bags and torture instead.

Of course, the growing acceptance of gay marriage hasn't prompted much celebration, either, at least outside those states where it is now legal. So how do we explain the nation's nonreaction to the legalization of same-sex marriage?

Attitudes do change over time, and that's no doubt happening here. But those kinds of generational shifts take place slowly. They can't explain how an issue that was supposedly so incendiary so recently could turn into an afterthought so quickly. It's also likely that the recession has played a role in diminishing the focus on social issues, as some pollsters point out. But while the economy remains a concern, the acute fear that gripped the nation over the winter has somewhat receded. And thanks to a bit of mildly encouraging news and our collective ennui, the recession is no longer the all-consuming headline of several months ago. There now appears to be room in the national consciousness for issues besides the economy. Why not same-sex marriage?

In 2004, the pundit class latched on to the story line that evangelicals were responsible for the re-election of President Bush, ignoring polls that showed that voters considered Iraq, terrorism, and the economy -- not gay marriage or abortion -- the top issues. Voters also just found Bush more likable than John Kerry. In spite of these facts, the media chose the juicier headline ("Evangelical Christians Taking Over America") over the more accurate one ("Americans Still Trust Friendly Cowboys Over Patrician Phonies").

And in 2008, evangelicals were about the same percentage of the electorate as they were in 2004. But the Democrat won handily. How? Well, middle-of-the-road, independent Americans decided the election, just as they did in 2004. Evangelicals may be crucial to Republicans in the primaries, but they have never been kingmakers in the general election. General elections are decided by moderates, the same people whose changing attitudes are largely responsible for the quiet acceptance of these gay-marriage victories. (Two recent polls put national support for same-sex marriage at 42 percent and 49 percent, respectively, and rising.) And while those moderates may be more open to gay marriage now than they were a few years ago, it was never a touchstone issue for them -- as evidenced by the fact that it was not a top concern in the 2004 election.

Of course, there remains substantial opposition to same-sex marriage in America. But as people start to see that New England hasn't turned into Sodom and Gomorrah -- and as they start to find out that the nice "single" woman in their office isn't so single -- they'll likely get more comfortable with the whole notion. Clearly, that's already happening. How else to explain the lack of outrage?

No doubt the religious right will return. But when it does, let's not forget this era of bland acceptance of same-sex marriage. It raises serious questions about the religious right's power. Perhaps it has always been better at projecting influence than exercising it.

This piece was originally published on Slate.com.

Comments

[BeltwayInsider]

It's my understanding that, historically, social equality generally advances during economic downturns, and that this is true across the globe.

During good times, people tend to get involved in other people's matters. During times of economic crisis, the need to focus on their own situation affords them neither the time or patience to devote to the interference in the lives of others.

[antaeus]

Hmmm. Probably more complicated. Germany in the 1930s? America in the 1920s?

[Ohioan730]

I have long been fed up with the right's comparison of homosexuals to deviants and "bad people". Who do they think they are to decide that I'm "normal and natural" and someone else is not? Why do they get to dehumanize people and get away with it? Because we let them talk this way without putting fire under them. Imagine that argument against gay marriage with the word "gay" replaced with "interracial". Just like anything else, a minority group needs all others to stand up for/with them in solidarity as free Americans united under our Constitution, no matter what we are and who we sleep with. When one group is not free, none of us are. We're living a lie until the LGBT community gets equal rights and straight people can no longer brush this away as someone else's problem because it simply isn't true anymore. I give the LGBT community props for keeping the fight going and getting this issue on the kitchen tables of heterosexual people as well.

[worried1]

To be correct, the issue is same sex marriage.

Millions of gay people are already married, to people of the opposite sex. Same sex marriage affords the same variety of reasons to marry that opposite sex couples have from convenience, business, politics, to passion.

[OtayPanky]

Blogger: What if neither the Christian right nor the issue of gay marriage was ever as central in American politics as the media or the far right would have had us believe?

===

If you think that the Christian right was never a big deal in American politics, talk to John Kerry and Bob Shrum - because they cost him the presidency in '04.

It's not that they were never consequetial - they really were. And the Christian right's get out the vote efforts were very effective, starting in the Reagan years.

But Bushco so farked the party, and the country, that a whole lot of formerly convinced folks decided that maybe this Bible toting isn't the answer to our problems after all.

Thanks GWB. We couldn't have done it without you.

[KoolAidAmerica]

Its the economy. If people are fearing for their jobs they have less time to worry about gays and Biblical stories about gays. This is the best time to get our rights because the backlash won't be so high. If we keep on waiting the social conservatives who are currently lying low will eventually emerge out of the woodwork to deny us our rights once the economy is settled.
So gay Democrats if you want gay rights now is the right time. Don't let them throw you under the bus.

[SonofLiberty1]

So 5 states say yes to Gay Marriage.

Last time I checked there were 50 States in the Union not 5.

Many states now have a legal definition of marriage not including same sex and many of them constitutionally say marriage is between a man and woman.

And then there is DOMA.

Well, they say ROE won't ever go.

I say DOMA is probably here to stay and just as much as folks fight to keep ROE, folks will also fight to keep DOMA.

[antaeus]

Roe is the law nationwide. Much of its very impetus was to sort the confusion arising from different state laws.

DOMA won't survive a Full Faith and Credit Clause challenge . . . especially now that same-sex marriage actually exists legally in the country.

Fighting to defend DOMA would be a waste of precious time and money.

[David Russo]

As an attorney, I have seen and participated in many legal arguments that address liberties and civil rights issues. If you think DOMA is here to stay, I can assure you that you are wrong. In American jurisprudence, civil rights expand over time, not contract. With changing societal views, the passing of older generations and a slow but steady trickle of pro-rights for all Americans, same-sex marriage is now historically inevitable. It will be a non-issue in most of our lifetimes.

[SonofLiberty1]

Now I'm not attorney but there have been countless "things" down throught the years that were"Inevi­table"....­.

Like Hitler and his Nazis...

Or the phrase "We will bury you" coming from Kruschev of the defunct USSR.

But I can relate my absolute disgust on how the law gives the right to refuse treatment to folks who are seriously mentally ill...

And "Stare Decisis".

That's why I don't listen to lawyers anymore.

Nothing personal, I'm sure you are good at what you do and are a nice guy.

I just don't listen to lawyers anymore.

[DaynaMichelle]

I got a phone call today from my mother-in-law who has been attending the Presbyterian Church in our town, and apparently the NC Presbyterian Churches have changed the church constitution to allow Gays to become officials in the Church. I thought this was a great advancement as well:) I researched this found out this has been in debate for the Presbyterian Church for awhile. So not only is it starting to be to where society is becoming more accepting, looks like some of the Churches have decided to change their ways as well:)

[propitiousmoment]

The presbyterian church has long been known as a socially conscious institution, compared to most of the more conservative church organizations.

[propitiousmoment]

How can we criminalize bestiality, incest, and pedophilia, and then allow gay marriage, Pat Robertson asks. To which I would say the same, how can we criminalize all of the above, and then allow heterosexual marriage? It's exactly the same argument, except that some people are squeamish about same-sex couples. These same people, in my experience, are also pretty uptight about sex in general, not just gay sex and not just deviance. That kind of prissiness carries over into an uptight relationship with their opposite sex marriage partner too. The answer of course is to refuse to allow the neurosis of the few to ruin life and culture for the many. Gradually, like any other attitudes, the rest of us acting like adults will bring most of them around.

[SonofLiberty1]

Last time I checked, most of humanity is not gay...if that were false, we wouldn't be having the conversation because we wouldn't be here and humanity would have died out a long time ago.

[antaeus]

Just how closely were you checking? I think I finally understand your interest.

[propitiousmoment]

You don't have to be gay to come to grips with your own sexuality, but doing so gives you a tolerance for others, because you recognize that no one's preferences are rooted in rationality. Doesn't matter how many people are one way or the other, what you like is not the standard for everyone. When you are comfortable with that, you can be comfortable with allowing others to live the full range of their own experience.

[j.gold]

When asked why I am not married by the nosy bible thumpers at work I reply "didn't you hear, the gays ruined marriage" the confused look on their face is priceless and it shuts them up quick.

[SonofLiberty1]

Nah, you don't want to give them the wrong idea now do you? Simply say that you haven't found the right one.

Not every person gets married. And just because they don't doesn't mean that they are gay either.

[antaeus]

See Kübler-Ross and the five stages of grief for a partial explanation. At the moment I think the opposition is somewhere between bargaining ("Is it too late for civil unions?") and depression ("Oh God, Massachusetts isn't going back, and now we've added others. It's here to stay, isn't it?")

[argyle]

I don't think most people care either way. I think if they had accepted civil unions and called it marriage nothing would be different, except it would have already happened, there would be little opposition to it, and in a generation they could have passed minor state laws that codified a semantic sentiment that had been accepted by the public for a generation.

And the Republicans wouldn't have this talking point.

[antaeus]

Hmmm, I seem to recall opposition from conservative activists against any compromise, including unions, from the start. Where exactly were these serious and meaningful offers of civil unions?

[BoyInBOYCOTT]

CA Supreme Court ruling on prop 8 on TUESDAY May 26

See Day of Decision for demonstrat­ion/Celebr­ation information in your city.
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11107/day-of-decision-confirmed-tuesday-may-26th

http://www.dayofdecision.com/
Here's an easily visible symbol all demonstrators could duplicate. Paint H8 on the back of your fist.
Imagine the visibility of MILLIONS of fist raised in Unison.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2006-8/1210139/fistH8.jpg

[COPerez]

I see lots of arm-waiving in the recent comments that the states that've legalized same-sex marriage are small, aren't important, blah, blah... But come on, Iowa? Does it get any more "heartland" than Iowa? And it's not like there's been a national news blackout on the issue: each time there were headlines and pictures of happy couples taking their vows or holding onto marriage licenses.

Denial. I see lots of denial.

But equality almost always wins out.

[zest]

What about heterosexuals who marry people of the same sex just to get the benefits of marriage?

[gaydm]

Why do people assume that a civil marriage license is a license for sex, when it is not? If 2 people of any gender wish to marry it should be none of the governments business what sex they have, in or out of there bedrooms. Children in marriage are optional, not a requirement for marriage, it does not matter whether you obtain them through a sex act, or if you get them through an adoption. Some opposite sex couples do marry and never have children. So why not 2 seniors who like to golf or just wish to live together for the company and mutual support and the benefits that the marriage would bring them. I would see no issue with them having the same right to have there marriage.

[complice]

What about heterosexuals who marry people of the opposite sex just to get the benefits of marriage?

[coolmaiden]

Do you know of such instances? Besides a crappy movie? I'm guessing no.

[Awake-and-Sing]

Heterosexuals have been marrying people of the opposite sex just to get the benefits of marriage for centuries.

[BeninOakland]

What about homosexuals who marry the opposite sex, just to get the benefits of marriage? And then, what about the divorces, the shattered lives, the messed up kids.
How's this. end the prejudice now. Let us marry each other so that we don't marry YOU.

[it is me]

The only reason that it is a non-issue for many people is because they are content to know that their own states (most of them in the country by the way) now have constitutional ammendments to make sure that gay-marriage does not happen there at all. In addition, on a national level, these gay marriages are still not recognized and provide no benefits that "traditional" marriage couple recieve. There is currently a federal lawsuit, in beginning stages, that argue that the Defense of Marriage Act (part 2) is unconstituional in that it recognizes traditional marriages from people from these states, but still does not recognize the gay marriages, even though the marriage certificates and licenses are the same. When the topic of gay marriage comes closer to hitting more people (ie. large states and the federal level) THEN you will see the outrage.
Also, living in NYC, I certainly see the HUGE fight against gay marriage in this state, as it is pending in the NY capitol as well.
It is simply a non-issue when it isnt an issue near to them....but it is certainly, by NO MEANS, a non-issue.