Marriage Equality and the New Faces of the Republican Party
As President Obama prepares to make his first Supreme Court appointment, the religious right appears to be shifting gears away from focusing on abortion rights and turning their attention more to the question of gay marriage. This reflects a broader strategy on the part of the Christian Right to make fighting against marriage equality the top issue on their agenda.
While campaigns based upon bigotry and intolerance are always harmful, the timing of this decision by opponents of marriage equality may be good news for those of us who think gays and lesbians should be treated equally by our laws. This may seem a strange thing to claim less than seven months after the passage of Proposition 8 in California, but the political climate in the United States has changed substantially since that election. It now looks as if the passage of Proposition 8 was the last gasp of the reactionary politics of the Bush era, rather than a sign of renewed intolerance in America.
Since the November 2008 election, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine have passed laws supporting gay marriage and it seems reasonably clear that other states will join these states, and Massachusetts, soon. Advances in these states suggest that Proposition 8 was the end of something, not the beginning. More states are making marriage equal for all people not because of an upsurge of passionate supporters of gay marriage, but because of a collapse of the moderate opposition to allowing two men or two women to marry each other.
The ground underneath the gay marriage policy debate has shifted leaving opponents in a far weaker position. In this moment of the Obama ascendancy, the center has clearly moved somewhat. Perhaps this is a reaction to the disastrous administration of Obama's predecessor, the ongoing economic troubles or a broader shift in perceptions or understandings among the electorate. While there are still pockets of reaction, at least for now, they feel like pockets when only a few short years ago they were the mainstream. The string of electoral defeats for marriage equality has given way to a string of legislative victories for the same issue.
The collapse of the moderate opposition to gay marriage is both partially caused by, and increasingly contributes to, the right wing of the Republican Party's increasing, but almost certainly temporary, isolation on the fringes of American politics. While there are, undoubtedly, numerous reasons why this has occurred, one major reason why moderate opposition to gay marriage is weakening is because very few people in the broad American political center want to be associated with Rush Limbaugh, tea parties, intolerance or anachronistically calling the president a socialist for supporting moderate tax increases for the wealthiest Americans. Yet, this is precisely where the religious right finds itself as it seeks to fight against marriage equality-associated with unpopular leaders, devoid of any cohesive solutions and sounding increasingly frustrated and irrational as they yell from the sidelines of political life.
The right wing has made it very difficult for opponents of gay marriage to stake out a centrist view where they can articulate a position that is in line with some liberal majority positions, such as support of the economic stimulus and opposition to the war in Iraq, while still opposing gay marriage. Previous election returns, and other evidence, tell us that at one time in the not so distant past there were many voters who, while not consistent right wing Republicans, felt some discomfort with gay marriage. It was these voters who made the difference in passing laws against marriage equality in many states. Today, whatever discomfort these voters may feel about gay marriage is being trumped by the broader discomfort they feel with the far right of the Republican Party.
This is a major strategic mistake by opponents of gay marriage; and one which does not seem to be lost on supporters of gay marriage. During this period when the anti-marriage equality movement has been hijacked by the extreme right, supporters of gay marriage are, and should continue to, push through as much marriage equality legislation in as many places as possible.
By taking advantage of this political moment, which may just be a brief dynamic arising from the broader political context, lasting damage will be done to the forces of intolerance because as gay marriage is made legal in more states, ordinary Americans will see that the bizarre and offensive fears raised by radical opponents of gay marriage are, of course, nonsense. Families will not collapse; society will not come to a grinding halt; children will not suffer. Instead, reasons for opposing marriage equality will become less, not more, clear as a few more loving couples will be treated equally and our country will come a little closer to meeting the ideals for which we strive.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Gays deserve the same rights as everyone else has, including marriage. If you want to ban something, then ban straight divorces!!! Straight people have made a complete mockery of marriage with a divorce rate over 50%. And no church or religious group should be trying to force their views onto other people! That is the oppsite of what America was founded upon. In otherwords, stay out of other people's private lives!! And don't give me any bull about redifing marriage. Marriage has been redefined for thousands of years. The definition of gay has also, from some kind of mentally deformed sickness to a completey normal person with a different set of genes.
Even if equal protection is the central issue for advocates of gay marriage, by framing it as "Marriage Equality" and eliminating the traditional definition of marriage; by necessity you must create a new definition of marriage, That new definition has the consequence of changing a basic structure in society. Which seems to be a secondary goal of gay activists; to make being gay a more openly "normal" expression. Think of gay pride parades.
One unintended consequence is the further expansion of marriage into other lifestyles, who can use the same argument of discrimination to gain the same "equal protection" for their group. Some polygamists are already doing just that.
Once a precedent is set in law, it usually expands rather than remains restricted to the current issue.
"Gay Rights" activists borrow heavily from the Civil Rights Movement and Civil Rights leaders like Jesse Jackson are also involved in gay rights as a civil right. Once gay marriage is widely accepted in several states, I look for both black leaders and gay activists in those states to advocate polygamy.
From gay marriage to legalized polygamy, from Polygamy to.....?
Stop using polygamy, it's a huge cop out. We're still fighting for two same-sex people to marry. Not twenty. Let's not forget that marriage previously was polygamist in nature. So by your logic, when it was defined as between two people it opened up the possibility of other types of marriage, like same-sex and common-law. Congratulations!
When you say "Stop using polygamy", what do you think I am using it for?
More particularly, exactly how is it a "cop out" to give polygamy as one possible future of the next shoe to drop in the quest for "marriage equality"?
Yes, it's true that the struggle for same sex marriage is just beginning. But this is precisely the time to consider the likelihood of what the consequences will be in the aftermath of destroying the traditional definition of marriage.
Are you saying that once same sex marriages become accepted, then that will be the end to the re-defintion of marriage? or
Is there a more likely group, than polygamists, that will press their case that it is being discriminated against; and that they deserve "marriage equality" the way same sex couples have.
In my earlier comment, I left it open for kind folks to fill in.
You seem to be describing "Chicken Little" syndrome. The right was hysterically flailing their arms about screaming "The sky is falling!" on the topic. At first some people were naturally alarmed by all the ruckus but the sky did not, in fact, fall. The institution of marriage did not collapse as a result. Children were not 'perverted'. The world was the same the next morning.
The right wing simply cannot claim 'the sky is falling' on EVERY topic that pops up without losing all credibility. What's the next topic that they're going to get hysterical over, the 'unChristianness' of organic farming?
Thank you for your article, and terming it as "marriage equality" and not "gay marriage". While I can appreciate the political implications of law supporting marriage equality, I continue to come back to what marriage is really all about: love between two committed people. Isn't that getting lost in all of this?
A friend forwarded me this well written, humorous post that takes this same stance. I thought I would pass it along:
http://minivanmonologues.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-same-sex-marriage-debate-why-cant.html
"what marriage is really all about: love between committed people" - fixed it. I don't see a reason that it should be limited in numbers.
Although actually I think of marriage as being about getting the government to recognize that there is a legal contract between people. I got married to the woman I'd been living with for 12 years. The only thing that changed was how I file my taxes, and that my insurance now covers her and her kids.
It is not limited in numbers. You can get remarried as many times as you can get divorced and it is all perfectly legal.
@Lincoln Mitchell: Nice article, interesting points. One thing though -- please stop alloaing the right to define your terms! "Marriage equality" is accurate -- "gay marriage" is a pretend term made up by opponents of equality -- you should know better than to use them interchangeably. My marriage is not a "gay marriage" -- it is a marriage. The same as everyone else's. Which is the point.
Ah, a point I had never considered. You remind me of how the phrase "mixed marriage" would refer to the *scandalous* union of an Episcopalian to a Lutheran!. That phrase "mixed marriage" has since faded into the past. "Gay marriage" as a label does deserves the same linguistic fate as "mixed marriage".
I definitely agree that it is not "gay marriage". Just as you don't have to prove you're straight to enter an actual marriage, the state won't make you prove you're gay to enter into a same sex marriage.
"Marriage equality" is a misleading term, too. That the state consider every individual as equal is essential. But the state is not obligated to consider every form of relating as the same. The state has a strong incentive to promote actual marriage--it has been shown through the history of our civilization to be the fundamental institution for ensuring a healthy, productive citizenry (taxpayers) and the best way for begetting and raising a new healthy, productive citizenry (future taxpayers). Same sex relationships, by their very nature, do not offer the state this incentive to promote them as exactly the same as actual marriage. This is not to say that the state would not have reasons to recognize same sex relationships--today, there is an incentive to do so because much of society has deemed it politically correct. Satisfying this can be accomplished through civil unions--without the state being forced to redefine civilization's fundamental institution and turn a blind eye to the benefits it receives by promoting actual marriage.
Your reasoning -- that marriage is for procreation -- is not entirely historically accurate. But more importantly, although I have heard thousands of people make that argument, NONE are willing to apply the logic consistently:
1) Where are the Propositions to BAN POST-MENOPAUSAL WOMEN FROM MARRYING?
2) Where are the Propositions to BAN STERILE STRAIGHT PEOPLE FROM MARRYING
So far as I know, any straight couple from 18 - 100 years old, regardless of procreative possibility, can get married! Yes the capital m "Married" in 10 minutes in Vegas. Why deny the right, based on sexual preference, especially as many gay people HAVE procreated and ARE parents? They should have the civil ability to legally enshrine their union and provide MORE stability for their kids, no?
Besides, we already fundamentally redefined marriage -- RADICALLY redefined it -- 20 years ago, to the benefit of women by saying they are equal partners not the property of the man.
There is not a single logically consistent, non-hypocritical reason to ban Marriage equality. Not one.
All this ruckus about legalizing same sex marriage being to "redefine civilization's fundamental institution" is just ignorance on the part of people like you. Western style marriages in America were civil before they began to involve religion. The Pilgrims only allowed civil marriage from 1621 to 1692. And after that people have always had the choice to have religious or non religious solemnization of their civil marriages. All legal marriages are civil marriages, even those sanctioned by religious institutions. Legalizing same sex marriage changes exactly none of that heritage.
The legal definition of civil marriage is very easy to redefine to include gay and lesbian couples who want to be treated equally. Civil unions must be laboriously defined by a whole set of new laws to make the state treat these couples as almost but not 100% equal. So the simplest solution to the problem of equal marriage rights for same sex couples is to legalize it and continue to allow religious institutions to marry whomever they wish. People who disapprove will just have to get over their discomfort and get on with their own lives, instead of being their gay neighbors' keeper.
I take issue with your argument that the state sanctions marriages only because it produce new citizens. I am a straight woman who is unable to have children. By your logic, my marriage--as well as the marriage of anyone who chooses not to have children--need not be sanctioned by the government. We, too, should just be offered the option of a "civil" union. My own feeling has long been that marriage is a sacred union and, as such, should not require government sanctioning of any kind. The government should only be allowed to offer civil unions-period. This would be regardless of whether the couple is gay of straight. All that would be required would be 2 consenting adults. Marriage could be offered by various churches-or even philosophical groups-and they could open that up or restrict it according to their own values. But for the government (the same one who taxes everyone regardless of their ability/desire to have children or their sexual orientation) to deny any consenting adult equal rights is just wrong.
Many Americans now fear the Republican Party more than they fear gay marriage.
When the liberal progressive left uses the phrase 'Christian Right', are they inferring that any on the left is somehow contaminated if they might otherwise identify with Christian reality?
If you watch a beauty queen on TV say publicly that she believes in the tradition of marriage, and then you watch and hear an agent for the left condemn her with disgust, do you identify with the left? This left wing collective has an agenda that is born out of envy and rage, And the collective has leaders. Find out who they are. You have the internet to help you. Where do they came from? What activities elevated them to leadership? What do they ultimately believe in? Contrast their statements, their character and their values with historic American figures who actually built this nation. Look for only the old history books, Not the modern Politically Correct ones. Learn about the modern American Progressive movement. I guarantee you too will rise within your group. And then you'll know the truth about America. Educate yourself.
You mean that 'beauty queen' who lied on her contestant application about posing in the nude? How very Christian of her.
The 1950s America the right waxes nostalgic over was largely created by progressive ideas implemented in the 1930s. The "beauty queen" you extol is a nitwit and a hypocrite whose values (such as they are) owe more to Donald Trump's wallet, the plastic surgeon's scalpel, and the lingerie industry's advertising budget than to anything "traditional." Ms. Prejean championing marriage is tantamount to Bristol Palin touting abstinence -- neither has any successful experience relating to the ideas they promote. One might as well have Ted Nugent speaking out for vegetarianism -- or perhaps Dick Cheney signing on with the ACLU.
Irony- when cons who voted twice for W tell liberals to get educated becasue liberal leaders have hidden agendas
Can we shut up about the beauty queen? Seriously? She broke her contract with an outdated idea that models shouldn't be shown nude (When Donald Trump called the rules outdated, I wonder why they never thought that before.) How many people really care about her opinion, one way or the other? Can we let this alone and talk about more important things?
As for the old history books, they leave a lot out. There are still plenty of history professors left over from the McCarthy Era who had to prove their heterosexuality and loyalty, and will therefore not allow any unsanctioned history as part of their curriculum. I'll be the first to admit that I hate it when queer activists change history just for the sake of acceptance. That creates lies. And I have seen it happen. My friends are all historians, and I don't know how exactly to face them when my people are doing such dishonest things.
However, that is hardly all that is involved in the changing view of history. People who were not allowed to talk before are now being allowed to talk. In the 80s, the study of history became less about the big powerful white men in charge. People wanted to know all of a sudden about everyday life with everyday people. So of course there is a shift. And minority groups are having their say.
There are many liberal Christians. Who cares? They don't interfere with other peoples lives light right wing Christians often do these days.
Marriage is not a civil right, it’s a social institution. CJ Warren Berger got it wrong in Loving v. Virginia when he wrote: Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Humans existed long before the institution of marriage was invented and the race survived. In 2007, about 40% of all babies were born out of wedlock. It’s obvious that marriage is not fundamental to either our existence or our survival. Therefore, marriage is not a “basic civil right of man (humanity)”. Should same-sex marriages be recognized and be equal to opposite-sex marriages? That’s up to society since it’s a social issue, not a legal issue. Society has the right to determine what it accepts as a valid marriage, not the courts, or even the legislatures.
It doesn't matter whether YOU think the ruling was wrong, unless there is another case that overturns this ruling, marriage will be defined as a basic civil right.
LOL. I could say that it doesn't matter what YOU think, at least in California, because of Prop 8. But that wouldn't be true. You are part of the society that has the right to decide what should be recognized as marriage and what should not. So am I.
As to court rulings, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson.
Your logic is so flawed! Are you saying that "fundamental rights" are those rights necessary to survival? Well then the only basic fundamental rights we truly have are the rights of food and water.
... and health care. Romulus is promoting socialized health care here, I think. :-)
What I'm saying is that's the flaw in BURGER'S argument. He claimed that marriage was a basic civil right because it was necessary for the survival of the species. Which obviously it is not.
Laws are social issues!
The law is what people say it is. You elect people to rep you and make laws. You elect judges who make law. You elect a pres and senate who in turn appoint judges to make law. The law only exists if we let it exist.
Judges do not "make law" -- they apply and interpret existing laws.
A civil right is a right granted by a society. The Supreme Court's ruling that marriage is a basic civil right is, of course, something that applies only to America. This has nothing whatever to do with pregnancy, per se, since it's applied to couples who are not necessarily fertile with each other (and I'm not necessarily talking same-sex couples; this could mean post-menopausal women or simply infertile couples.)
You say "society has the right to determine what makes a marriage." Well, the court and the legislature are the instruments of society. They are what society has created to make such determinations. Whether you call it a civil right or a social institution, it's something that has to be worked out within the existing social structures.
Personally, I think making all unions civil unions -- letting a licence automatically convert to a registered civil union unless it's canceled within, say, 30 days--would create the same legal structure for protection of children and distribution of property, and let the religious ceremony, if any, be a private matter.
Having a law that impinges on a religious ceremony has always been a weak point in our system. The law doesn't belong in the marriage business, and religion doesn't belong in the law.
This is a bunch of pointless sophistry. Civil rights are rights granted within a social structure, and the Supreme Court is the arbiter of that social institution. A social issue IS a legal issue. You're chasing your tautological tail.
Exactly! Well put.
Ah, but the Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter...the people are. If the people choose, they can recind the entire Constitution and dissolve the Supreme Court/
Wow, great article. Thank you.
Remember, religion is a choice, but being born gay is not, and yet religious people (whose choice it is to believe in religious doctrine) cling vehemently to their constitutional rights, while vehemently denying people who were born with a genetic difference to the majority of people the right to equality in marriage. Please people, that's ABSOLUTE B.S.!!!!
I'm not even gay and I will fight to the end for other people's right to equality. If religious doctrine implores a person to deny the equal rights of people who are born differently from him or her, that "religious doctrine" is simply WRONG.
And are you saying that God is wrong?
Listen, I'm sorry but we are born male and female. Both sexes have complementary sexual organs.
There is no "gay sexual organ"
Being gay or straight is "in the head" more biochemical than anything else..or else it would not be possible to change the sexual orientation of fruit flies ....
And MICE...which are Mammals like human beings are.
God is wrong? That's not the issue. We have a separation of church and state here. If you believe that God does not sanction gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex. It's really very simple. But your right to your own beliefs does not extend to imposing those beliefs on the rest of us.
Being born gay is not a choice. Actions speak louder than words. Just because we are sexual doesn't necessarily mean we have to do whatever all the time.
Well how convenient that everything you do is right. However, this not the World-of-You, but the planet of almost 3 billion other people, so don't pretend to know what's right for everyone else.
There is a "cure" for religion. The ex-bigot movement has shown that there is not a bigot gene.
Even Mormonism is not necessarily a chronic condition. It is possible to go many years without a symptomatic flare-up.
Most of the ex-bigots that I know are doing so well for themselves. They have less stress, and enjoy a very healthy sense of humor. They even get married.
What is most amazing, logic is not lost on them.
Can you really say that you're born gay? Aren't we all pretty much asexual until we reach a certain age? Sure, you can have certain emotional, intellectual, and even physical traits that can lend themselves toward developing homosexuality, but there's no gay gene.
The APA has moved on, and you should, too:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html
Your pres agrees that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
And he is welcome to his opinion. That's one of the differences. People who actually think for themselves allow others to think for themselves, as well. The more important thing is that the President agrees that that there must be equality in civil rights. It doesn't matter what we call it, as long as it's the same for everyone.
When the President is wrong we shouldn't hesitate to call him on it. He is wrong on this issue. There are only two ways to guarantee full civil rights to gay couples. Either we abolish civil marriage and replace it with civil unions for all, or we allow gay people to enter into civil marriage. Creating two classes of government recognized relationships is wrong. Separate is never equal.
Well to be specific that isn't actually accurate.
From the White House's web site:
"President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil_rights/
Our President believes in equal legal protection for same-sex couples. I don' t think the word 'marriage' is that significant.
The number of people who think other folks' relationships are their business is shrinking all the time. In 40 years it won't matter.
And he's wrong.
His marriage should be between a man and a woman, specifically Barack and Michelle.
My marriage, on the other hand, should be between two men. If I or my husband were married to women, those marriages would be total travesties.
What additional rights would you gain by being able to marry versus entering into a civil union and contracts between you and your partner.
That is political convenience. He will be the last democratic president (or candidate) to say that marriage is between a man and a woman. Who knows we may see a "change" in his position before he leaves office.
And now we have RNC Steele chair making the argument that the marriage is bad for the economy!!!!
I wish Steele would regularly comment on the stock market. I could get rich by going the opposite direction.
That's what Jim Cramer is for.
And how is Steele's position on gay marriage different from Obama's?
Could you tell me Obama's argument against marriage equality.
Obama was in favor of gay marriage as a State Senator in Illinois. It's a pity he's changed his language, but he does still support equal rights under the law for same-sex couples, he opposes DOMA and opposed Proposition 8, although its proponents lied about his position.
He doesn't have an argument against marriage equality - my guess is he thinks it will be easier to gain equality in the form of domestic partnership or civil union bills that grant equal rights under the law, much the same way it's been done in the UK.
Equal rights is the issue.
He stated in one answer about marriage equality that, if he were going to offer advice with regard to the 1960s civil rights movement, he would not have encouraged people to worry so much about anti-miscegenation laws, but rather about civil liberties. I disagree, mostly because being able to marry other queers is going to affect more gays than being able to marry white people would affect black people, if only because gay people are near guaranteed to be attracted to someone of the same sex, while black and white people are not guaranteed to become attracted.
However, this idea is one that is shared by many in the queer community, who believe that marriage is not all that important, that it is a desire of A-list white queers, and that it trumps other more important legislation unfairly. So, even if he's changed his proclamation about marriage for expediency, the reasoning behind it is not totally anti-queer. The best of a bad situation is what I'll call this.
oh Lincoln,,,, you do know that The Obamas and Bidens and Clintons are not for same sex marriage
Doesn't matter. This is not a Federal matter, necessarily. Right now, it's playing out in the States.
Do you also want to apply that same standard to abortion?
Repealing Roe v Wade would do just that.
Obama has come out in favor of equal civil rights for same-sex couples. He appears to think calling it 'marriage' creates too much resistance, so he's calling it civil partnership.
As for what the Clintons support - how is that germane to this discussion?
Give it a rest.
Equal protection under the law is the question, not parsing out-of-context soundbites. You can prove nothing playing that verbal game.
One can no longer argue against marriage by "merits" of the case.
I offer a correction to the good Professor's essay above: "...ordinary Americans will see that the bizarre and offensive fears raised by radical opponents of gay marriage are, of course, nonsense."
You may omit the word "will". It isn't future, sir; it is present.
Whenever someone wants to start "The Tirade", only 3 words refute it: "Massachusetts, five years."
No dire cataclysms have befallen anyone, least of all heterosexual couples. If you truly want to "preserve marriage", have you considered criminalizing divorce? Good luck with that one, bud! You'll need it!!!
Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the country last year... it's still lower than the 'god-fearing' red states.
And how about Canada? Gay marriage revived Toronto's tourist economy after the SARS epidemic.
Of course, using logic against the illogical doesn't usually work. Sigh.
Good article. I think the underlying religious component is more significant than you suggest. The abortion debate seems to be more visceral. Clearly much of the opposition to abortion is religiously based, but not all of it. I think there is a large group of people who are uncomfortable with abortion rights for reasons other than religious ones, yet those persons come down on the side of the religious right in opposing abortion.
But the dividing line for gay marriage is clearer. From the state’s perspective, marriage is a legal status without any religious component. As the legal aspect of gay marriage continues to be emphasized, opposition to it will be more and more clearly associated with conservative religious views, and those outside of that religious community will be less inclined to side with them.
The religious community is much more fragmented over this issue than over abortion. There is a considerable religious community that has no problem at all with gay marriage, ordaining gay pastors, and openly accepting gays into their congregations. Opposition to gay marriage is much less monolithic in the religious community than opposition to abortion is. By making gay marriage their top priority rather than abortion, the religious right is defending a much smaller turf than it is with abortion. Overall, I think the effect will be to isolate the religious right even further.
I would say that the religious community hasn't yet started considering same sex marriage.
And that is why you are not hearing much.
You sound like a misinformed armchair lawyer, and a bad one at that. Legal marriage is a state benefit. If the "state" deferred to religion in its laws, then that would be a Gross Violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. So if you want to talk about marriage in the legal sense, you must refrain from referring to religion or your points will be irrelevant.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
