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.
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.....?
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.
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?
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
As to court rulings, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson.
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.
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/
Could you tell me Obama's argument against marriage equality.
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.
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.
Repealing Roe v Wade would do just that.
As for what the Clintons support - how is that germane to this discussion?
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!!!
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.
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.
And that is why you are not hearing much.