GAY MARRIAGE REDUX
The Signifying Nothing Boys are all over the gay marriage issue. Chris Lawrence writes,
I think we could see a draconian form of the Defense of Marriage Act sooner rather than later, because the Democrats in Washington are far too spineless to oppose it, and I reckon you could round up 38 state legislatures–bodies full of people looking for ways to avoid giving voters a good reason to vote them out–to ratify the thing in a big hurry. The bottom line is that conservatives aren’t going to let Roe happen twice. . . .
Interesting. And not implausible. I haven’t done the math or looked at the state-by-state polling on this issue closely enough to know for sure, but there are certainly something pretty close to 37 states with majorities against gay marriage. Opposed enough to ratify a constitutional amendment? That I’m not sure of. We haven’t passed a School Prayer Amendment yet, and prayer is more popular than gay marriage is unpopular. He also quotes Matthew Stinson,
For what it’s worth, I would be more inclined to support gay marriage nationally (rather than locally) if I believed gays desired marriage for more than just its economic and legal benefits. Yes, one’s sense of dignity is benefited by having the right to marry, but what’s lost on many gay marriage advocates is that marriage is about fidelity as much as it is sharing resources. Andrew Sullivan, to his credit, has argued that the option of marriage will have a civilizing effect on gay men. But gay men aren’t children, and they can choose fidelity now if they want.
Says Chris,
Nor do I really buy the “civilizing effects” argument articulated by Sullivan; I suspect the number of straight men who’ve actually said, “I’d cheat on my wife with Lulu from the temp pool, but I can’t since I’m married” is within ε of zero. They might say “I’d cheat…, but I can’t since I’m in a committed monogomous relationship,” but you can have one of those without being married. It’s a function of character, not institutions.
My guess is that it’s both. Clearly, institutions help reinforce the inclination to act within the bounds of propriety. Surely, one would be more likely to cheat on a girlfriend than a woman to whom one has made a lifetime commitment.
Brock Sides weighs in with an economic analysis of the situation, arguing that because marriage creates a “bright line rule” for health benefits, probate, and other major issues, the libertarian desire for civil unions or other non-state solutions will fail. Further, he believes “homophobic bigots” will strive to pass laws limiting the benefits of homosexual couples, so we’d be right back to where we’ve started from.
I suspect that Brock is right as to the ultimate workability of a non-state solution. But the culture simply isn’t there yet on a national basis. Chris is right: If it looks like the courts are going to pull a Roe on this one, there will be a huge cultural backlash–perhaps even one strong enough to pass a constitutional amendment. The vast majority of Americans still believe, deeply, that homosexual conduct is repugnant. They’re not going to voluntarily equate that conduct with marriage, an institution they hold (in theory, if not in practice) as sacred. Incremental progress is all gay couples can realistically hope for. Aside from a Roe-type move from the courts, I predict this will be a moot issue in 20 years because society will be ready for gay marriage by then.
Update (2324): Brett Marston thinks most people are tolerant and this will all blow over.
I predict that those who want to advance an exclusionary approach here will probably stumble over the fact that Americans are basically tolerant, sensible, forward-looking people who do not need to define themselves primarily by whom they exclude from the enjoyment of official recognition of the seriousness of their love of each other. The anxieties expressed by some folks will look like private obsessions rather than grounds for the use of the legal power of the state.
Of course, one could argue that official recognition of the seriousness of love is a rather dubious use of the legal power of the state.
I think the numbers don’t quite break the way you’d think; it’s not what states have a majority opposed to gay marriage, but what states have a majority of those who actually care about the issue who are opposed. The way I figure it nationwide, maybe 15-20% is strongly for, 25-30% is strongly against, and the rest don’t much care either way but will give you an opinion because they want to get back to dinner, and social desirability effects will get you a nice chunk of those people saying they’re “for” when they’re not really. (Funnily enough, neither the GSS nor the NES ask a question on gay marriage. Guess I’ll have to dig some more for some data to play with…)
Also, it’s 38 states: you need 3/4, and the rounding is up.
One other thing: channeling my vague comprehension of white fundamentalist Protestantism, I’d suspect that legalizing gay marriage is much closer to bringing back Gommorah than stopping kids from participating in institutionally-backed prayers in school (a prohibition that is notoriously leaky to begin with around these here parts). Plus opposition to gay marriage transcends the WEC (white evangelical Christian) GOP base in a way that school prayer doesn’t.
Plus this is the sort of thing that might lead to the states calling a constitutional convention, something I dare say that Congress would rather not see…
I just don’t see it happening. For one thing, “conservatives” would have to unite in favor of it, and for many the idea of nationalizing the issue at all is going to be an anathema. It just seems to run counter to states’ rights.
LMA,
But states’ rights don’t exist here: If gay marriage is recognized in Massachussets, it’ll be recongized in Mississippi because of Full Faith and Credit. So, Mississippians will go to Massachussets to get married and come back home.
We haven’t passed a School Prayer Amendment yet, and prayer is more popular than gay marriage is unpopular.
But it is far easier to motivate people AGAINST something than for it.
When a true radical has a chance of being elected, turnout soars. (see David Duke)
Jim:
You write: one could argue that official recognition of the seriousness of love is a rather dubious use of the legal power of the state.
True enough, but that really is the cultural meaning of marriage, no? Not to tread on fuzzy or inconclusive ground or anything. . .
My basic sense is that once fence-sitting straight people realize that the FMA folks want to exclude friends, relatives, co-workers, fellow church members, neighbors, etc. from marriage or anything like it, the whole issue will become one of whether or not it is fair to those people whom they already know and love. Or at least I hope so.
Brett,
I think “we’re in love” is the current meaning of marriage, for all intents and purposes. But if that’s all it ever was, we’d probably not have come up with the institution to begin with. It originally had religious significance, plus the whole “raising kids” thing. Gay marriage obviously doesn’t fit that mold–although neither does a sizable chunk of hetero marriages.
James Joyner writes:
“I think “we’re in love” is the current meaning of marriage, for all intents and purposes. But if that’s all it ever was, we’d probably not have come up with the institution to begin with. It originally had religious significance, plus the whole “raising kids” thing. Gay marriage obviously doesn’t fit that mold–although neither does a sizable chunk of hetero marriages.”
*************************************************
If you mean marriage in a Judaeo-Christian respect has ‘religious significance’, sure. However, the marriage compact goes back far earlier to when it was not so significantly tied to religion or the “raising of children”.
Just what’s the big deal?? So what. Let gay folks get married. Everyone’s always saying gay people are promiscuous. Now when they want to legitimize their relaitonships for legal and emotional reasons… everyone runs around putting the snafu on that too. Boils down to homophobia. Nothing more nothing less. Christ there’s no satisfying some people.
Thank God I’m from Massachusetts!
So if I don’t jump up and down with joy at the idea, I’m afraid of gays getting married?
(Just pointing out that sometimes ‘-phobia’ ain’t exactly accurate, and should be scare-quoted for most of us who aren’t 100% ‘for’.)