Gay Marriage: The Victory After the Defeat
Brian Doherty | December 3, 2008, 11:57am
Spinning off of Jacob Sullum's column today on gay marriage and gay rights, a couple of recent analyses of the meaning of gay marriage's electoral defeats last month point out, accurately I think, that gay marriage is seeing its last wave of defeats presaging likely complete victory.
From Michael Brendan Dougherty in the November 17 American Conservative:
Superficially, 2008 seems like a....success for social conservatives. Following the passage of marriage amendments in Arizona and Florida, as well as California, Maggie Gallagher wrote at National Review Online, “when it comes to marriage, there is no such thing as a blue state or a red state. Americans support marriage as the union of husband and wife.” But a closer look at the election results and the legal developments in the past year suggests that 2008 is in fact the year the marriage debate tipped in favor of same-sex marriage.
Only Arizona passed its traditional marriage initiative by 2004-like margins. While only 38 percent voted against the Florida initiative, the measure passed the required 60-percent threshold by just 2 points. In California, Proposition 8 passed by a bare 52 percent of the vote, and exit polls seem to attribute its success to an abnormally high turnout of socially conservative black voters. In Connecticut, voters had the chance to resist their state’s pro-gay-marriage Supreme Court decision, Kerrigan v. Public Health, by voting for a constitutional convention. That initiative failed by 20 points.
.........
Exit polls reveal that without the overwhelming support of voters over 65, neither the Florida nor California marriage initiatives would have passed. Younger voters turned out overwhelmingly against them. Absent an incredible shift in attitudes, same-sex marriage will soon command majority support. Shrinking majorities voting in favor of traditional marriage will encourage similar rulings to the Connecticut court’s. And the legal precedents used in Kerrigan will be used to challenge the 29 state laws restricting marriage to a union of one man and one woman.
The minor victories for marriage traditionalists this year point to defeats in the near future. Unless social conservatives find a way to appeal to voters under 40, [San Francisco Mayor Gavin] Newsom’s prediction, “It’s inevitable,” is unassailable.
Dougherty isn't thrilled by this conclusion; he just thinks it's accurate. And in Rolling Stone, in an article that excoriates the opponents of Prop. 8 for a feckless and slow campaign (which points out that merely saying that the No on 8 forces raised more money than the Yes forces is misleading, since the Yes campaign got moving and raising big bucks much faster), the conclusion is similarly optimistic:
Since 2000, the margin of voters in the state who oppose gay marriage has plunged from 23 points to only four.
"The speed at which this issue is moving is unprecedented in my personal political experience," says Bill Carrick, a prominent Democratic consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy. "Support for gay marriage has moved so far, in such a short period of time, that I think we're going to look back at Prop 8 as an aberration. History is headed in a very pro-gay-marriage direction, and it probably is going to happen in a much shorter time than anybody imagines."
It does help pro-gay marriage forces to be of good cheer and remember that we have seen remarkably quick shifts in public perception on this issue; it has gone from the kind of fear of a nightmare future a Falwell would use in a fundraising letter 20 years ago to something supported by many courts and near-majorities of state voters. What's happening now is not a wickedly powerful and on-the-grow religious right taking away some fundamental right we've always known, but a matter of the last fading shows of force from a mentality battered and on the ropes, not one vital and getting stronger, electoral victories notwithstanding.
Fitz | December 3, 2008, 3:19pm | #
"Fitz:
No one thinks that all opponants are bigots. But we can pretty well tell the ones who are."
Is this a veiled reference to me or not?
I was going to engage further - but now I'm not so sure.
When you say
"No one thinks that all opponents are bigots" you a incorrect in this sense. Both legally and politically that has what has carried this movement this far.
Without the courts declaring ALL opposition arguments irrational & bigoted, even civil unions would have a hard time getting traction in Vermont.
This is what I mean when I speak of cohesion. In that sense (like anti- iraq war protestors I am part of the ‘reality based community”)
From the beginning this approach has been….
#1. Necessary - for them to use (as they have) the courts as wedge to make their agenda politically feasible it is was (and remains) necessary to call any argument against there agenda “irrational”.
But for that they would have had a hard time getting anyone to even co-sponsor a civil union’s bill in Hawaii or Vermont.
On this central point I urge you all to read Conciliating Hatred by Steven D. Smith 2004 First Things (June/July 2004).
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=356
#2. Effective In the Leninist rhetoric strident sense of the term. Its moral blackmail and demagoguery. It co-opts the moral weight of a different kind of thing and turns all opposition into mindless bigots. This has always been an effective approach for demonizing all opposition. I’m sure many a Californian voted no on 8 simply because they did not want to think of themselves as bigots, or segregationists, or hateful people.
A reasoned, cogent, well thought out argument for same-sex marriage doesn’t lend itself to success. They know this and actively chose the demagogic tract.
Timothy Kincaid | December 3, 2008, 3:55pm | #
Fitz,
You are mistaken. There is no one that I have ever heard of (and if you disagree please document it) who thinks that all of those who oppose marriage equality are bigots. For heaven sake, man, I don't hear any pro-marriage equality folk saying that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are bigots, do you?
And there are plenty of folk who believe that marriage should only be sacred and not secular. And folks who have just never really thought about the impact on others. And those who truly are favorable to gay marriage but oppose judicial intervention.
There are a lot of folks who are not bigots who disagree with equal access to the institution. And absolutely no one whatsoever is accusing them of bigotry.
However, some who oppose marriage equality do so out of bigotry.
I know that it may offend you to even remotely suggest that your own motives are not exempt from consideration, but frankly each person truly needs to look at themself and ask if bias and animus is their motivation.
I'm not outright accusing you of bigotry, but please let me advise you of some red flags you are waving (perhaps unintentionally) that would cause others to think that you might well be coming from a perspective of bias:
Use of scare quote or quote of derision: This is the tactic used when you refuse to allow even a meeting of terms. For example, you put the word "marriage" in quotation marks - this is a clue to the reader that you so hold in contempt those who disagree with you that you refuse to even allow them use of common language. That is often a sign of bigotry.
Demonizing your opponent. You claim that those who disagree with you resort to "moral blackmail and demagoguery". You dismiss the notion that persons may choose to hold less animus towards gay people and claim instead that only threats of social stigmatism could motivate their inclinations towards equal access under the law.
Another - to which you have not yet resorted - is the "what they really want" level of accusations. Usually it consists of "destroy society", "harm the family", "defy God", or "attack the Church", but it could be most anything I suppose.
Finally, behind any flags is the one determinant that you need to decide for yourself:
Are you opposed to gay marriage because it gives gay people an equal standing to you? Is it the "gay" part of gay marriage that you oppose? Do you find yourself objecting to pretty much anything that gay people seek?
If so, you are motivated by bigotry.
Mad Max | December 3, 2008, 4:36pm | #
“I could go on into details, but read the 150 page ruling legalizing gay marriage, it's very interesting, and re-assuring. Also note the unanimous decision against a fertilty doctor and his lesbian patients in August 08'!”
You mean that the decision legalizing gay marriage, and the decision forcing fertility clinics to assist unmarried lesbians (regardless of the clinic owner’s religious beliefs), are both part of the same “progressive” and “inevitable” trand?
Shh . . . not so loud! This is a libertarian Web site, and the posters here are still under the comforting delusion that the gay-liberation movement simply means a less-intrusive government. Don’t alert them to the fact that the same movement which wants state-recognized gay “marriage” also wants to interfere with the decisions of private business owners, and to interfere with the anyone’s religious conscience.
Your arguments undermine the key libertarian point that there is *no connection* between the gay-marriage movement and the movement to restrict private autonomy and religious freedom in the name of gay liberation.
“For heaven sake, man, I don't hear any pro-marriage equality folk saying that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are bigots, do you?”
They think HRC and BHO are *really* on their side, but have to make the right noises to placate the fundies and Christers. If Clinton and Obama really *meant* the stuff they said, then they, too would be castigated as bigots.
Note, too, that Obama used the dog-whistle phrase “personally opposed” to describe gay marriage. That’s the same phrase the pro-abortionists use to describe their stance on abortion – they’re only *personally* opposed, but they will support pro-abortion policies in the public arena.
Fitz | December 3, 2008, 5:31pm | #
So far on this thread alone – (since I have posed my argument) Five different people have called me or my arguments (or all defenders of marriage) bigoted…
Without this strong-arm tactic intimidation – Proponents of same-sex “marriage” end up simply having to argue the base question : Should we change the definition of marriage into a genderless construct?
Tonio - Calling people out on their bigotry isn't blackmail, moral or otherwise. This is effective because anti-gay bigotry is becoming morally indefensible for all but a small minority
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater- Outside of those politicians like Obama and Clinton who oppose marriage equality out of political expediency, I have yet to hear an argument against marriage equality that doesn't rely on bigotry.
MikeNYC |- And 30 states had laws against mixed race marriage Those opposed to same sex marriage have no reasonable facts to support their postion. They have emotion, not logic. It is the lack of logic
Joe Public - Can't we just go back to burning them at the stake?
Timothy Kincaid- I have to disagree. There are some few arguments that are not based on bigotry. They just aren't very convincing.
Note: How popular the approach (above) & http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20081115
As stated : From the beginning this approach has been….
#1. Necessary - for them to use (as they have) the courts as wedge to make their agenda politically feasible it is was (and remains) necessary to call any argument against there agenda “irrational”.But for that they would have had a hard time getting anyone to even co-sponsor a civil union’s bill in Hawaii or Vermont.
On this central point I urge you all to read Conciliating Hatred by Steven D. Smith 2004 First Things (June/July 2004).
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=356
#2. Effective In the Leninist rhetoric strident sense of the term. Its moral blackmail and demagoguery. It co-opts the moral weight of a different
kind of thing and turns all opposition into mindless bigots. This has always been an effective approach for demonizing all opposition.
This is done most often with the (false) comparison to anti-miscegenation statutes The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy. Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of ant—miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.
Note this quote rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.
“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”
The use of the term
kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of
kind.
As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same
kind of thing being compared.
Fitz | December 3, 2008, 6:08pm | #
Jeniffer –
I could answer your questions and we do everyday at
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/ (just click on my link)
At this point I’m just arguing that the same-sex “marriage” movement has ONLY gained the success it has because it dismisses cogent, factual, lucid and social important (as well as scientifically verifiable) arguments as “irrational bigotry”
My point is that this is
#1. Necessary – Judicially – to disregard the clear law & precedent in order top wedge it in
&
#2. Effective – Politically, to strong arm opposition,, gain (false) sympathy on a false analogy & obscure the true radical nature of the change being proposed .
All while the true nature the danger of redefining marriage to genderless “marriage” is ignored.
Its approach has been (and remain) Anti-intellectual, ill-liberal, and un-democratic.
people often say that the ideal family structure for raising children is one (biological) mother and one (biological) father. This may be true, on average.
Well
”on average” is social science...
It is also a damn good rational basis on which to prefer the traditional redefinition of marriage to any other definition be it same-sex “marriage”, polygamy, polyamory or abandoning marriage as a legal category all together.
But …Yes there is a solid scientific consensus about the intact natural married family as compared to every other
adequately studied family form (as stated below same-sex marriages –jury still out) including step families, adopted families, divorced families, single parent families, and so forth.
However the good science requirement -says at this point that there really is not enough solid data on same-sex families to make an adequate scientific consensus. This point is conceded by gay advocates as well as social science in general. Sure you could point to studies & I could point to studies…. But the field itself admits that not enough solid evidence exists to make a sound scientific judgment at this time.
Mad Max | December 3, 2008, 6:36pm | #
"Should Catholic hospitals discriminate against married couples where one or both parties had been divorced?"
By "married couples," do you mean "adulterous couples recognized as married by the state, even if the state's definition does not meet the Catholic Church's definition?" If that's the question, the answer is "hell, yeah, a Catholic institution should discriminate against adulterous couples and refuse to give them the same benefits as married couples." I doubt, however, that they would actually have the guts to do this, so you probably shouldn't spend too much time worrying about it.
Now permit me to ask you: Should the government *force* Catholic hospitals to accept the government's definition of marriage, in the (unlikely) event that a Catholic hospital has the courage to defend the traditions of the Church? I won't automatically dismiss your answer if you say the government should exercise compulsion - I'm not a kneejerk libertarian, so I certainly don't want to act like one no matter how tempting it may on this forum. If you argue that there's a compelling interest for the government to override private preferences, then by all means make your case.
Incidentally, if I'm unconscious and bleeding, the consent of my spouse isn't needed for the hospital to perform lifesaving care. Spousal consent comes into the picture if I'm on a feeding tube and the hospital wants to issue some kind of "do not resuscitate" order. In that case, as between by former wife (current wife by Catholic doctrine) and my current wife (recognized by the govt but not the Church), the hospital will definitely want to call the ex-wife, not the current wife, if it wants permission to let me die. (This is a hypo, by the way - I don't have an ex-wife). So I am willing to live under the regime I propose. If my ex-wife wants to pull the plug, the way for me to deal with it is to make a living will saying "don't let the ex-wife decide; let X [some trusted person]" make the decision."
"Wow, Mad Max, you're approaching Lonewacko levels of delusional condescension; that's some pretty impressive company you're keeping. In this particular case you seem to be under the delusion that there's a single movement advocating for gay marriage, when in fact there are many. And some of them, especially the ones coming from a libertarian point of view, actually consider the difference between gov't and private organizations/institutions to be rather important."
The supporters of gay-marriage can be distinguished between (a) the gay-lib leaders, who want to force their ideas on public institutions and many private ones as well, and (b) libertarians who support gay marriage while reserving the right to be indignant and shocked when it forseeably and inevitably leads to restrictions on private autonomy.
You see, it is quite true that there are libertarians who support government-sponsored "gay marriage," and they indignantly reject the idea that the policies they support would lead to infringements on the freedom of private companies and private employers, or lead to restrictions on the religious freedom of Catholic hospitals, religiously-motivated businesspeople, etc.
This is a very effective form of compartmentalization. It is a method of compartmentalization which Professor Thomas Reed Powell is supposed to have associated with lawyers: "If you can think of one thing without thinking of something else to which it is inextricably connected, then you have a legal mind.”
If you can think "government-issued marriage licenses for same-sex couples" without thinking of the inextricably-connected concept of "forcing private institutions to recognize all government-recognized marriages without 'discrimination,'" then you have Powell's "legal mind."
Virgil | December 3, 2008, 9:55pm | #
"I am thinking in terms of the real world, not the cloud-cuckoo-land of libertarian philosophy, in which the concepts can certainly be separated."
Riiigghhhttt...that's exactly what you're doing. How special it must make you feel to keep repeating that to yourself.
"All they have is an appeal to equality using a truly tortured definition of equal."
Actually, it's a fairly straightforward definition of equal. Whether you're willing or able to understand it may be a different question.
"And spare us the comparisons to anti-miscegenation laws - those were in fact a short-lived and regional aberration, and nobody ever argued that permitting inter-racial marriages was a fundamental redefinition of marriage, it was simply deemed to be undesirable."
If by "short-lived" you mean "through most of the history of the United States, dating to well before the U.S. even existed as an independent country," then yup, they sure were short-lived. And sure, no one considered it to be a fundamental redefinition of marriage, unless you think its repeatedly being described, including by US congressmen, as enslavement of white women to be a redefinition of marriage. Really, slavery's not fundamentally different from marriage, is it? (Insert tired joke here.)
Many people seem to have a very specific, rather odd, and completely unjustified notion of what does and does not constitute a fundamental definition of marriage. The gender of the two people involved is part of the fundamental definition, but their reasons for choosing to be married, or the question of whether or not they both even have a choice, is not? I think a strong case can be made that two men or two women choosing to be married out of their love and respect for each other are a lot closer to our understanding of marriage than a man and a woman in a marriage of political or economic convenience, or an arranged/forced marriage. I've certainly never seen anyone make a coherent case for how those changes in marriage practices don't constitute fundamental differences from how we view marriage today.
"If I was ever tasked with establishing an actual free society...."
If you were ever tasked with establishing anything, I don't think you'd have to convince too many people to walk quickly in the other direction.
Horselips | December 4, 2008, 5:40am | #
Actually, it's a fairly straightforward definition of equal. Whether you're willing or able to understand it may be a different question.
Well, I understand this much - if hetero-sexuals cease forming relationships, that's pretty much the end of any human society. If gays cease forming relationships, the impact will be - what?
I'd like to know what understanding of "equal" puts boutique life-style accessories in the same class as biological imperatives.
I notice none of these protests of unequal treatment are accompanied with any explanation as to how the situations are equal. There seems to be a great deal of reluctance to articulate what's meant by "equal".
If by "short-lived" you mean "through most of the history of the United States, dating to well before the U.S. even existed as an independent country," then yup, they sure were short-lived.
Considering our current conception of marriage pre-dates Columbus sailing by at least 2500 years, yup, I don't have a problem calling them short-lived.
Our current conception of marriage has been operative a helluva a lot longer than the United States has been.
Many people seem to have a very specific, rather odd, and completely unjustified notion of what does and does not constitute a fundamental definition of marriage.
Indeed. They're called "gay-marriage advocates".
The gender of the two people involved is part of the fundamental definition, but their reasons for choosing to be married, or the question of whether or not they both even have a choice, is not?
Yep. The last I heard, a house is still a house, regardless of the reasons for which it was built.
I think a strong case can be made that two men or two women choosing to be married out of their love and respect for each other are a lot closer to our understanding of marriage
ROFLMAO!!!! Who's "we", Kimosabe? IIRC, the whole reason for the furor is that voters have repeatedly expressed that this is
*not* "our" understanding of marriage.
I think a strong case can be made that two men or two women choosing to be married out of their love and respect for each other are a lot closer to our understanding of marriage than a man and a woman in a marriage of political or economic convenience, or an arranged/forced marriage. I've certainly never seen anyone make a coherent case for how those changes in marriage practices don't constitute fundamental differences from how we view marriage today.
Nice sleight-of-hand there. First, you list a number of *reasons* people have gotten married, then apply them to the entirely unrelated question as to what constitutes a marriage.
Ridiculous! As I pointed out before, a house is a house is a house, the reasons it was built have absolutely no effect on what it *is*. A marriage, at least in this civilization, has
always been a union of a man and a woman, regardless of whether or not some of the specific motivations for forming that union have varied.
If you were ever tasked with establishing anything, I don't think you'd have to convince too many people to walk quickly in the other direction.
I suppose that what direction people walk in would be influenced with what I'm competing with. We've already seen what direction they walk in when confronted with what
you're trying to establish. Suffice it to say I think I have reasons to be optimistic. ^_*
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
