The well-hidden backlash against gay marriage

In late 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court threw the political world a curveball when it ruled that gay couples should be able to get legally married. At the time, as Paul Waldman recently noted, “Republican politicians tripped over each other to predict the demise of American civilization if the marriage equality outbreak were not contained, and Democrats tugged at their collars and tried to explain their nuanced and complicated positions on the issue.”

More than four years later, the landscape has changed quite a bit. The Republican brand is in the toilet, and public concerns over the economy and the war in Iraq dominate the political discussion. It’s against this backdrop that the California Supreme Court ruled as its Massachusetts brethren did, only this time, few outside the religious right seem to care.

Today, the Politico’s David Paul Kuhn argues that we shouldn’t be fooled, and that the gay marriage issue “may yet return to center stage in the presidential election this fall.”

“There is no reason to think [gay marriage] should be less potent of an issue in 2008 than in 2004,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “It is an issue that could cause further problems with those voters whom Obama is already having trouble — white working class voters.” […]

This year, social conservatives are again pushing to turn same-sex marriage into a hot-button social issue. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins hosted a panel in Washington Thursday on “the national implications of the [California] ruling and on the plans to repel this assault on marriage and the family.”

Perkins was joined by Ken Blackwell, who served as Ohio’s secretary of state in 2004. Ohio was one of 11 states to pass a same-sex marriage ban that year. This year, it’s possible that two of the most populous states — Florida and California — could have same-sex marriage measures on the ballot in November.

I remain skeptical. In 2004, Bush pandered shamelessly, convincing the base he really cared about whether gay people could get married, and working the far right into a frenzy. In 2008, Bush isn’t talking about this, McCain isn’t talking about this, GOP leaders in Congress are trying not to talk about this, and even the religious right isn’t shouting especially loud over this.

Given the challenges a lot of Americans are facing in their daily lives, and the fact that gay marriage has been around for a couple of years without a resulting apocalypse, it seems like most of the electorate is just too exhausted for a culture war.

In Waldman’s piece, he argues that it’s more than just exhaustion — straight Americans’ animus towards gay Americans just ain’t what it used to be.

It has been four and a half years since same-sex marriages were legalized in Massachusetts, and for some reason the Bay State has not descended into a perverted bacchanal, families have not been torn asunder by the destructive power of these new unions, and the bonds holding society together have not been torn to shreds. Incredibly, the prophecies of doom were wrong.

In 2004, there were ballot initiatives outlawing gay marriage in 11 states. All succeeded easily. In 2006, there were eight more. But this time, one of them — Arizona’s — actually failed (despite John McCain’s efforts). There is still time for initiatives to be put on the 2008 ballot, but they will likely have a much more difficult time.

With each passing year, straight Americans become more and more comfortable with gay Americans. This doesn’t mean their opinions on marriage are going to be transformed overnight, but it does mean that they will be less susceptible to scare tactics.

In 1986, the Supreme Court upheld laws banning sodomy (almost never enforced against straight sodomites) in Bowers v. Hardwick. Justice Lewis Powell, who voted with the majority in Bowers, told a law clerk at the time, “I don’t believe I’ve ever met a homosexual.” What he didn’t know was that the clerk to whom he was speaking was gay. Powell later admitted that he regretted his vote in Bowers, and the Court overturned the decision in 2003. There are certainly some Americans who could say today what Powell did two decades ago, but the number gets smaller every year.

More than a few conservatives will acknowledge in private that they’ve effectively lost the fight over same-sex marriage. Whatever the outcome of November’s ballot initiative in California, civil union laws will continue to be passed state by state and will eventually be followed by laws granting full marriage rights. This will happen first in the more progressive states, then in the “purple” states of the Midwest and Southwest, and finally in the rest of country, with the conservative strongholds of the South bringing up the rear. How long it will take is hard to say, but it will happen.

In some ways, the arc towards justice has already begun. All of the Democratic presidential candidates announced early on that they oppose “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which would have been very unlikely as recently as a campaign cycle or two ago. All of the Democratic presidential candidate openly support civil unions, and the Republican presidential candidate (though he’s changed his mind dramatically on more than one occasion) has said he support some legal recognition of gay relationships.

All of this was hard to imagine up until fairly recently. And given this, I find it hard to imagine that anti-gay demagoguery will be as potent this year as it was in the past.

Will it be the US Supreme Court that over rules the various states that have constitutional bans on gay marriage or will the individual states change their constitutions?

I have never seen an issue change so quickly in this country.

I don’t know anyone who is less pro gay rights than their parents. It won’t be long before being gay will be the standard position.

I don’t know how California will vote this year but my guess is that they will not amend the constitution.

I also think that when the next Republican becomes president in 2012, or 16, or 20, or 24, or whenever, that their choices for the Supreme Court will be pro gay rights.

Am I nuts?

  • the Republican presidential candidate (though he’s changed his mind dramatically on more than one occasion) has said he support some legal recognition of gay relationships

    That’s news to me. All I heard was when he was on Ellen and said gay people should be able to “enter into a contract”, thereby putting them a small step above children and the mentally incompetent.

  • Out here in the boonies of Oklahoma, opposition to gay marriage is a very big deal. But then were usually a decade or two behind the rest of the country.

  • The Criminal in Chief’s home state just handed rape and abuse victims back to a polygamist cult. I don’t think the Foley/Haggert/Craig party is going to be able to do much with this issue this election cycle.

  • “the national implications of the [California] ruling and on the plans to repel this assault on marriage and the family.”

    Shhh! Don’t tell Mr. Perky that people are a little tired of hearing that THEY’RE UNDER ATTACK! But frankly, I really do hope that they get McCainiac to take up the Save Our Families from Other Families banner.

    We’re at war, the economy sucks and it is going to get worse, health insurance plans have come out and said they don’t care if people can’t get or lose their coverage.

    I would love, if in the midst of all these real problems that affect every human being in this country save a few, McCainiac starts quacking about a non-threat to families when military families are coping with the stress of prolonged deployments and caring for their mentally and physically wounded.

    It would really float my boat if the guy who dumped his first wife when she was wrecked up in a car accident and married a much richer woman gave us a lecture on the importance of marriage when financial stress is causing marriages to crack up. The only way he could look more demented and out of touch would be if he started shouting “Whee-hee-hee! Lookit me! I’m demented and out of touch!” People will be repulsed by him and the TheoCon remoras swimming along with him.

    Bring. It. On.

  • Okie,

    When the Sally Kerns story made the news people were actually shocked. I wasn’t; we hear that same hateful garbage on the Republican stump every day..

  • Isn’t there something of a trend wherein if the things that actually matter (economy, war, peace, etc.) are o.k., then people focus on nonsensical crap that doesn’t matter? And its logical inverse? If you don’t have a job or health insurance, how do you have time to worry about the culture wars?

    Plus there’s just attrition. Young people and old people’s ideas about homosexuality are pretty much mirror opposites.

    And of course there’s just the undeniable reality that gay marriage doesn’t change a thing except for the people who are actually getting married. I did not see any rise in “man on dog”, as Santorum predicted.

    And finally, if you spend your day parsing deaths at Auschwitz v. Buchenwald and Dunkin’ Donuts ads, you’re probably just plumb out of outrage by the end of the day.

  • I hope you’re right, Steve. We’re optimistic that Florida’s attempt to ban will fail, since they need a 60% super-majority to pass it.

  • If the pro-gay marriage people have their way, straight males will have no choice but to marry lesbians. That’s not the America we want.

  • Folks, it doesn’t matter whether or not these ballot initiatives will fail. The Republican’s don’t really care about that. What they are doing is called “voter turnout”. This is simply one mechanism the far right will be using to get people who will vote Republican to the voting places. People that would otherwise stay home.
    They have used these “wedge issues” over and over these past twenty years.. This is really noting new.

  • If the pro-gay marriage people have their way, straight males will have no choice but to marry lesbians. — AJB, @10

    Wha??? How on earth did you get to that conclusion? Are you saying that there are no straight women in the US for straight men to marry, that every woman is a lesbian? Besides… Don’t you think that those lesbians would have something to say about whom they’d want to marry? Why would they want to marry straight men, if they could marry other lesbians? Even Mary Cheney didn’t choose to marry a straight moron like you, though she’s not been permitted to marry her partner.

    Nope. If gays are permitted to marry, then the only choice guys like you will have is to sit in a corner and ‘beat the horse” (I don’t know what English colloquialism is for masturbation). And, hopefully, your God will deal with you like he’d dealt with Onan, too.

  • The California constitutional amendment isn’t going to pass. 53% of Californians according to a recent poll approve of the court decision and are OK with it. Young people are decisively in favor of it. The Republicans are going to be so demoralized by November they won’t come out, and the vote will be against this bullshit. And on January 21, we’re going to declare the Republican Party and the Southern Baptists illegal in California. (be still, my beating heart)

  • Nope. If gays are permitted to marry, then the only choice guys like you will have is to sit in a corner and ‘beat the horse” (I don’t know what English colloquialism is for masturbation). And, hopefully, your God will deal with you like he’d dealt with Onan, too.

    Libra – it’s called “spanking the monkey.” Another nice old English terms for a mouthbreather like “AJB” is “wanker.”

    HTH

  • Hey, AJB -have you ever actually seen a nekkid woman who wasn’t on your computer screen at the porn sites you live at while you sing “merrily I wank along, wank along, wank along!” ????

  • If you look at it from a demographic point of view, the youngest cohort of voters is overwhelmingly pro-gay marriage. More homophobes die off every day and aren’t replaced. Gay marriage opponents may as well try commanding the tide not to come in.

  • AJB has discovered that every woman he asks out claims she is a lesbian. Funny that.

  • After reading this article:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9016.html

    I’m going to take anything David Paul Kuhn writes with a big grain of salt. He bases his conclusion (enough people will agree with McCain about the war to cause problems for the Democrats) on one poll – even when all the other polls show a clear trend in the opposite direction.

  • The RNC will orchestrate effort just in time to get anti gay marriage initiatives on the 2008 ballot in purple states to fire up the wing nuts one more time in the hope that, as long as they are voting again anyway, they may as well pull the lever for McShithead.

  • OK, AJB, @10. Based on your contribution to the “reading list” thread, I now see that your post @10 was satire. I missed that (for an excuse: we do have an occasional nut here and I haven’t seen your posts before). Apologies.

  • Obama mouths the right opinions but he caters to homophobes in the African American community and especially the black churches (remember the Donnie McClurkin gospel tour fiasco?). He cannot afford to take too much of a stand on this issue, so it is exactly the right issue for McCain to press in order to embarrass Obama. Obama will be caught again between a rock and hard place, since he cannot deny support for gays entirely without losing progressives but if he asserts it too much he alienates his base as well as Independent voters and Republican cross-overs and undermines his strong Christian religious identity (nor is his denomination one of the tolerant ones).

    Obama’s handling of the gay community’s response was to give an inspiring speech from a pulpit, then turn around and include another openly homophobic country singer on his campaign tour (wink and nod to show his black friends he didn’t really mean any of his fine words). I call this waffling, or trying to have things two ways at once, but a less charitable person would say he talks out of both sides of his mouth. This issue will hurt him, since he cannot take a principled stand on it and still be electable.

    As for the ageist remarks above about how elderly people are a bunch of homophobes while young people are not, who killed Matthew Shepard? A gang of grey panthers? Who commits the gay bashing crimes in West Hollywood? People with walkers? Who are the strongest homophobes? I’ll tell you — young men who are insecure about their sexuality. Not women, not the elderly, not even religious bigots (excluding closeted gays engaging in reaction formation). That’s why change is possible on this issue. The numbers are different when stratified by age but by no means mirror opposites. Slandering those older people who are not homophobic (some of whom are even gay) is another way to make sure they continue to vote for Clinton, as much of the GLBT community has done (excluding John Aravosis).

  • The issue of gay marriage could easily lose another presidential election for the Democrats. Democrats must wiegh whether this issue is indeed more important than other progressive causes.

    If pro gay marriage supporters were honest, they would start up their own political party.

    Again, the issue of gay marriage will almost certainly cause Democrats to lose in 2008. This is why both Obama and Clinton continue to oppose gay marriage, though both support civil unions.

  • Comments are closed.