As people await rulings on the two same sex marriage cases before the US Supreme Court that are due to be released any day now, it is useful to see what the state of play is. It seems unlikely that the court will issue sweeping rulings affirming the constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry, though that would be a welcome surprise. Failing that, what lies ahead?
While many states have now legalized same-sex marriage, the state-by-state route will soon hit a dead end because some state legislatures are in regions of the country that are too hostile to the idea to even contemplate it. I suspect that around half the states is the upper limit for legalization. This will lead to an increasing number of problems as people legally married in one state move to other states as part of the normal internal migration patterns.
Things will become even more complicated if the Supreme Court rules that the federal government cannot deny federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples that are legally married in the state in which they live, which is the issue in one of the cases under review. Does this mean that same-sex married couples lose their federal benefits if they move from a state that legalizes such marriages to one which does not? That would be bizarre.
One option is for Congress to repeal the infamous DOMA legislation that allows states to not recognize marriages performed in other states, that went against the long standing practice of mutual acceptance. This is likely to happen since the sentiment for repeal of DOMA is rising rapidly. I suspect that the Democrats in congress are waiting for the supreme court rulings before moving to repeal DOMA, especially since this issue will put the Republican party in congress in an awkward position since they are trying to shake the label of being anti-gay, that has shown to be an especially big negative with young voters.
But you can be sure that even if DOMA is repealed, some states will still refuse to recognize same-sex marriages of other states which means that the issue will go before the courts again to see if they have the right to do so.
Instead of this tedious and long process, I wish opponents of same-sex marriage, now that they realize that they are definitely going to lose on this issue, would spare everyone the time and trouble and just accept it.
Just because they are going to lose on this issue doesn’t mean that they realize that they are definitely going to lose on this issue. The strategists know, but deliberately picking people who don’t understand reality to run for office naturally means that your candidates don’t understand reality.
One option is for Congress to repeal the infamous DOMA legislation that allows states to not recognize marriages performed in other states, that went against the long standing practice of mutual acceptance.
Actually, repealing that part of DOMA probably wouldn’t change anything; it has already been long standing practice for states to not recognize marriages performed in other states if it went against their laws. For instance, For instance, some states allow first cousins to marry. Other states will not recognize that marriage if the couple moves there. As far as I know, there is no legal precedent that forces one state to recognize the marriage.
In fact, there were cases where a mixed race couple married in one state moved to another state with an anti-miscegenation law and were prosecuted under that law. In the end, the Supreme Court did not force the states to recognize marriages performed in other states; rather anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional.
The Constitution’s full faith and credit clause, it seems, should mean that any state has to recognize any other state’s marriage, however, as Chiroptera pointed out, the legal precedents have pretty much ignored that interpretation.
It seems to me that most of the “blue states” will likely recognize same-sex marriage as the years go by, while most of the “red states” will continue to reject it.
Some states have written rejection of same-sex marriages into their constitutions, but state constitutions are usually much easier to amend than the national one, so some of those rejections might be undone over the next few years or so.
Mano Singham said “Instead of this tedious and long process, I wish opponents of same-sex marriage, now that they realize that they are definitely going to lose on this issue, would spare everyone the time and trouble and just accept it.”
This is an interesting wish. The opponents of same-sex marriage are not just going to lay down and die. Even if legal defeat is assured moral victory will be sought. There is a long game going on here; the long game being repeal of same-sex marriage at some point after it passes. Same-sex marriage is necessarily illegitimate so the claim of same-sex marriage being illegitimate needs to be maintained regardless. If half the states as individual states are dead set against same-sex marriage then that is an asset those against same-sex marriage are not going to give up. The half of states who refuse same-sex marriage will indeed cause “trouble”; that being a good thing as it will demonstrate that same-sex marriage is not a universally accepted concept. If the Supreme Court then makes a blanket national ruling that marriage for gay couples is a constitutional right then that will constitute judicial tyranny; liberal unelected judges imposing their will upon the American people whether they like it or not. Either way the moral legitimacy of “gay marriage” is undermined by the Red States refusing to surrender to “gay marriage” as individual states. There is no reason for the opponents of gay marriage to give up on the political asset of state level opposition to “gay marriage” that they already possess.
Such “hard-line” opposition to gay marriage may prove troublesome to the Republican Party at the national level from a political point of view but the well being of the “Republican Establishment” is not the priority concern of grass roots level Republican or religious right activists. Besides the Republican Party has been faring much better at the state level recently than at the national level anyways.
If the short term political battle is lost what that means is that the long term political battle is the priority. Surrender is not an option because what we are talking about here is foundational moral principles; not matters of mere convenience or preference.
There are some premises in your argument that are not self-evident.
For example: “Same-sex marriage is necessarily illegitimate.” Why?
Some thing may not be “universally accepted” and yet be the right thing. The courts ruling that it is a right need not be “judicial tyranny”. Consider just a couple of examples: ‘separate but equal’ and marriage across races.
Your hope that same-sex marriage will be repealed after it passes is, I am afraid, a forlorn hope. History argues for the expansion of basic civil rights, not the narrowing.
Opponents of same-sex marriage can continue to view it as morally wrong. Those who view the fight as not yet lost can continue to fight it. What I find hard to understand are those who view it as inevitable and yet continue to fight it.
I will respond speaking on my own behalf. I am opposed to same-sex marriage based on the principle of valuing the heterosexual dynamic as having value in its own right; something that a homosexual couple by necessity lacks. Also in terms of child psychology and development I think it is important that the child have both a man and a woman in the home and be able to see the heterosexual dynamic of their parents as a model for themselves to emulate. Also I suspect that homosexuality is “contagious,” that the reason why homosexuality has been historically strongly shunned is so that people will fight against whatever “homosexual urges” they might have and so that homosexuality will be invisible in normal life and therefore not be seen as a “viable alternative” or even a “possibility” for most people most of the time. This keeps the number of homosexuals in the population down so that the standard heterosexual model that is the basis of reproduction and community life will not be threatened. All sorts of behaviors are based on social modeling and imitation; I don’t see why homosexuality would be different in that regard. I am not opposed to homosexuality or “gay marriage” because the Bible said so as the Bible is not my moral reference or my moral authority. I suspect however that people who are opposed to “gay marriage” on religious grounds will view the problem very similar to how I am viewing the problem.
Same-sex marriage is necessarily illegitimate. This is because marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman and it always has been (in the Western tradition; excluding polygamy). More fundamental than mere historical definitions however it is the heterosexual dynamic that is the foundation of marriage that makes marriage “special” and of value to society as a whole; something that society and government encourages and honors. Homosexual “marriage” can never be legitimate in the sense of deserving societal praise and encouragement because homosexual relationships are not heterosexual; the heterosexual bond having a functional purpose and benefit in its own right that the homosexual pseudo-bond does not have and cannot have by definition necessarily.
Some things are not universally accepted and yet are right. Of course this is true. Some things are also universally condemned and yet are right. Popular opinion isn’t necessarily a good indicator of truth. From the point of view of moral messaging however it is better for the opponents of “homosexual marriage” to stand their ground and continue to denounce homosexual marriage regardless. If the Supreme Court then puts their foot down and imposes homosexual marriage upon them then they can cry tyranny and plot and scheme about some day overturning the Supreme Court ruling. It’s always better to fight than to give in. Giving in sends the message that your enemies were right after all or that homosexual marriage isn’t such a big deal anyways. This is bad politics and no self-respecting opponent of “gay marriage” would act this way. Of course in terms of “ultimate truth” what the Supreme Court says doesn’t matter and how the opponents of same-sex marriage react to the Supreme Court doesn’t matter either. Ultimate truth exists independently of and separate from human interpretations or opinions about what the truth is. In terms of politics however fighting fighting and fighting some more is the best route for the opponents of gay marriage.
Regarding repealing same-sex marriage after it is enacted; I am hopeful. I am hopeful because the truth is more powerful than a lie; good is more powerful than evil; the madness of crowds can’t go on forever. “History argues for the expansion of basic civil rights, not the narrowing.” you say. I am a contrarian on issues related to the family and gender relations. You might say that “basic civil rights” have historically expanded first for women and now for homosexuals; that the “trend of history” is for the further expansion of such rights rather than the reversal or restricting of such rights. There has been a problem however with the expansion of “rights” for women and now for homosexuals; that is that the expansion of such “rights” has proven directly injurious to family relations and the social order. Social statistics have been indicating family decline steadily since 1870; ever since “women’s rights” first got off the ground. This never ending decline in family functioning and social order will be the engine of rebellion against “women’s rights” and “gay rights” and will be the mechanism through which “women’s rights” and “gay rights” will be reversed. It will also be the engine of religious revival in my view. So I remain hopeful; the backlash is already building.
As far as opponents of same-sex marriage continuing to fight it even though they “know” the battle is lost; this makes perfect sense from the point of view of the long game. If an opponent of same-sex marriage really views their cause as being defeated then logically they would quit. However it makes perfect sense to fight tooth and nail against same-sex marriage in the full expectation of losing in terms of a Supreme Court ruling or the legislators passing same-sex marriage in your state. The battle today lays the ground work for the battle tomorrow. It will be easier to repeal same-sex marriage at some point in the future if you never concede the moral high ground in your previous battles. As long as the opponents of same-sex marriage never give up and never give in the flame and the hope for the renewal of civilization will never die.
If same-sex marriage does become “the law of the land” through a national Supreme Court ruling or something then opposition to same-sex marriage will become a kind of counter-cultural identity; a signal of adherence to “the truth” and a marker of affiliation with “the cultural underground.” Opposition to same-sex marriage will then be an expression of one’s faithfulness to God and a way to recruit for your traditionalist subculture or church. When this “cultural underground” becomes sufficiently large then the political issue of same-sex marriage can be re-opened and repeal can be attempted. In the mean time the legalization of same-sex marriage will be a great talking point and recruiting tool to show how morally degenerate and corrupt the mainstream society is.
The opponents of same-sex marriage are not going to be “rational” in the way you might be thinking of “rationality.” To clarify things; there will be two groups of opponents to same-sex marriage, let’s call them the socially integrated opponents of same-sex marriage and the hard-core opponents of same-sex marriage. The socially integrated opponents of same-sex marriage will “fade away” and “give-up” when they see that opposition to same-sex marriage is no longer “cool” or “socially acceptable.” The “hard-core” opponents however are a different matter; they will view social condemnation as a badge of honor and their primary loyalty will be to their church, their God, and the advancement of their counter-culture community. It is the “hard-core” that over time will re-open the battle against same-sex marriage politically even after the political battle has been initially lost. They are the ones who are focused on the long game and won’t be deterred by the inconvenience of short term political realities. They fight for God and the future; what “the world” thinks of them is not important.
Nate Silver has some interesting projections regarding attitudes toward gay marriage in all 50 states. According to his projections, 44 states will have majority support for gay marriage by 2020, including Texas and Oklahoma.
Powell’s claim that a right to same sex marriage might be overturned, is extremely unlikely. Thus far, it has not been overturned in Spain and Canada, even though it was passed by left wing governments and right wing governments now rule both countries. This is referred to as grasping at straws. Even in the US, public opinion seems to have swung in favor of recognizing same sex marriage as evidenced by the fact that referendums in three states approved the concept (Maryland, Maine, and Washington State). In addition, national polls indicate that young voters, who will be replacing the altecockers like Powell, are quite heavily in favor of same sex marriage so the opposition is dying off.
With regard to raising children, there is no credible evidence that children raised in same sex relationships do worse then children raised in opposite sex relationships. The study by Regnerus claiming otherwise has been totally discredited.
There has been a problem however with the expansion of “rights” for women and now for homosexuals; that is that the expansion of such “rights” has proven directly injurious to family relations and the social order. Social statistics have been indicating family decline steadily since 1870; ever since “women’s rights” first got off the ground. This never ending decline in family functioning and social order will be the engine of rebellion against “women’s rights” and “gay rights” and will be the mechanism through which “women’s rights” and “gay rights” will be reversed. It will also be the engine of religious revival in my view.
Well, well, Powell, in addition to being a gay basher, is also a misogynist. Yessir, those women have been getting uppity since 1870. Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Susan Rice, Samantha Powell, and Hillary Clinton should have stayed home and cooked for their husbands. Since Condoleezza Rice isn’t married, I guess it was OK for her to be Secretary of State.
I suggest that the readers here might mosey on over to Powells web site where they will find much material for their amusement; he’s a first class MRA. He seems to be enamored with the likes of the fascist news channel and fascist rat fucker Erick Erickson. Typical Tea Party putz.
Really? I am pleasantly surprised!
To educate you on the finer points of anti-feminist politics; I am not an MRA (Men’s Rights Activist). In fact I would say I am the opposite of an MRA. There are two bases for being opposed to feminism. The MRA emphasis is that feminism wants “special privileges” for women while they as MRAs want “true equality.” The other way of being opposed to feminism, which I support, is that feminism is bad because it undermines men’s investment in women and men’s investment in the family. Gender equality itself is bad; instead there should be privileges for men in the male sphere and privileges for women in the female sphere. The most obvious difference between myself and MRAs is that I support unconditional Chivalry by men on behalf of women while MRAs oppose Chivalry. I support patriarchy as it was practiced by traditional society; MRAs are radically opposed to traditional social rules and duties. MRAs are basically the same as feminists; just more extreme in their demands for “gender equality.”
Here are two articles I’ve written that would never be written by an MRA:
Why Gynocentrism is Good
http://whyiamnotafeminist.com/2013/04/28/why-gynocentrism-is-good/
Why the Chivalrous Male Duty Extends to the Sinking Ship
http://whyiamnotafeminist.com/2013/05/13/why-the-chivalrous-male-duty-extends-to-the-sinking-ship/
Shorter Jesse Powell: Women should stay home and cook for their husbands. Tell that to the women I named in my comment to which you replied.
I dare Powell to go over to one of the blogs on this network run by a woman and make comments like this. Try it out on Ophelia Benson’s blog Butterflies and Wheels for instance. Or the former Muslim women like Taslima. Of course, Powell is too big a chicken shit to show his face over there.
Nate Silver is a well respected political analyst. He called all 50 out of 50 states right regarding the 2012 Presidential Election; an amazing feat. I would trust Nate Silver to give us the straight story without political spin.
I also found an interesting article giving poll data on “same-sex marriage” where the results were broken down by an endless number of demographic subgroups (based on NBC/WSJ polls taken in 2004, 2009, and 2012). The take away is that support for “same-sex marriage” is growing rapidly across the board; almost universally. This implies that the Red States are not going to be committed hold-outs against “same-sex marriage,” that they are simply going to succumb to the national trend later than others do.
In the polling data support for same-sex marriage went from 20% to 42% in the South and from 11% to 27% among Republicans (from March 2004 to December 2012). From the data; increasing support for same-sex marriage being so widespread; I don’t think that any significant geographic areas (meaning states) are going to prove to be immune.
Surprising shifts in attitudes on same-sex marriage
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/28/17503314-surprising-shifts-in-attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage?lite
None of this changes my overall political analysis of things (except that the opponents of same-sex marriage may not have any geographic strongholds to hold onto). The “hard-core” opponents of same-sex marriage still have every reason to fight to the bitter end and then after they’ve lost retreat to their counter-cultural communities (mostly churches), use the legalization of same-sex marriage to promote their idea that the wider society is morally degenerate and corrupt, and grow their counter-cultural communities until they are large enough to reopen the battle against “same-sex marriage” in the wider political sphere. This is still the “long game” as I am calling it.
Ole Jesse refuses to look at the poll results for young people. Most of the opposition to same sex marriage comes from old people who ain’t going to be around in his long game future.
Actually, it’s the born agains who are the moral degenerates. Out of wedlock children, divorce, and spousal abuse are the greatest in those communities which are most soaked in religion. As the late Christopher Hitchens put it so accurately, religion poisons everything.
Jesse reminds me of Franikenberger in the last days of the 3rd Reich, ordering his generals to reposition military formations that no longer existed. Like the born agains who insist that the return of Yeshua of Nazareth will occur any day now, he lives in an unreal world.