Court Decisions and Gay Marriage, Cont.
Dark gray states have constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman (29 states). Source: Human Rights Campaign
Late last week, I highlighted a study showing that court decisions creating gay marriage in states not only don’t harm public support for gay marriage — they may actually increase support in states over the long term.
Matt Yglesias looks at the same data and comes to this conclusion: “The moral of the story, if there is one, is that there’s no real evidence here for any handwringing concerns about backlash. The opinion trend in favor of marriage equality is pretty strongly favorable, and courts should do the right thing.”
My response: Yes and no.
As someone who’s long argued that it’s better for gay marriage to be achieved through the legislative process, and as someone who’s used the potential for a backlash against judicial imposition of gay marriage as one of the reasons supporting my argument, I think it’s worth looking closely at the question.
First off, let’s get the obvious out of the way: I and others making this argument seem to have been wrong (given current data subject to further study, etc.), at least so far as a long-term backlash within states. While there was an initial backlash against the Massachusetts decision at the national level, national public opinion had a blip and then kept on keeping on in the same direction: up.
Great.
But here’s where things get more complicated. The argument about backlash was never really about the general trend of public opinion. I’m long on record as believing this is mostly a generation-replacement issue. Young people support gay marriage, old people don’t (generally) — public opinion is going to move in the right direction over time.
A blip is a blip — it’s not going to set gay marriage back very far.
What is going to set gay marriage back? The rash of states that wrote “Defense of Marriage Act” (DOMA) language into their constitutions, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, after the Massachusetts decision in 2004. In the wake of that decision, 23 states rushed to adopt such language into their constitutions.
Now, these weren’t all states that were about to run out and legalize gay marriage in the absence of an amendment (Texas, Alabama, Mississippi). But some of these states are more progressive (source: this HRC map [PDF], which lists the year the amendments were adopted): Arizona (2008), Colorado, Florida (2008), Michigan (2004), Missouri (2004), Montana (2004), Nevada (2002), Ohio (2004), Oregon (2004), Virginia (2006), and Wisconsin (2006).
These are all states where progress will now be more difficult. A court decision is essentially impossible (that’s why they amended the state constitution). And getting rid of an amendment will — varying state by state — be more difficult than passing a gay-marriage law.
Were the court decisions a bad thing, then. Well: good for gay people in Massachusetts; bad for gay people in most of the states shaded dark gray above.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
True, but if the Supreme Court were to rule that state gay marriage bans violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, said ruling would invalidate all the state laws you refer to. Of course there’s no guarantee that the court would side in this direction, and that seems to be the real threat of achieving gay marriage through lawsuits and not legislation. Once the issue of gay marriage finally makes its way up to the Supreme Court, and it will one of these days, all the legal victories of the past could be thrown out. Gay marriage achieved through state legislation overrides the threat of the Supreme Court overturning legal victories like the recent one in Iowa.
Luckily, since most of the state decisions are based on the state constitutions, the Supreme Court wouldn’t be overturning the gay marriage laws in states like CT and MA. But I’m not sure why people would want to push on to the Supreme Court right now — unless Ted Olson really thinks he can win the point with a conservative court. Which could, I suppose, give it more legitimacy with a large part of the public.
In response to another comment. See in context »GAY MARRIAGE SLOWS THE PROPAGATION OF GAYS
The inquisition against gays is entirely about making straight guys afraid of being wrongly ferreted out as gay.
It accidentally CAUSED THE PROPAGATION OF GAYS, BELIEVE IT OR NOW WITH A MULTIPLE OF LESBIANS.
It’s also why masculine insecure annoying paranoid baffoons, women enjoying making straight guys afraid of being wrongly ferreted out as gay, murderers of gays (proven in virtually all cases,) religious leaders railing against gays, leaders of youth organizations discriminating against gays, etc. are all among the likeliest gay gene carriers.
Equate miscellaneous forms of non-conformity, difference, or
association with a political underdog with the demonized, such as
liberals with communists, opponents of the religious right with gays.
The inquisition against gays, like the inquisition against communists
and other loaded-word targets, is really aimed at making straight men
afraid of being wrongly ferreted out as gay.
The idea is demonizing political foes generally, not just a narrow
group.
COMBINED WITH INCREASING POPULATION (PROVING MASCULINITY AND VIRILITY) IT ENABLED ANCIENT DESPOTS TO RUMBLE.
Ann Coulter said she thought Al Gore might be gay, later that John
Edwards might be gay.
7/16/93, “N.Y.Times ,” Though psychiatrists previously considered
man- hating mother the primary cause of male homosexuality, the
N.I.H.’s Dean Hamer discovers THE GAY GENE ONLY PASSES MATERNALLY by
way of an overwhelming statistical proof.
(Natl. Instit. of Health: Science, 7/16/93 and N.Y. Times, 7/16/93,
on page 1:)
NO WONDER psychiatrists considered man-hating mother the prime
cause of male homosexuality until it was discovered: most gays
carry Xq28. WOMEN CAN GET ONE OR TWO COPIES (Xq28 IS ON THE FEMALE
CHROMOSOME. MEN CAN ONLY GET ONE. DOUBLE X’s RECENTLY FOUND IN MANY GENES TO NOT CANCEL
OUT.
Hamer’s discovery first covered in “Science,” 7/16/93, and “N.Y.
Times”,7/16/93, on page 1, by Natalie Angier.
In “A Painful Discovery,” Carren Strock (”Newsweek” columnist) said
most lesbians are ultra ultra late in self-awareness
Breedlove: aside from a correlation with left-handedness, the
statistical connection between later-born sons and homosexuality
is purely statistical, a external factor likely to explain.
ANDREA CAMPERIO-CIANI OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PADUA
DISCOVERED THE PREDICTED EXTERNAL FACTOR.
Lesbians married heterosexually have higher fecundity (they produce
more babies.)
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO RESEARCHERS: ONE IN SEVEN
CASES OF MALE HOMOSEXUALITY IS DEVELOPMENTAL.
ALSO DISCOVERED: LEFT-HANDEDNESS IS
CORRELATED WITH HOMOSEXUALITY.
“20-20,” 2000, “marriage counselors have seen a sudden
influx of middle aged married women with children complaining of
“lacking something,” “not knowing what it is,” and ultimately
accepting that they don’t want to go further without accepting that
they in fact are lesbians.
KPBS, “MEXICO,” 2000:Mexican guy “has as many babies
as possible to avoid being wrongly ferreted out as gay”
Rostler/Mundell “Homosexual Sex Exploding With US Women-15 Fold
Increase in 10 Years,” Journal of Sex Research,” 2001 37: 333-343
VERIFIES MENDELIAN 3:1 LESBIAN TO GAY MALE RATIO.
A national survey has found the percentage of US women who say they
recently had gay sex has increased 15-fold from 1988 to 1998 SOURCE:
Journal of Sex Research 2001;37:333-343
http://sites.google.com/site/holychanges