A common refrain in the debate over same-sex marriage is that we ought to support the idea as soon as possible in order to be on the right side of history (every day in every way, we’re getting equaler and equaler) but this “inevitable” idea just can’t seem to shake its evitability.
The preferred narrative this week posits the continuing march of same-sex marriage in Washington and New Jersey. A closer look would give us pause. A referendum on the just-approved Washington same-sex marriage bill is already in the works; New Jersey governor Chris Christie has promised to veto the same-sex marriage bill there because he supports a public referendum on the issue; in Maryland, the same-sex marriage bill was amended yesterday to ensure there would be time for a referendum to be launched if that bill is passed, not to mention upcoming votes on marriage amendments in North Carolina and Minnesota.
This is probably not good news for gay-marriage advocates. The enduring gains for same-sex marriage have typically occurred where public input could be kept to a minimum because they were mandated by court order and amending the state constitution was extremely difficult. (California’s Proposition 8 is instructive because amending was not difficult, so the court decision of 2008 was reversed months later, and advocates have had to resort to the courts again.) There have been legislative gains, but the stories of New Hampshire, New York, etc. aren’t over yet.
There’s no inevitability here, just a rough road ahead.
You lose when the other side convinces you to give up. Don't be convinced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's especially silly to give up when you have seen victory 31 out of 31 times.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it inevitable now? No. But in about 10-20 years it will be because of changing attitudes toward gay marriage. I'm consider myself a staunch conservative and my views have changed on the subject. My own thought is that If gay people want to get married, let them. I've not found any of the arguments against it persuasive in the least. Plus, I, like so many others my age (41) have gay friends and relatives and don't see any harm letting them marry the person they love. If you put it on the ballot I'd vote for it.
That said, I am against judicially ordered gay marriage that goes against the will of the people. When my gay friends and relatives ask why not, I tell them it's because I do not think marriage is a constitutionally protected "right", nor do I think homosexuals should be a "protected class" by the judiciary. Each state, either through a referendum, or through their democratically elected representatives and executive should be the way it gets passed (or gets rejected).
Abortion should be the same way. Let each state decide what it wants to do. However, unlike gay marriage I think there should be a constitutional amendment banning it because we are talking about taking a human life.
50 years from now most people will wonder what the big fuss was all about over the issue of gay marriage. However, 50 years from now I'm hoping abortion will be illegal and people looking back view it with the same disgust we feel today on the issue of slavery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseInteresting that you are so sure about marriage as to state your prediction as fact
("50 years from now most people will wonder what the big fuss was all about"), while you're merely hopeful about abortion.
Even though we have won every battle in which the people have had a say, I am more humble in my predictions. Yet I believe them to be true, because truth will out. Men and women are different and complementary; people who can't relate normally to the opposite sex have a problem, one to sympathize with or ignore, according to the wishes of the person affected, but certainly not one to reconstruct our culture around; children need both a mother and a father. My prediction is that none of that will ever change, even if the majority of us don't think straight about these matters once every few thousand years.
Anyhow, your views on the subject have changed in one direction. Mine changed in the other, as I matured. I think my experience is much more common. But if I'm wrong about that, I still think truth will out eventually.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"people who can't relate normally to the opposite sex have a problem, one to sympathize with or ignore, according to the wishes of the person affected, but certainly not one to reconstruct our culture around;"
I'm not sure why this would be a "problem," necessarily--not everything unusual or atypical is a problem. When it comes to the ability to relate to the opposite sex, I tend to think that Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, etc., etc., have a much bigger problem than, say, Ken Mehlman does.
Fortunately, we don't have to reconstruct our culture around it; reconstruction isn't required to accommodate gay marriages, just as it isn't required to accommodate two eighty-year-olds getting married, two sterile people getting married, etc. Gay marriage is already happening, and it hasn't required recreating society. Straight marriage continues apace.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, real marriage is in nationwide decline. It is only the poor health of marriage that has allowed SSM its tiny flourishing.
No-fault divorce is the coffin.
SSM is the nails.
(Of course, if the patient revives we can pull him from the coffin--unless we nail it shut.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Nails in the coffin"? You can try to create a cause and effect relationship between marriage equality and the instability of heterosexual marriage, declining birth rates, a poor economy, increased crime, or dead birds falling from the sky all you want. The fact is that those claims are absurd, unsupportable, desperate attempts to justify anti-gay bias. People aren't buying it anymore. Marriage equality will be a reality in all 50 states - probably within ten years - and this country will be better off as a result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe evidence is beginning to accumulate that children do in fact need both mother and father, and do in fact do better when they are with their own real parents - or are separated from their biological family only as a last resort.
All children have the right to have custody decisions made with their best interest in mind. That is not compatible with "gay marriage", because what gays need from their children is inherently in conflict with what children need from parents. The entire lie that gay "families" are the same as real families is built on the backs of these kids being pressured to put their parents' feelings and needs before their own.
The question is who is responsible for meeting the emotional needs of the other - do parents exist to care for the child, or vice versa?
captcha: "upside down" ... just like a family where the kids have to worry about their parents' emotional needs, instead of the other way around.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's not inevitable in the deep red, conservative bastion known as "California".
In that most conservative of states, gay marriage was soundly defeated by a majority of voters.
In states more liberal than California, the oxymoron of gay marriage may be inevitable.
Not a very long list of states.
We'll be talking about this 75 years from now, because once leftists glum onto an issue, they're like termites to wood. They just keep gnawing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe won't be talking about this in 75 years because homophobia is largely a preoccupation of the elderly. As older Americans die off, gay marriage will become a complete non-issue. These charts are hard to argue with:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe demographics will turn. Proponents of sodomy and contraception de facto don't reproduce in the same numbers as traditionalists and proponents of the natural family.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with the gist of your post, but I think referring to the vote on Prop 8 as a "sound defeat" for gay marriage is a stretch. The vote on Prop 8 was pretty close, much closer than the previous vote on gay marriage (I want to say 10 years earlier but I'm too lazy to look it up) in which gay marriage was rejected by a much larger margin.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if people said the same thing as views started changing on adultery laws, sodomy laws and miscegenation laws. With respect to gay marriage, the trend lines are very favorable for proponents, as each year a new cohort of 18-year old voters has grown up in a very different world than their grandparents, one where openly gay men and women serve in the military and high office, not to mention likely exist in their extended families.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWasn't the Equal Rights Amendment inevitable, too?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllowing same sex marriage redefines marriage exactly the same as allowing women to vote redefined voting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's worth noting that the NY law passed because a representative who was AGAINST gay 'marriage' flipped his stance. In other words, he was elected while campaigning against the idea, but legislated for it. I think this colors the outcome considerably.
Another quick thought: Leftism survives/thrives by (a) trying to convince the young and impressionable that they are alone in any conservative impulses or ideas and (b) controlling the terms of the debate. These two things are not unrelated.
Old media thrived on this paradigm. New media shows signs of it too. Consider Google and Yahoo. The former keeps at the top of its results the filthy definition for "Santorum" coined by Dan Savage. If you think that's the result of indifferent algorithm, I have a bridge to sell you. He's a serious contender in a presidential race and a former senator, author, etc.
As for the latter (i.e. Yahoo), one merely needs to peruse their headlines to see how they work. (BTW, I wish Newsbusters paid more attention to online bias -- more difficult because its so ephemeral, so easy to alter and hide. But it's how most younger people get their (mis)information.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's worth noting that the NY law passed because a representative who was AGAINST gay 'marriage' flipped his stance.
AND when that same representative ran for Rep. Weiner's vacated seat (bad visuals), he lost to a Republican in a district that had not elected one such since the 1920s, and in which Democrats outnumber Republicans three to one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe're not there yet, but we've reached the tipping point. National polls now find slight majority support for gay marriage (it becomes a solid majority when you include people who support civil unions). Maryland will pass its gay marriage bill, and if it goes to referendum, it'll fail. I expect Minnesota will fail to pass the constitutional amendment against marriage as well this fall.
Long-term trends are working against opponents on this one, no doubt about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA trendline's just a trendline, I guess, but public approval of gay marriage is increasing.
External Link
(Link to Gallup polling on American approval of gay marriage, 1996-2012)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd feel a lot better about it not being inevitable if more Conservative voices didn't act as though they think it is inevitable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse