George Will argues that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an unconstitutional abuse of federalism and that:
Liberals praise diversity but generally urge courts to permissively construe the Constitution in order to validate federal power to impose continental uniformities. DOMA is such an imposition. Liberals may be rescued from it by jurisprudence true to conservative principles, properly understood.
More evidence of the changing wind: NFL players, rappers, conservatives among those supporting same-sex marriage.
Politico informs that, regarding Hillary Clinton, “the gay community adores her.” She recently announced her support for marriage equality via YouTube by “speaking directly to the camera without an interviewer who could ask follow-up questions on issues like the Defense of Marriage Act, which her husband signed.” Nevertheless, “Unlike [GOP Sen. Rob] Portman, who was castigated by some on the left for taking what was seen as a selfish position, Clinton—who in 2008 was against gay marriage—was praised.” And, of course, the Human Rights Campaign led the parade in terms of gushing.
Similarly, When ‘Yes’ isn’t enough.
More. Why support for gay marriage has risen so quickly:
Combine the fact that young people are heavily supportive of gay marriage and every generation is growing more in favor of legalization as they age and you see why the numbers on gay marriage have moved so quickly—and why they aren’t likely to ever reverse themselves.
Furthermore. Via Margaret Hoover, Slowly, GOP shifting on same-sex marriage:
Pro-marriage-freedom Republicans are on the right side of history and in time their courage and contributions will help erase the stain of bigotry that holds the conservative movement back and stops us from connecting to a rising generation of Americans.
12 Comments for “Marriage Winds”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Amazing, Stephen.
One of Ronald Reagan’s favorite jokes (probably because it reflect his own optimistic outlook on life) went like this:
You, on the other hand, would look at a barn full of ponies and see nothing but the turds.
We are winning the fight for equality. We’ve turned the tide in our country, turned it to the point where conservatives are joining the fight, finally, at long last.
That should be cause for celebration, even if the celebration is cautious and somewhat muted, knowing the strength of the social conservative stranglehold over the Republican primary process, and how hard it will be to “turn” the party despite everything positive that has happened.
But all you can do is find ever new and more ingenious ways to grouse about left/liberals and Democrats, and the work we’ve done during the last thirty years to turn the tide.
I know that you are probably disappointed about the way things turned out.
Many years ago, you were among the conservative gay voices trying to turn the “gay rights” movement away from sexual freedom and alternative relationships toward sexual responsibility and marriage.
That’s indeed the way the movement turned, but it turned not because conservatives embraced marriage equality (the social conservatives turned the conservative movement away from that path) but because left/liberal and Democratic gays and lesbians got to work and brought the country along with us. We (most of us, anyway, and almost all of us outside the urban gay ghettos) were never the libertines of your imagination, but instead shared the “marriage, family” values of most Americans.
We got to work on it within the Democratic Party. You and your fellow conservatives didn’t in the Republican Party. And so now, as you’ve observed in other posts over the last year, the Democrats are bringing the equality train into the station, and the Republicans are still standing along the track, fighting with each other about whether to hop on board.
It is a disappointment, I know. But left/liberals and Democrats are not the enemy in this fight. We’ve been on the front lines for a long time, fighting for equality.
Maybe you should think about Ronald Reagan for a minute before you post. He would be finding the pony in the haystack instead of the turds in the pony barn.
I am sorry to be so personal. But I’ve been following your writing for many years, and I would hate to see you continue down the path you are on, turning sour and bitter.
posted by Doug on
Stephen, I thought one of the tenants of conservative philosophy was personal responsibility. Given that, why are you such a cry baby always blaming the progressives and democrats for Republican shortcomings?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
–I did not hear too many “selfish” complaints about Senator Portman. He used the opportunity — his son coming out to him — to become a better man. Yes, it was probably not as simple or easy as that, but that is already better then how other Senators have reacted in similar circumstances.
With Clinton, she has generally had a solid record (as an elected official) in support of equality, sans marriage. Frankly, I do not recall too many major party candidates for federal office — much less president — being for much beyond civil unions.
The simple fact of the matter is that progressive and (most importantly) the more moderate center-left straight voters are increasingly supportive of “equal means equal” and all of that.
Major party candidates that want to be attractive to such voters are probably going to respond accordingly.
The challenge is that their are — right now — enough ‘conservative’ Democrats and conservative and (yes, ultra-conservative)-right-wing Republicans to stall progress or back peddle it at the federal and (oftentimes) the state level.
Yes, things are certainly changing and that will be reflected, gradually, in the two major political parties (depending on who participates in internal party business and who the parties want to appeal to in order to get a plurality).
I have mixed feelings about rap musicians in general. Some of its quite good, some of its terrible. But I suspect that much of the sexist/homophobic lyrics and bravado that comes from rap artists was part of an overall marketing perspective.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
Also, someone told me that George Will wrote something back in the 1990s in support of Colorado Amendment 2. This banned the State (and local government) from having any sort of equal opportunity/non-discrimination policy with regards to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. When the Supreme Court struck it down, I guess Will wrote a column about how the court should have upheld the law….so…maybe even Mr. Will is “evolving”…
posted by Jorge on
I should frame that NY Post Editorial, although they apparently didn’t have enough space to speculate that Mrs. Clinton’s change of heart was due to 2016 electoral ambitions.
However, there is some truth behind the double-standard.
Hillary Clinton’s announcement does not mean much to me. I respected her reticence all along as basically either an old fogey deal or loyalty to President Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden have both been very gracious toward the gay community and neither their switches on gay marriage or the obvious political benefits of being nice to a core democratic interest group will ever change that. I do not think anyone can question their family values bona fides either. If this all sounds too good to be true, hey, people love politicians for a reason.
There are very few forces in the Republican party that are willing to match that so boldly.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ohio’s Governor, John Kasich, caught the wave (sort of) yesterday, but the ride didn’t last long.
Asked about Rob Portman’s change of heart on marriage equality, Kasich told Scripps ““I just think marriage is between a man and a woman, but if you want to have a civil union that’s fine with me.”
The Governor’s spokesman, Rob Nichols, quickly clarified: ““He may have used the term ‘civil union’ loosely in this instance. The governor’s position is unchanged. He opposes gay marriage and opposes changing Ohio’s Constitution to allow for civil unions.”
Oh, well.
posted by Houndentenor on
If Kasich is for civil unions, but not marriage, then he should put forth a repeal of the ban in civil unions and get a civil unions law passed. In fact, if that were what he really thought was right, he’d be doing just that. He’s not. I get this question from conservatives all the time. “Why aren’t civil unions good enough?” They aren’t and we can give examples of situations in which civil unions do not provide the same benefits and protections as full marriage rights, but most of all, not ONE of the people who has asked me that question was at all willing to do something to further the effort for civil unions. It’s as if they want me to offer a compromise only to have that shot down as well. No thanks. I’ll ask for what I want and if civil unions is the best we can do, then that’s certainly better than nothing, but by and large the people opposed to marriage are opposed to civil unions as well, so I don’t see the point in gay people starting at the half-way point when they could get the whole enchilada.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. Why support for gay marriage has risen so quickly …
The WP’s analysis suggests why the numbers are moving more quickly than demographics alone would move the numbers (support is rising among all groups, not just young people), but it doesn’t say anything about why support is rising.
We know why, though, from a host of other studies: People become more supportive of equality when a family member, friend, neighbor or co-worker is openly gay or lesbian. In short, attitudes are changing one Rob Portman at a time, all over the country, in all demographic and all age groups.
The fact that the level of support is closely correlated to age is probably related to the fact that the older a person is, the more negative conditioning the person lived with during their formative years. Older people have a lot more negative conditioning to throw off than younger people, and it is harder for them.
We can probably also make an educated guess about why there is a significant difference regionally: a combination of religious conditioning and peer grouping. The country has significant regional differences in the percentage of conservative Christians from region to region, and studies show that neighbors tend to be influenced by their neighbors with respect to political views.
The important fact is that we are winning the fight. My view is that we’ve reached the tipping point, finally, and the next 10 years will be a mopping up operation if we keep on keeping on. I’m actually starting to think that I’ll live to see the day.
posted by Houndentenor on
Almost all the criticism I have heard of Portman’s announcement has either been bigots denouncing him or straight allies disgusted that he lacks the empathy to see that what is good for his son is good for all gay people. And I have to say that Clinton’s announcement comes awfully late. Laura Bush said in her book (published several years ago) that she was for gay marriage. John Huntsman beat her to the announcement as well. I’m happy to have the support of all of the above, but it’s hardly leadership to show up at the end of the parade.
As for the states’ rights argument…from a practical standpoint that’s been my view. One state at a time seems to be working. But it is odd that someone can have legal rights in one state and not another. What other Americans are suddenly divorced by crossing a state line and then remarried when crossing the next one? That’s absurd.
posted by Kosh III on
One difference between Hilary and Portman is that Hilary never fought tooth-and-nail for a Constitutional Amendement forbidding equal rights; never considered us worthy of any rights until he saw how the wind was blowing.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
OK, Yes, both Hillary and Portman were “influenced” by the obvious shifting views among voters. Hillary was generally much more supportive as an elected official — then Portman — and (initially) this is not an actual comment on a proposed bill, but more of reflection of the changing views and how being opposed to equal rights is harder to sell among a larger number of voters. Did I miss anything?
posted by Don on
I’ve read the criticism of Portman and Clinton. And I understand it, but it’s always made me uneasy. I would say the same thing about Will now. A win is a win. Who cares if they should have joined the party sooner? They came.
Frankly, Portman is shaping up to be one of the most powerful voices to move us over the goal line. He’s a big deal on the right mostly because he’s truly a right-winger but seen as moderate among his own kind. A vice-presidential contender.
Did his announcement get Will off the sidelines? Not sure. But it is likely. I’ve always liked Will even when I disagreed with him. He stands more on principal than most. Sure, he’s ducked it from time to time. But its really not hard to guess where he might stand regardless of where his party stands.
DOMA was always a principled problem for Republicans. It reminds me of Roe v Wade. You may like the results, but you’re gonna hate how you get there. Liberals love the result of Roe. But they definitely wish it were on sounder legal footing.
Although I’ve waffled a bit in the last few weeks (Bill Clinton’s announcement, Hillary’s, Portman’s, etc.), I’ve decided to come down on the side of who the hell cares how they got there. They came to the party and brought us wedding presents.