The mass marriage ceremony at the Grammys was both kind of inspiring and, sorry, kind of creepy, in that mass weddings kind of way, despite/because of the role of high priestesses Madonna and Queen Latifah as officiants. But it does reinforce the astounding change in public acceptance of marriage equality. Yes, socially conservative evangelicals are not the Grammy audience, but young people give the event huge ratings. And they are the future.
Alas, many Republicans will keep losing until they get that trying to keep marriage restricted to heterosexuals is driving away more voters than the diehard religious right bloc they fantasize will put them over the top. The latest evidence: GOP operative Ed Gillespie’s run for the Virginia Senate seat held by moderate Democrat Mark Warner. Gillespie told the Washington Times:
My faith also teaches me that marriage is between one man and one woman. In fact in the Catholic church it’s not just a teaching, it’s a holy sacrament just like communion. I believe that as well. I believe marriage is between one man and one woman and I believe that people who don’t share that view or share my faith, that that doesn’t make them anti-Catholic or religious bigots. And I think people who do share my view, that doesn’t make us anti-gay either.
Republicans can’t get away with this kind of “I’m not a bigot but marriage is a sacrament” malarkey anymore. Your sacrament isn’t enshrined in the Constitution, an ever-growing number of Americans recognize, while equality for all under the law is. The popular Warner needn’t feel threatened.
14 Comments for “Marriage Equality Markers”
posted by Stephen on
Like.
And like that you used “malarkey.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree with the core assessment. Sooner or later, the Republicans are going to have to come to grips with the fact that our Constitution, not theology, is both foundation and measuring stick of our laws, and abandon opposition to marriage equality now that the religiously-neutral justifications for opposition have proved to be, well, “malarkey”.
I would add that the Republican Party is going to have to confront the issue directly, too, which impacts two current Republican strategies for avoiding the issue:
(1) The “Priebus” strategy, the idea that the Republican Party can continue to oppose marriage equality if it stops the trash-talk, and continue to attract pro-equality voters. Americans are embracing the principle of “equal means equal”, and a “be nice” strategy doesn’t. People can tell the difference.
(2) The “No Elephant Under the Table” strategy, the idea that the Republican Party can continue to oppose marriage equality if it insists loudly enough that privatization of social security, elimination of estate/inheritance taxes, elimination of differential rates for single/joint income taxes, and so on, are the important issues, and that marriage equality is unimportant. Americans understand that marriage equality is important, and won’t buy that there is no elephant under the table.
When I read about the Grammy marriages yesterday, my first reaction was “Please, please tell me that they weren’t performed by an Elvis impersonator …” But that’s just me. I’m old.
posted by Houndentenor on
By all means, let’s hand over the social security trust fund to the people who swindled us on auction rate bonds and credit default swaps? What could possibly go wrong?
posted by Jorge on
Republicans can’t get away with this kind of “I’m not a bigot but marriage is a sacrament” malarkey anymore.
Over marriage? Why not? Isn’t it the same thing for abortion? I would say it is liberals and gays who rely too much on “you think marriage is between a man and a woman so you must be a bigot.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The point Stephen is making is that opposing marriage equality in civil law is the issue, not religious theology.
It makes no difference, legally or in terms of the Constitution, whether a person opposing marriage equality opposes it for religious reasons or because he/she is a bigot — the two are distinct, obviously — because the Constitutional principle of “equal means equal” requires that the government have a religiously-neutral, important and rationally-related government purpose for limiting civil law marriage to heterosexuals.
Theology does not provide a religiously-neutral, important and rationally-related government purpose for denying marriage equality under the Constitution. Neither does bigotry. So the statement “I’m not a bigot but marriage is a sacrament” may be true, but irrelevant to the law.
posted by Jorge on
Seems to me the point he was making was more about popular opinion. In which case, such a broad statement does not apply.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Seems to me the point he was making was more about popular opinion. In which case, such a broad statement does not apply.
Public opinion is also irrelevant to the Constitutional question. Witness Loving.
posted by Don on
There are two main reasons to oppose marriage equality: religious teachings and the “ick” factor of gay sex. The former is not a source of bigotry, the latter is.
The majority of men in the world focus on the “ick” factor. Some women do as well, but not as much as men.
Neither is a legal basis for opposing marriage equality in the United States Constitution.
It is nothing like abortion. Atheists can believe it is murder to abort a fetus and oppose it on those grounds. I personally am pro-choice, but find the opposition to abortion a sound opinion that one can hold on that belief system.
The “malarkey” is the belief that the world would be better if only we were more of a theocracy. (at least that’s what I see it as). And good theocracies are as delusional as liberal panaceas. We may strive for a better system of governing ourselves. But neither will achieve what their fanatical adherents believe it will.
posted by Houndentenor on
Almost all bigotry in our country’s history has had a religious component. Because we give a free pass to whatever someone says so long as they can rationalize it as a “religious belief” bigots have long been quite skilled at talking in that language.
Let me make this clear: I don’t give a damn what other people believe so long as it doesn’t interfere with my rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s bad enough to hear this nonsense from Evangelicals. For Catholics to act persecuted is pure nonsense. Among other things they ought to express a little gratitude that they weren’t treated like a secular organization with regards to their mass criminal wrongdoing over the past few decades. If a public school system had been shuttling pedophiles from one school to another and shielding the rapists from prosecution, the whole lot of them would have done serious prison time. Almost all of them got off scott free. Persecuted? Please. They are in no way a moral authority. So long as no one is asking a priest to marry gay couples in their churches, no one is persecuting them.
posted by Jorge on
Actually, only the people responsible for shielding them would have done prison time. The people trying to correct the situation would have been commended for it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
An update on Indiana:
The Indiana House of Representatives approved the anti-marriage amendment, HJR-3 as amended, by a vote of 57-40. All Democrats voted against. Republicans voted 57-11 in favor. The Republican vote is a marker of the changing attitudes in Indiana — in 2011, all 59 Republicans then in the House voted in favor.
The measure now moves to the Senate, where supporters of the anti-marriage amendment are working to reinsert the language removed by yesterday’s amendment, the second sentence of the 2011 resolution banning a “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”.
If a reinsertion amendment to HJR-3 is successful, then the Senate will vote on the original amendment language, and the matter will have to be resolved by the joint reconciliation committee.
The decision there could come out either way, keeping the “identical or substantially similar” language or not. Depending on how that comes out, the anti-marriage amendment could go before the voters in November 2014 (if the “identical or substantially similar” language is kept), or not.
If reinsertion is unsuccessful, then HJR-3 as amended (without the “identical or substantially similar” language) will have to be enacted again during the next legislative session, which will delay the vote from 2014 to 2016.
It will be an interesting fight in the Senate, as it was in the House, and it will be even more interesting to see how the issue is reconciled between the House and Senate if different versions are adopted.
The House Republicans who voted against the anti-marriage amendment are Steve Braun (Zionsville), Ed Clere (New Albany), Sean Eberhart (Shelbyville), Kathy Heuer (Columbia City), Todd Huston (Fishers), Cindy Kirchhoefer (Beech Grove), Rebecca Kubacki (Syracuse), Thomas Saunders (Lewisville), Jerry Torr (Carmel) and Cindy Ziemke (Batesville).
All can expect primary challenges by social conservatives, and it is up to pro-equality conservatives to ensure that the challenges are unsuccessful.
posted by Sonicfrog on
Republicans can’t get away with this kind of “I’m not a bigot but marriage is a sacrament” malarkey anymore.
I don’t see that expression of a belief system as geting away with something. i have no problem if someone believes “mariage is a sacrament” or someone who does not agrre that marriage should be open for gay relationships as well as straight. Where they are very wrong is in using that to justify denying marriage to those who desire it. It’s the same excuses used to deny inter-racial marriage all over again. “GOD” says it’s wrong. That’s where I draw the line.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The Grammy awards were OK — mostly [my] pros and cons are based on who won and didn’t win. Can’t say I got too emotionally invested in the couples getting married on camera, beyond the fact that it says that things do get better.
The vote in Indiana does not surprise me too much. In Minnesota, the GOP has pretty much shown pro-equality Republicans the door and said “take a hike and don’t come back”.
Yes, their are indeed a few good GOP exemptions to the rule in St. Paul, but time and time again I hear from pro-equality Republicans that the MN GOP is committed to anti-equality, along with obligatory conspiracy theories about Muslims, immigrants and the like.
Gay Republicans and straight Republicans who support equality are going to have to ‘put up’ or ‘shut up’. Either they do the legwork and get involved in changing their party’s anti-equality position or they don’t. Either way it has little to do with gay Democrats or straight Democrats who support equality.
In Minnesota we have open primaries for all major parties (we have three major parties) and so it would not be too terribly difficult for some pro-equality Republicans to (at least) attempt a primary challenge….