Get Over It, Conservatives: Same-Sex Marriage Will Be Legal in All 50 States

[t0dd]

By Michael Abernethy, PopMatters. Posted May 19, 2009.

Some day, people will look back with amazement and disdain that same-sex couples were denied a fundamental right for so long in America.

Do a Google search for the term "same-sex marriage". I'll wait. Odds are that you got over 33 million results. Seems like everyone has something to say on the subject, good, bad, or ignorant.

Which is one reason I've never devoted an entire article to the subject ‘til now. After all, what could I say that is new? Still, there comes a time when the elephant in the room is tearing up all the furniture and peeing on everything and you just have to say, "Hey, look. There's a big elephant making a mess, here!"

Vermont, Iowa, New York, Washington, D.C., Connecticut -- most likely, you don't need me to tell you what's going on in those states (and the district of D.C.). And if you're a savvy, literate person, you've already seen Frank Rich's wonderful New York Times piece deconstructing the ridiculous "Gathering Storm" commercial from the National Organization for Marriage, a group whose sole purpose it to stop loving couples from getting married, as opposed to helping those in troubled marriages fix their problems.

Instead, let me direct your attention to another well written op-ed piece, "Constitutional amendment on gay marriage is a waste of time" (11 March 2009), this one by an excellent writer named Michael Abernethy. No, not me. This Michael Abernethy is a writer with The Times News, Burlington, North Carolina's leading, and -- one assumes -- only, newspaper.

Abernethy excels at deconstructing some of the arguments against allowing gay marriage with wit and intelligence. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I should admit that Michael and I are e-mail acquaintances and he is probably a distant cousin of some sort, as I have a considerable number of kinfolk in that area of the country.)

In response to the idea that allowing gay marriage will destroy the traditional marriage, he notes, "America's idea of the sanctity of marriage ended sometime between Elizabeth Taylor's fourth or fifth husband and Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage to a school friend." And he seems almost gleeful when it is suggested by an anti-gay crusader that after allowing gay marriage, marriage with "pets or robots" could be next: "I'll be first to sign the papers and finally consummate my love for ‘Agnes' -- my red, hollow-body, Washburn electric guitar -- to whom I've been devoted for 10 years."

What I like about Abernethy, aside from the great name, is his ability to cut through carefully constructed claims that are basically bullshit and fear-mongering and get to the absurdity of the primary arguments. And you should read some of his music reviews -- he's not shy about telling you a piece of crap music when he hears it, either. But I digress.

The same qualities I like in Michael's article are what I like about the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage, only take out the wit and add a lengthy discussion of the Iowa state constitution, with emphasis on the striking similarities to the U.S. Constitution (message to the U.S. Supreme Court received, thank you). The ruling cut down a well-financed, finely tuned anti-gay argument with logic, based in adherence to the principles of the Constitution. For instance, in response to arguments that the people of Iowa were opposed to gay marriage, the court replied, "A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion." (p. 13, VARNUM, HYDE, BARBOUROSKE, BARBOUROSKE, MORGAN, SWAGGERTY, TWOMBLEY, HOCH, MUSSER, DREAMING, OLSON, and EVANS v. TIMOTHY J. BRIEN, In His Official Capacities as the Polk County Recorder and Polk County Registrar.) They got it: that marriage is a legal right, not a religious practice. That doesn't preclude people from making the marriage ceremony a religious service, in any of a number of ceremony choices, but at its heart, marriage is all about the law.

...

More here: http://www.alternet.org/sex/140124/get_over_it,_conservatives:_same-sex_marriage_will_be_legal_in_all_50_states/

[LynneSin]

1. I don't know about all 50 states - there are some states out there that are a lost cause

I mean Iowa was a shocker but I'm not holding my breath that one day the most red state out there (Utah) will allow this to happen. There's a few other states that seem hopeless too.

But hell if we can get the bulk of the states converted that's a good step!

[t0dd]

2. All 50 eventually will..

And the SCOTUS will make sure that happens.. one day...

[billyoc]

3. The last few will be my favorites, as they're forced to obey the "full faith and credit" clause

once DOMA is flushed down the toilet.

[LynneSin]

5. I'd have to agree with that

I do hope one day that all 50 will get there but some will be more painful than others.

[TwilightZone]

4. I would be very surprised if that happens.

I'll be shocked if any state that has recently passed (or tried to pass) a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and/or a ban on same-sex couples adopting passes marriage equality protection anytime soon.

To be clear, if it happens, I'll be overjoyed. I just think that there are some states that are going to be very, very difficult to crack.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. its going to happen to a majority of the states, before the supreme court

will declare it a right etc

[bluestateguy]

6. My family actually knows someone who is planning on moving away from Iowa because of gay marriage

He and his wife want to live somewhere where gays can "never, ever" get married. They are moving to Tennessee. That will buy them some time, I guess, but even there, the tide will change in the coming years.

Sad and pathetic.

[t0dd]

7. He must have thought it was mandatory. nt

[TwilightZone]

8. How ridiculous.

Yes, let's uproot our lives for something that'll never affect us and because people in Iowa think that everyone should be treated equally.

Brilliant!

But, but, their marriage is in danger 'cause o' the gays!

*sigh*

[t0dd]

9. Just wait until the comets and tornadoes come and Iowa is cast into the cosmos..

then we'll see who is laughing!

[TwilightZone]

11. Oh, I don't know. Most of tornado alley...

covers some rather conservative states! ;)

[cloudythescribbler]

10. It was never in doubt that EVENTUALLY gay marriage will be legal throughout US, BUT ...

there are various questions like -- when? and what will be the policies on the Defense of Marriage Act in the meantime, in particular, how long will it take before the Obama Administration and the mainstream of the Democratic Party nationally at least get some of the most onerous provisions (that should have been declared unconstitutional, even w/the present Republican SCOTUS, way back ...

I frequently and vociferously defended Obama during the campaign against what I felt were unwarranted attacks on his regarding gay issues during the national campaign, and in fact, although Obama outpolled Kerry's 04 tally for almost EVERY category, often by huge margins (not to mention turnout), he dropped a couple of percentage points relative to Kerry 04 among self-identified GLBT voters (a category that would include me)

There is a real question how gay marriage and gay issues in general will play out in the politics of the next few years. The RW has in the past, especially in 93-4, as well as later in the 90s and in the 00s, successfully made ENORMOUS hay out of the gay rights issue, and no doubt plans to do so again in '10. In CA, one would think that after a close vote on prop 8 (which no doubt would have been successfully stopped had EITHER (a) illegitimate Mormon Church backing been absent from the campaign OR (b) progressives had (as I insisted in the final weeks of the campaign) payed the attention that they should have on key Senate races and on prop 8 NATIONALLY. I expect that in '10 progressives will not make the same mistake on trying to repeal prop 8, especially with the tectonic shift underway on the gay marriage issue

BUT ---

It is difficult to overturn a ballot measure once passed (people get this 'here we go again' attitude and enthusiasm flags, and it's harder to get people to PASS a repeal than to vote NO on something that's trying to repeal an existing policy

AND the electorate in 10 will probably, as is usually the case in off-election years, be less proportionately Democrats, especially with the Democrats in power nationally. Hopefully there won't be the situation of enthused Repugs and Democrats staying home like in 94, but a significant shift in turnout is likely.

All in all, conservatives have been VERY good, as they were on Civil Rights, in making sure that their overall political position is every bit as strong, and maybe stronger, after a wave of reform passes over in an area where bigotry remains a strong force after the reforms have been passed, as it was before. I think that if gay rights and other issues of that kind are handled rightly, then progressives could avoid the pitfalls of the past and gain the empowerment, including the full empowerment of the unfinished Civil Rights movement, in the process.

But all that requires the freedom to pursue the most effective approach for progressives, alongside the COURAGE to confront the 'glass walls' of repression that hold back that freedom, rather than simply phoning it in and letting phony progressives have a hayday (the latter being the status quo) at the astroturf roots

[SoCalNative]

12. Ballot measures do not need to be repealed

if the SCOTUS rules that it is unconstitutrional and in violation of the 14th amendment to deny gay citizens the equal right to marry.

[TwilightZone]

13. So, barring a surprise resignation or death...

we're probably still four SC justice appointments away (including Souter's replacement), assuming that we maintain the presidency long enough.

That means the replacement for Alito or Scalia, perhaps? In all likelihood, that would be the first opportunity.

[WillParkinson]

14. Well, a comet wiped out the dinosaurs...

Maybe we can get lucky. :-)

[TwilightZone]

15. Yeah...

as long as it's a very selective comet! :)

[WillParkinson]

16. Sure, no doubt...

We're not dinosaurs. Misters Scalia, Thomas, et al....oh, yeah. Big comet.