I have often noticed how big things happen when I’m out of town, or at least, things of significance to the scope of this blog.
I recently learned that Deborah Kerr, one of my favorite actresses, died while I was driving cross country last fall. Some of my friends from graduate school picked SuperDuper Tuesday as the night to see a modern theatrical representation of the Arthur myth/Grail Legend in Vegas.
Well, while I was away with some of those same friends socializing and doing research for my dissertation, we received confirmation that California would be voting on amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus overturning the recent California Supreme Court decision.
As you can imagine, I have much to say on this topic, primarily noting how that decision impacts this fall’s vote. I had long believed the proponents of this amendment would gather enough signatures to place their initiative on the Golden State ballot. Before the unfortunate ruling, the issue would have been simple: does such language belong in the state constitution? I believe it doesn’t. At the time, I thought the amendment had a good chance of being defeated.
Now, the issue has changed. A vote against the amendment now becomes a vote to keep that decision in place and hence in favor of gay marriage. Back in 2000, when we Californians voted on Proposition 22, many people opposed to gay marriage joined those in favor and ambivalent on the issue to vote against the Proposition because they believed it superfluous, given state statutes already defining the institution as the union of one man and one woman.
As the debate now moves from the court room to the public square, gay marriage advocates need retool their strategies. In the past, they have tailored their arguments to sway judges eager to issue landmark rulings, so earning themselves a place in history books while winning accolades from the media. Now, the task is to convince a populace less concerned with impressing liberal opinion makers, but familiar with the reality of this ancient institution.
Favoring a serious conversation on this social institution, I welcome the opportunity this ballot measure offers to consider the meaning of marriage, but am concerned that most gay marriage advocates are not up to the task. Their failure could not merely reverse a poorly argued (and written) decision of the state Supreme Court, but could also enshrine a definition of marriage in the state constitution which prevents the legislature from acting and guarantees future ballot measures.
Even their success, however, will not prevent future measures as I doubt social conservatives will give up if they lose this fall, but it will be the first significant sign that the American people are warming to the idea of gay marriage. To achieve that success, opponents of the ballot measure must start talking about marriage the way most Americans discuss the institution, making clear they see it as more than “two adults who share a loving relationship†as the state Supreme Court would have us believe. Marriage is not just a right, but a longstanding social institution and a privilege granted by the state.
I welcome the debate, but am concerned that those who want to get a majority of Californians to vote the way I will be voting are not up to the task. And I’m not alone.
Polls show support for gay marriage in CA (or against the initiative) at the 50% level, i.e., a majority for the first time.
However, I am mindful of Hawaii 1998 where polls also showed gay marriage ahead there, but it was defeated. Gay marriage is an issue where people tell pollsters one thing and do another.
I would also point out that the Field Poll which you are quoting showed 50% of Californians being in favor of gay marriage the year Proposition 22 passed with 61% of the vote.
It is also an issue with one side being far more motivated to get out and vote than the other side. With an ever increasing number of people becoming more comfortable with gay marriage or civil unions, it has been a failing of the movement to motivate people to vote in favor of these changes.
As a gay conservative living in the Bay Area, I am totally ambivalent on the issue. I feel no compelling need to have this right, nor do I feel that it should be outlawed. My problem is with the way it is being implemented. Proponents of gay marriage need to convince the citizens of California that it it the right thing to do, not depend on court decisions that offend me and lots of other people. The courts are not the way to go; talk the issue up and present your agruments to the people and let them decide.
Naturally Gay, you make a great point. It’s why I think there was a greater likelihood of defeating the amendment before the Supreme Court decision. Now, opponents of gay marriage will be more motivated to get out and vote.
John in #4, we agree. 🙂
I feel the same way John.
But I am curious about the polling numbers — and its interesting that as NDT points out, the poll numbers aren’t necessarily reliable — everyone seems to take it as a given that Californians are growing more tolerant of gay marriage. But it just occurred to me … where is CA population growth coming from? Largely from Mexico and central America. And while its true that they tend to be very economically liberal, they are also overwhelmingly Catholic and socially conservative. Isn’t it at least plausible that California might be getting less socially liberal, not more?
I’d like to see this amendment defeated, but am skeptical it will happen. Frankly, while I’m sympathetic to some real couples affected by this I have a feeling this was brought to a head far too soon. I also agree in the abstract about the equal access argument but this too is premature in its development and I’m not thrilled with this being the main focus nor the manner it was put forward. Issues like DADT hold more importance to me, even though I’m not personally affected by it now, and will also have a significant impact in bringing the change many seek. If this amendment is adopted in California, I don’t believe that will be the last word as lawsuits will explode in the aftermath – even challenging whether this is a true “amendment” or “revision”, a unique distinction in California law that I’m not sure I fully understand. Of course, even if it wins than every percentage point below 61% is a victory in the long run as this would demonstrate a change in attitudes. Recall that during the DADT debate in the early 1990s, solid majorities opposed allowing gays to openly serve. This attitude has changed dramatically since then so perhaps more time may be needed for everyone on this as well. Eh, we shall see come November.
John, I’d like to hear from you. ilovecapitalism (at) hotmail (dot) com
Ye gods, there are more of us?
northdallasthirty (at) yahoo (dot) com.
This is an interesting clip from Bill ORielly’s show … where a gay group from SF gives Bill the “Pink Brick” award (whatever the fuck that is).
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=1143564&referralPlaylistId=8fab4e532bcebdc8c8e618412b4ed170ce0f2baa
Bill handles it pretty well.
Dan,
I agree that the ammendment likely would have failed. I’ve always argued that it’s the legislature that needs to act, not the courts.
Now the ammendment will likely pass, and it’s spurred a number of copy cats. Will it be enough to keep Obama out of the White House? Doubt it, but no one should be surprised at the backlash
Livewire, I don’t think the amendment will have as much impact on the presidential race as the race will on it. African-Americans tend to oppose gay marriage by larger margins than whites. A larger black turnout to vote for Obama could increase the number of people voting in favor.
Hmm, didn’t think of it from that angle.
#10 – I heard last night on BOR that he is putting up the pink brick on eBay to raise money for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.
Good on him. I hope those GayLeftLibtards in SF aren’t so stupid as to not understand “schaudenfreude.”
Of course, had someone in SF handed me a pink brick, they’d better duck because they’d be getting it back. Quickly.
Regards,
Peter H.