That One Little Word, “Marriage”*
Shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court handed down its Goodridge ruling mandating that the Bay State recognize same-sex marriages, I recall reading that just as more Americans came to support interracial marriage after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it’s Loving decision in 1967, more would soon come to support same-sex marriage.
The polls don’t bear that assumption out, but they do, as I noticed last week show a dramatic uptick in support for same-sex civil unions. About the time Goodridge was handed down, a slight plurality of Americans opposed same-sex civil unions. Today, an overwhelming majority do — and that majority has been increasing (at least according to Pewe) at least since the Masachusetts decision.
Could it be that as the issue of same-sex marriage reached the national consciousness with the Massachusetts decision, people started thinking about the issue of same-sex relationships? And once they started thinking about it, a number of people, once skeptical that same-sex relationships merited recognition, began to change their mind. But, still they just didn’t wanted to call them marriages — which they wanted to reserve for different-sex couples.
This would explain the growing support for civil unions while support for same-sex marriage has effectively plateaued.
That decision thus changed the views of roughly one in eight Americans (a pretty substantial swing on a social issue in such a short time) on same-sex relationships. Not what some activists who favor the judicial approach anticipated, but real progress nonetheless.
That’s my working hypothesis for now. Much more on this in the coming week (hopefully).
*Yes, I know that Kander and Ebb had “married” instead of “marriage,” but the current title works far better with the theme of the post.
16 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Might I propose a slightly different theory to explain the varience?
For a large number of Americans, Loving didn’t change the definition of marriage. SSM would. The colour of the skin was a qualifier, it was still ‘Man and Wife’. It being ‘man and man, or wife and wife’ does change the equasion.
Think of the word ‘bike’. Most people can use that word for a bicycle or a motorcycle, but still call one with three wheels a ‘trike’ SSM is still a tricycle, no matter how you try to hide the third wheel.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 9, 2010 @ 6:30 am - August 9, 2010
In 1948, California legalized interracial marriage; in 1967 the US Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage. The hysteria over children and preserving marriage was the same for interracial marriage as it is for gay marriage.
Comment by rusty — August 9, 2010 @ 8:13 am - August 9, 2010
If traditional marriage is a bike, wouldn’t a trike be polygamy? I think perhaps SSM is a pogo stick in that analogy — or perhaps a pair of ice skates!
(Sorry, your point is great Live, and I’m not making fun of it!, just having fun WITH it. …I just couldn’t help myself)
Comment by American Elephant — August 9, 2010 @ 8:17 am - August 9, 2010
The SSM crowd mainly wants “marriage” as an in-yer-face to Christians. Which is why civil unions aren’t enough.
Comment by V the K — August 9, 2010 @ 8:37 am - August 9, 2010
Rusty:
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the gender line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the only one mate line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the human mate line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the age line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the close kin line?
Comment by heliotrope — August 9, 2010 @ 8:59 am - August 9, 2010
Rusty:
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the gender line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the only one mate line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the human mate line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the age line?
What is the parallel between legally barring someone from crossing the color line to marry and legally barring someone from crossing the close kin line?
Comment by heliotrope — August 9, 2010 @ 8:59 am - August 9, 2010
Ummm–that’s Kander and Ebb. Please report to headquarters for gay reeducation. Bring your ticket stubs from Liza’s At The Palace!
Comment by Ashpenaz — August 9, 2010 @ 10:10 am - August 9, 2010
Ash, thanks for catching that. Since fixed. Ah, the perils of typing up a post in the hours of the morning!
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — August 9, 2010 @ 11:02 am - August 9, 2010
I can´t but help to wonder if this debate or controversy is a matter of semantics. If marriage isn´t a union, what is it? In liturgical denomiations it is a sacrament, Holy Matrimony. Several denominations now bless same sex relationships. Is it to be called Holy Union? Why does the term civil union have greater support? The use of the term civil connotes not ecclesiastical. Many heterosexual couples are married by state officials such as a justice of the peace. Yet, there is no attempt to qualify their union as a civil marriage. When newspapers report on such an event they say the couple was married in a civil ceremony.
Comment by Roberto — August 9, 2010 @ 11:05 am - August 9, 2010
V the K-
I think you nailed one of the reasons that the SSM movement bothers me so much. Although I’m sure some of the supporters geniunely want marriage and to build families, I get the feeling a lot of it is just to be anti-Christian and anti-religion.
This was demonstrated by a friend of mine after the Prop 8 ruling. His eloquent expression of excitement was a Facebook post that read, “YEAH! F### the Mormons!!!!!!!”
I understand that some religious groups disapprove of homosexuality. However, this is a free country and nobody is stopping you from being homosexual. I don’t see religious leaders running around and burning gays at the stake. Can’t the two sides just agree to disagree on the morality and try to find some compromise to co-exist? The debate on how it affects public policy is appropriate, however it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t treat the religious person and their beliefs with some respect.
I sometimes feel that this in-your-face, anti-religious agressiveness just makes things worse. The activist gay’s behavior simply reinforces stereotypes and will only cause the religious groups to futher entrench in their position.
What else are they supposed to think when they see someone disrespectfully disparaging their sacredly held values and institutions?
“Gee…those homos must really be amoral and sinful after all. They really don’t deserve to be married.”
Comment by Chris H — August 9, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - August 9, 2010
just found this and it was an interesting read.
Comment by The_Livewire — August 9, 2010 @ 2:40 pm - August 9, 2010
Bear in mind, Rosie O’Donnell admitted her marriage was a political statement.
Comment by V the K — August 9, 2010 @ 2:45 pm - August 9, 2010
And in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on polygamy and advocacy of breaking anti-polygamy laws, claiming without evidence or citation that polygamy tends to “destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man.”
Comment by Michael Ejercito — August 9, 2010 @ 3:24 pm - August 9, 2010
One Little Word, “Mawiage“
Comment by American Elephant — August 9, 2010 @ 5:43 pm - August 9, 2010
Yes, AE, I think of that every time I write ‘Man and Wife’
Comment by The_Livewire — August 9, 2010 @ 8:30 pm - August 9, 2010
Comment by American Elephant — August 9, 2010 @ 10:08 pm - August 9, 2010