as long as we all shall live

[topaz]

The 2004 election cycle included referenda on 11 state amendments that would prohibit those states from recognizing same-sex marriage. All 11 amendments passed.

It's depressing, but I find myself not that bothered by this result as I might otherwise be. I'll try to explain why here. Those of you who have already heard me ramble about this in your journals, I beg your patience.

The entire same-sex marriage issue hinges on the principle that each state is obligated to recognize marriages performed in other states (the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution). Were it not for this, same-sex marriage would be barely a blip on the radar. A marriage performed in Massachusetts, or Vermont, or Idaho, would not necessarily be recognized elsewhere. It would still stir up conservative alarm, but not nearly so much as it currently does. The full faith and credit clause makes a very strong case that same-sex marriage, once performed in one state, would have to be recognized by the rest of the union.

There are roadblocks to this, of course -- the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the individual state marriage bans, and now the state amendments. The validity of these acts are guaranteed to be heard, eventually, by the Supreme Court. But in the meantime:

So there is enormous significance on the first state to perform same-sex marriage. It becomes the wedge state. Once same-sex marriages start happening somewhere, it's conceivable that it might happen anywhere.

We had thought that state would be Hawaii. Then we thought it would be Vermont. It has turned out to be Massachusetts (and man, just imagine my civic pride). The conservative element that wants to stop same-sex marriage now faces a choice: find a way to block it from being recognized in the other 49 states of the country, or put a cork in the bottle by killing it in Massachusetts before it can get any farther. If Massachusetts' state constitution can be amended to prohibit same-sex marriage, that's almost as good as banning it in all the other 49 states combined.

That is why the most immediately important of the marriage races is here in Massachusetts. The anti-marriage constitutional amendment passed the legislature in the last Constitutional Convention. It has to pass again this winter, and then be passed by referendum in 2006, in order to be ratified. If they succeed in amending Massachusetts' constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, it's game over. We have to start all over again, from scratch, somewhere else.

The good news, therefore, is that the anti-marriage crowd in Massachusetts suffered bitter setbacks this election season. Every single incumbent supporter of same-sex marriage was re-elected. Every single one. Moreover, there were eight open races in which one of the candidates opposed same-sex marriage. We won six of them. The marriage opponents faced an uphill battle in the statehouse last year; this year, with a new speaker of the house who opposes amending the constitution, it is all but finished. Same-sex marriage has survived the most immediate threat.

This will not be very comforting to those who live in Ohio, or Michigan, or Oregon, or any of the other states that have amended their constitutions. I can't give you any words of consolation. It sucks, badly, and it's going to suck worse before it gets better. But I am confident that it is a desperate backlash, a cynical ploy by the GOP to get out the conservative vote, and little more than that. We are still closer today to achieving nationwide marriage equality than we were on Monday.

Comments

[wolfkitn.livejournal.com]

But I am confident that it is a desperate backlash, a cynical ploy by the GOP to get out the conservative vote, and little more than that.

one question on this, something i've been asking myself.

i believe that it is very possible that the overall conservative force was pushed into greater action as a result of the massachusetts SJC ruling and the nationwide fear/controversy that was sparked as a result. i have been asking myself: if the MA SJC had *not* passed gay marriage, would the conservative vote not have been so strong? and in this case, would kerry have had a better shot at winning the presidency (and would several senators, such as daschle had a better chance at winning their races), given the overall strength of the democrat numbers this year (even without the youth vote being as strong as we had hoped)?

i don't have the answers myself, and there are a lot of "ifs" there. but i wonder. and if there is that chance, i'm not sure where i would have stood. i *want* legal gay marriage. but i also *wanted* bush et al gone.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I considered this plausible, since it does seem an effective way of getting a subset of Bush voters to the polls. But this e-mail to Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_31_dish_archive.html#109968333683256538) indicates that states with initiatives on the ballot didn't go for Bush with a detectably greater margin than nearby similar states that didn't. If it mobilized them, you'd think that having the issue on the ballot would do so disproportionately. On the other hand, the margins were thin in some key states (notably Ohio), so a few thousand less-motivated Republican voters might have made a difference. Odds are it'll never be possible to know for sure.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

I think it's not just possible but certain. Look at some of the states that put anti-gay amendments on the ballot: Ohio, Michigan, Arkansas. The GOP needed to get the vote out in those states in order to assure them for Bush. Lots of people won't vote in a presidential election but will vote on issues that they feel are more immediately relevant. By putting a marriage amendment on the ballot, they were able to bring hundreds of thousands of evangelicals out to vote for it -- and, you know, as long as you're here, might as well vote for President anyway.

I'm firmly convinced that this represents the total interest that the Republican party has in the issue. Hence Bush's lukewarm support for the Federal Marriage Amendment and his wishy-washy statements about civil unions in the final week of the campaign. It's not a real issue for them -- it's kibble for conservative Christians.

In terms of turning out the corresponding Democratic vote, I don't think this hurt Kerry as much as: failing to articulate a strong, clear message, or letting the Bush campaign frame the campaign and put them on the defensive. We failed to recognize the real significance of the gay marriage issue and respond with appropriate tactics. Even with the overall results of the election I'm not sorry that the SJC ruled as it did. But it definitely made our task harder and we failed to rise to the challenge.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

An interesting data point from a New York Times op-ed piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html?ex=1257483600&en=b4613533d9a1bdde&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland):

As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

While as I said above, I found the idea that the anti-marriage initiatives mobilized the Republican base plausible, it's beginning to look to me as if the data to support it aren't there. (Does anyone have pointers to different results elsewhere?)