Marriage and Culture

[rowyn]

I read a rather mediocre opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, on the subject of gay marriage. The author favored the Supreme Court staying quiet on the question and letting states decide one-by-one instead. The one interesting argument in the essay was 'legislation resolves issues: judicial rulings bury them'.

The main thing that makes this interesting is Roe vs Wade, which protected the right to abortion forty years ago -- but the country remains split even now, and a surprisingly even split at that, over whether or not abortion should be forbidden/restricted.

It feels to me like, one way or another, gay marriage is going to be accepted and legal in most if not all of the US within the next 10-20 years. Despite some early legislative opposition, the tide seems to have turned now, and I think that turn is permanent, just like the turn in favor of mixed-race marriages in an earlier era. This is the right side of history, however people may feel about it now. I am very happy about it, myself.

That Roe vs Wade analogy does make me wonder if the method by which it becomes legal will make a difference in the long run. Probably not -- I don't think it made a difference with anti-miscegenation laws, which were also overturned by courts. But it's an odd idea to contemplate, that letting a question be settled at the ballot box might promote a more lasting transformation in civil society. Or that judicial rulings might prevent the same. It has a certain resonance as an idea, a feeling of truth, though I don't know that there's any evidence it is.

Comments

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

(remainder)

Finally, I don't think Roe v. Wade is actually a fair comparison to the same-sex marriage issue. The problem I have with the abortion cases in general, is that the nature of the issue means that you actually have two conflicting rights, that of the mother and that of the child, and for one to prevail the other has no choice but to have their rights removed. And indeed much of the abortion debate does revolve around "at what point does a child-in-progress gain rights?" (though it's framed in media as "at what point does life begin?" but I think it's the same underlying question). And when you're in a situation where every case is a matter of "someone loses their rights," I just don't see how that can ever be settled. All the debate over when life starts, if a mother gives up her rights by having sex, etc, just boils down to "who loses their rights, and when (or do they ever get them at all)?"

And I think that's a fundamentally different situation than something like same-sex marriage, where even if same-sex couples get new rights, opposite-sex couples don't lose any.

So... that didn't end up a short response (I blame Rowyn. Sorry, Rowyn!). Strangely, though, it ended up as a completely different long response than the one I'd written originally -- and as a better one that actually looked more directly at the underlying suggestion/question. Go figure.

[rowyn]

Yes, I think you're right. The laws promoting segregation or prohibiting interracial marriage are a much better analogue to gay marriage than the abortion issue, and court rulings don't appear to have substantially impaired social acceptance of the former. So, not really thinking the "how" of legalization much affects long-term social acceptance.