Again, hate trumps reason, and bigotry trumps fairness. Maine should be ashamed of itself. Again, so-called "traditionalists" who in an earlier era railed against "race mixing" and advocated the continuance of miscegenation laws narrowly upheld special rights for heterosexual couples.
They have strong allies, allies who don't have to pay taxes. The Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints repeated their money bomb and volunteer bomb that they inflicted on California to pass Proposition 8, and passed Question 1.
Unfortunately, religion is a very strong force in our society. In the '60s, true, religious people fought for Civil Rights, and for Farm Worker's Rights. There was such a thing as the "Liberation Theology" in the Catholic Church until John Paul II squelched it. However, most of the time religion has been a force for reaction and discrimination. I will detail on the flip.
Before the Civil War, the Baptist denomination of Protestant Christianity split over the abolition of slavery. The Baptists stood with abolitionists, and a schismatic group, the Southern Baptists, stood with those that wanted to keep "The South's peculiar institution" going. This was not the first time a religious schism happened over civil rights issues, but it remains the most enduring. Religious conservatives have also fought against women's rights since the beginning of the Suffrage question.
Up until FDR they were supporters of the Democratic Party, the party which, during the Civil War, supported slavery. Then, in the face of FDR a great deal of them left the Dems and became Dixiecrats. Finally, when LBJ embraced the legacy of John F. Kennedy and rammed the Civil Rights Act through, the GOP adopted the "Southern Strategy" to invite Southern reactionaries into their tent. With the election of Reagan in 1980, the shift was completed.
Mainstream Protestant Christian denominations, Catholics and Jews, on the other hand, continued to stand strongly for social justice, and so did the Catholic Church, especially during the period from Vatican II. However, the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and later John Paul II's rejection of Liberation Theology, meant that conservative elements of the Catholic Church had the ammunition they needed to take over the church. The rejection of the Social Gospel by the Catholic clergy led to parishioners voting with their feet and leaving the church, first in Europe, then in the US.
The Mormon Church had always been out of step with the beliefs of the majority of Americans. While polygamy was conveniently rejected just in time to allow Utah into the US as a State of the Union, the Mormons hung on to beliefs that kept women and African-Americans (the latter until 1978) second-class citizens in the religion.
So now, where do we find ourselves? Conservative religion and conservative politics have allied to fight against civil rights for those born with same-gender sexual preference. They have an inordinate amount of power for their minority status, but we have a system engineered (and rightfully so) to protect minorities from the "tyranny of the majority."
It is true that the generational trends suggest that, in a generation or two, GLBT marriage would be won. But do we really want to wait 20 to 40 years for justice? And meanwhile, while the debate continues, committed couples are dealing with a playing field tilted against them, and towards those in opposite-gender couples who have opted for what we commonly call "marriage."
Reverend Lou Sheldon, a contemptible religious right demagogue, nevertheless stumbled upon a winning frame when he asserted that those looking for civil rights for those with same-gender preference were actually looking for "Special Rights." He was 100% right on the frame, but 100% wrong on who actually had the "Special Rights."
It is opposite-gender married couples who have "Special Rights" in America. There are something like 1,138 "Special Rights" that heterosexual married couples have (warning: PDF link) that are not available to committed same-gender couples. Arguably, one can say that this is equivalent to the separate and unequal status of African-Americans under Jim Crow, and the separate and unequal status of Christians and Jews under the Dhimmi in the Islamic East.
These "Special Rights" denied to same-gender couples but which opposite-gender married couples enjoy amount to a "Gay Tax." This "Gay Tax" ranges from nearly $42,000 on the low end to over $460,000 on the high end for the life of each partner.
We need to find a way of solving this problem sooner rather than later. Justice delayed is justice denied. But how to cut the Gordian Knot? Here's how.
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet...
-- Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet
Get the US Government OUT of the marriage business. Pass a national law mandating that all 50 states have a mechanism for getting a civil union for two consenting adults who are 18 years of age or older. No more sub-18-year-old age of consent. A civil union is a legal contract, and you cannot execute a legally binding contract until you are a legal adult.
This national statutory civil union would incorporate ALL rights given to married couples now. No more "Special Rights." No more "Gay Tax." No more Dhimmi status for GLBT people. No more teen brides and less-than-consensual marriages for girls too. A universal age of consent at age 18 would be a great thing for the status of women in the US.
Then comes the magic: all of the references to marriage in the US Code and the Internal Revenue Service Code get changed to references to civil unions. The word "spouse" is unchanged because it does not have the same semantic charge and is gender-neutral. If you do not go before the Justice of the Peace and get a civil union, your union is null and void in the light of the law.
The term and sacrament of "marriage" is ceded to religion. This has an extra bonus in that those who cannot get married because of concerns about Social Security and/or Disability will now be able to get married for their peace of mind...this is big for senior citizens in particular. Most churches and Jewish denominations do "commitment ceremonies" for those who cannot marry, but wouldn't it be a good thing for two people who love each other, and are in the twilight of their lives, to be allowed the marriage ceremonies of the church (temple/synagogue/mosque) of their choice?
Yes, this is an exercise in semantics. Words do matter, though. And marriage seems to be a very charged word that causes some people to turn off their cerebral cortex and react from their reptilian brains. Not a good situation. If it means civil rights sooner and not later, and civil unions that are as good as "marriage," then why wait for a generational opinion change? Why wait for the dinosaurs to die out?
BTW this is how the French have done things since the French Revolution and their dismantling of the ties between the French State and the Catholic Church. Other European countries have this arrangement as well. It's time to do this.