To Readers: This diary reflects a minority opinion in the Dailykos community. I understand the concept of Troll and accept its usefulness, but it should be balanced against the benefit to a movement of addressing perspectives contrary to its core values. Since there will be those who consider this diary inappropriate, I request recommendation of this diary as a counterbalance, that should only be taken as a statement that it deserves to be read, not agreement with its conclusions.
Today the New York Court of Appeals (which is the highest state court) decided on the constitutionality of prohibition of Gay Marriage. In was the mirror image of the Massachusetts decision of March 4 20003 deciding the same question. There by a 4 to 3 majority , the case
Hillary Goodridge et al mandated that those of the same sex must be given exactly the same rights of marriage of those of different sexes. Furthermore, compliance with the order of the court was mandated on a time frame that precluded the option of overrule by amendment to the state constitution.
In the Massachusetts decision, the three vote minority opinion, written by Martha Sosman rejected the appropriateness of judicial determination of this issue, saying rather, as in the N.Y. Decision, that it belongs rightly to the representative branch, the legislature. This decision prompted a spate of constitutional amendments to be voted on during the election of 2004. Ohio was lost by Kerry by 60,000 votes, a margin that most commentators attribute to those who came out to cast a vote in favor of the amendment to prohibit gay marriage in that state.
Was this Martha Sosman who voted to deny gay equality some sort of right wing fundamentalist? Not quite. Before being selected for the high court she spent eight years as head of Massachusetts's Planned Parenthood. The Federal Gay Marriage Amendment that recently was voted down, is almost universally depicted, even among some moderate Republicans, as a pure wedge issue, of no legitimate purpose other than to rally the conservative base. It is often paired in this category with it's twin, the Flag Burning Amendment. This is not political analysis, it is the echoing of a simplification that ignores any deeper understanding.
Passage of the Flag Burning Amendment would have had no substantive consequences, but its symbolism would have been enormous. Judicial imposition, or it's converse, constitutional prohibition, of Gay Marriage has consequences, both to the specific target population, party politics and to society at large. The focus of progressives has been exclusively on the effect on gays, at a sacrifice, I would argue, of a more productive overview. This happens to be a wedge issue, but that is coincidental to it's meaningful societal implications.
What would have been the consequences had Sosman's dissent in the Massachusetts case garnered a single additional vote. Would Gays have been persecuted and driven from their homes? Would those with children have them taken from them? Would squads of goons break down their doors to make sure they were not in bed together? None of these things would have happened. The similarity between prohibition of same sex marriage and laws against marriage across races is often made to reinforce the moral imperative of breaking down this last prejudice against gays. But before miscegenation laws were voided, where applicable, the horrors just mentioned were exactly what would have happened to a black and white couple. Had the Massachusetts decision gone the other way, gays could have availed themselves of civil unions and lived exactly as they are living as married couples. Well not exactly the same.
There would have been a difference, a lack of a state imprimatur of complete acceptance. There would have been financial costs in taxes and governmental benefits. And it would have been more difficult to get other advantages of spousal relationships, such as hospital visits and end of life decisions. And, perhaps, there would have been a delay in further progress toward complete acceptance. During this delay, if in fact there were to be one, gays would have been merely couples, partners rather than spouses. Stigmatization? Whether the decision ultimately increased or decreased it, is an open question. My guess is contempt for gays is not dependent on a court decision, any more than acceptance is. Stripped of the passion of outrage, that would have been pretty much the totality of the cost of a different decision.
The benefit, it turns out, is that John Kerry (all things being the same) would have won Ohio, and the election. We would have been out of Iraq. We would have been talking to N. Korea. We would have started to tackle the structural deficit. We would have re staffed FEMA to have better responded to Katrina. And there would be a billion more people throughout the world who respected the United States.
It is my personal opinion that the decision today in New York, and in Georgia, affirming the validity of an amendment prohibiting Gay Marriage is the best thing that could have happened to the Progressive movement. Read the complete Massachusetts's decision that I have linked above, especially Sosman's dissent, for the best articulation of this position.
There is a deeper argument to be made against same sex Marriage under the rubric of heterosexualism. It is not a brand, or even a meme. It is now subsumed under homophobia or religious fundamentalism, and as such will be treated with the contempt felt for those concepts. Heterosexualism has no formal articulation that I am aware of. Its argument resting on intra psychic and sociological concepts, arouses no passions. With no victims or villains, it is barely heard above the din of those who see this issue as a central front of our national culture war. I am not even asserting that the argument of heterosexualism should prevail, only that it should be aired. At the very least it will temper the contempt that many express for those on the other side with some understanding of their motivations. If I don't get too beat up for this diary, I may give expanding on this concept a try.
I firmly believe that the thrust of the progressive movement in this moment of time has history, morality and reason on its side. There is nothing to fear from expanding any discussion. We will only lose if we hunker down and hate our enemies they way they hate us.