Gay Day

What are the national political implications of gay marriage in Massachusetts?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Should the wedding bells ringing for gay couples in Massachusetts spark celebration or sound an alarm for the 50-ish percent of Americans hoping to send Bush back to Texas this November?

Kerry will find it difficult to remind voters that while he doesn’t back editing the Constitution to seal his case, he does oppose gay marriage. Yet the nuances of courting middle-of-the-road voters by supporting civil unions without speaking the “M word” are hard to convey in sound bites. Worse, Massachusetts is Kerry’s home state, and it’s where the Democratic National Convention will be held this summer.
“Massachusetts liberal” just took on a whole new layer of meaning. Expect to hear it a lot.

Conservatives didn’t pick same-sex marriage as an issue to spotlight during the election year, but right-wing groups are leaping at the chance to rally Republicans around the traditionalist cause. The gay marriage debate is further polarizing America and promises to drive the conservative legions to the polls this November to return Bush to the White House. Or does it?

A Gallup poll shows that 42 percent of Americans now support gay marriage, a big jump from just 31 percent late last year. And on Monday the protests against gay unions in the Bay State and in the nation’s capital were few and far between.

Still, opponents of gay marriage are stockpiling legal ammunition at the state level to gain ground in this culture war. They already have on their side the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between opposite genders.

At least 20 states are mobilizing to support Bush’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. And the issue will reach state ballots in November, helping, Republicans hope, to boost voter turnout for the presidential election.

Groups like Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum (which helped defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the early 80s) are decrying the “activist judges” in Massachusetts who passed gay marriage by a narrow 4-3 in November. After all, any U.S. decisions to grant marriage licenses happened from the bench or from a politician’s desk, not by any referendum by the people. Until Massachusetts, courts deemed decisions such as those by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom as civil disobedience. Conservatives are trying to push the issue to a popular vote in key swing voter states, including Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, North Carolina and Arkansas and Missouri.

The conservative National Review opines:

If same-sex marriage were triumphing as a result of popular support, it would be pointless to try to stop it by constitutional amendment. But that is not what is happening. Judges are imposing it on the theory that constitutional guarantees of equality and due process entail it. But the law discriminates against no person by maintaining marriage as what it is. The law makes no inquiries into sexual desire: A gay man and a lesbian can get married in any state, if they so choose. The question here is one of definition, not eligibility.

On Monday, as Kerry’s strategists were probably holding their heads in their hands, Bush was already reminding voters where he stands.

As John Scagliotti points out in the Nation, “It was “identity politics” (the calculated appeal to fear of homosexuals, fear of women’s emancipation, fear of blacks, period) that gave the Republicans their electoral victories and put Bush I and II into the White House.”

CK Rairden of the Washington Dispatch sees the developments as “political quicksand for the left“:

Mainstream America will sit down to dinner tonight and see same sex couples expressing to love, honor and cherish in marriage ceremonies and it will be sealed with a kiss and likely carried on the evening news. While this won’t shock many in the liberal Northeastern states, or on the left coast—it will infuriate Middle America. It will shock them in a way similar to the sexually deranged photos that stumbled onto their TV screens from the Abu Ghraib prison earlier this month, and it will shift the focus of outrage for many from a prison in Iraq to courthouses sprinkled all over Massachusetts.

Republicans have been handed a gift from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

However, liberal optimists like Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force told The New York Times, “As this discussion has gone on and people have seen these images of regular people thrilled to be married, it has dispelled the myth and a lot of the fear around same-sex marriage.”

Is his view too sunny? After all, homophobia is still prevalent even among people who are liberal on other issues. For straight people conditioned to reject homosexual relations as natural, the image of two beaming brides induces nausea. Yet many Americans who find homosexuality troubling nevertheless believe that gay couples deserve protections, such as the right to make medical decisions for an ill partner. People with this compassionate, conservative view are more likely to support Kerry’s civil union stance–if they’re hearing his voice among the clamor.

Many conservatives may not like gay marriage, but feel that tinkering with the Constitution is the wrong way to tackle it. Groups like the gay Log Cabin Republicans are blasting Bush’s plan to alter the Constitution. In 2000 Dick Cheney promoted the notion that states, not the feds, should decide matters of personal liberty such as gay marriage. Seems he had a change of heart. Anti-gay marriage activists are lobbying Washington for a constitutional amendment, but that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere this year.

And The New York Times describes a “tepid response from the pews” contrary to the expectation of vigorous activism in traditional churches.

Laura Conaway of the Village Voice believes that gay marriage opponents like Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will fade into irrelevance, “like a modern George Wallace.” She knows that younger people overwhelmingly support gay marriage, as polls conducted by MTV show. While Conaway’s view might be prescient for the long-term, the trend toward greater acceptance for gay marriage may not help the Kerry cause in 2004. And even those celebrating the recent nuptials are short of a victory, because their marriages are unlikely to hold up across the Massachusetts state line.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate