«

»

The Avalanche Has Already Started; It Is Too Late for the Pebbles to Vote

The dam has broken. No matter what our opinions might be of it, gay marriage is becoming a fact of life. On the heels of recent decisions by either judges or legislatures in Hawaii, Oklahoma, Nevada, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Arkansas, Idaho and Oregon, a judge in Pennsylvania today struck down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriage. That’s the fourth court victory for gay marriage advocates just this month. And this one, complete with a long and forceful opinion, was issued by a Bush 43 appointee whose appointment to the federal bench was approved by none other than Rick Santorum. (Judge Jones also wrote a long and stirring opinion against teaching creationism in public schools in Kitzmiller v. Dover). That makes 19 states where gay marriage is either legal or has won a recent court victory.

There is simply no putting this genie back in the bottle. Some of those overturns may be reversed by higher courts. Some may be turned over to referendums again. But even those are unlikely to pass. As I said when the Republican Party was pushing a wave of anti-gay-marriage amendments in 2004, their urgency was because they could see that they were losing support. It was then or never. The tide stopped in 2012 when Minnesota turned back an amendment in a tough battle. Now it has turned and is roaring back out to sea. California’s Prop 8 would not pass now. Some of the redder states would be able to keep it illegal, but even there, support is crumbling. Within ten years, gays will be probably be able to marry almost everywhere in this country. Maybe even less. This issue is basically dead (although, as I argued with the Brendan Eich case, I would prefer that people not gloat about it).

There is one question that sill lingers in mind however: whether this issue will haunt the Republican Party down the road. I’ve spoken of this before:

Back in the 1970′s, the GOP stepped back from their previous support for civil rights to support the so-called “Southern Strategy”: an effort to woo segregationists from the Democrats. The idea was not to embrace segregation, per se, but to jump on racially sensitive issues like welfare to build a power base in the South.

While it managed to get a few politicians to defect (Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond), it never really helped their electoral prospects. In Presidential races, they won the whole country in 1972, lost the South in 1976 and 1980, won the whole country in 1984 and 1988, split the South in 1992 and 1996. It was only in the mid-90′s that the South turned and, by that point, no one gave a crap about segregation issues. The turn was over economic issues. And by 2008, Barack Obama was able to dominate the South in the primaries and compete in the general election, winning three states.

Just to clarify this point: the Republicans took the South because the South was always conservative. The only reason the South hadn’t voted Republican up until the 90′s was because of the Democratic Party’s century-long history of racist politics. Growing up in Atlanta, I knew people whose family had never voted Republican. When George Allen was elected to the Virginia legislature, he was one of only a handful of Republicans. When the South went red in 1994, Republicans were winning elections in Southern states for the first time since the Civil War. The South was always conservative. They were going to go Republican eventually. It was only Johnson’s management of the Wallace faction that kept it blue for so long.

However, the Southern Strategy did have one palpable effect: both on its own and through liberal harping about it, the Southern Strategy alienated black voters to the point where the GOP is lucky to poll in single digits. This is despite a fair amount of conservatism among blacks, who are heavily pro-life and pro-school choice. P.J. O’Rourke said that Clinton’s popularity among blacks was because he allowed them to vote for a Republican without throwing up.

In the 40′s and 50′s, Republicans routinely drew support among black voters in the 20-30% range. If that trend had continued, more than a few elections would have gone differently.

I’m afraid the GOP is going down the same path again with their stance on gay issues. The country is shifting rapidly on these issues, especially among young voters — much more rapidly than it did on racial issues. Huge majorities oppose DADT, including a majority of conservatives. Gay marriage is closing in on majority support and large majorities favor at least civil unions. And barring gay adoption or gay sex simply isn’t on the radar for any but the most ardent cultural conservatives. Yet the entire GOP field supports DADT and DOMA, most favor the Marriage Amendment and Santorum favors just about every anti-gay measure you can think of.

Some of this support is in name only — the FMA, for example, has zero change of happening. But their vocal support for these policies is going to come back to bite them and probably not too far in the future. As more gays come out of the closet, as more people have gay friends and relatives, as more gays get married and have kids and as the world fails to end despite this, people are going to remember where the GOP was on this. People with gay kids are going to remember that the Rick Santorum wanted to deny their in-laws and take away their grandkids. People whose lives were saved by gay soldiers will realize they would have died had DADT been in place.

We are going to pay for this crap. And we are going to pay and pay and pay (literally, given the spending habits of the Democrats).

My fears have only strengthened in the three years since I wrote those words. While a number of Republicans have broken ranks — showing much more political courage than any Democrats, incidentally — I still fear that gay marriage will go down in history as a faint echo of the Southern Strategy debacle. A faint echo because the Republican opposition was at least partially built on principle. It was clear in 2004 that many Republicans were uncomfortable with their gay marriage position (you may remember a leaked phone call where Bush talked about how much he disliked taking the position) and that this was, at least in part, a cold political calculus from Karl Rove who thought opposing gay marriage would win a tough election. But most of the opposition was a principled opposition to changing one of the pillars of our civilization.

(The echo should be even fainter because Democrats opposed gay marriage until it became politically safe not to. But Democrats are never held to any standard, let alone the ones that Republicans are held to. Republicans still get beat up over their short-lived Southern Strategy; Democrats are absolved from their century-long embrace of Jim Crow.)

Still, I think the analogy holds. It will not be forgotten that Republicans were the face of the opposition to gay marriage and that the remaining opposition is from Republicans. Will this hurt them enough to matter in an election? There are a lot fewer gays than there are blacks and they are not as unified electorally. But considering how close some elections have been, it’s entirely possible that this will hurt us down the road, especially as the young people who support gay marriage today become the political force of tomorrow.

12 comments

No ping yet

  1. Nexus says:

    I’ve been saying for some time now that within 5 to 10 years same sex marriage would be the law of the land. It looks like I’m going to be right for a change.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Xetrov says:

    I’ve said it for years, the government needs to get out of defining marriage. Grant everyone civil unions if some formal legal recognition is needed. Leave marriage to religions. It’s only a matter of time before gay couple X sues religion Y because they won’t let them marry. Which Constitutional right trumps the other – civil or religious?

    As a conservative, I’m more concerned with the recent rash of court rulings forcing people to service gay weddings against their religious/personal views. The government forcing a citizen to serve someone else is not a path I want to see the country take.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  3. Santino says:

    The government forcing a citizen to serve someone else is not a path I want to see the country take.

    Wasn’t precedent already set with desegregation?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Xetrov says:

    Wasn’t precedent already set with desegregation?

    Which religion is/was against blacks getting married?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  5. Seattle Outcast says:

    And let’s look at where forced desegregation has gotten us in 50 years – pretty much right back where we started, because people will vote with their feet.

    Ironically, all the middle and upper class minority people also moved to better neighborhoods, leaving the locations where they moved from even worse off. While these used to be minority neighborhoods of varied social/income groups, they are all now low-income and filled with gangs and junkies.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  6. Ed Kline says:

    No Xetrov, not allowing businesses to choose to serve or not serve blacks set the precedent that government can say the same thing about gays, and specifically about potential business transactions regarding gay marriage. It was a terrible idea then ( the government interfering instead of letting the free market decide), and it’s a terrible idea now.
    But to answer your question, plenty of organizations ( under the rubric of their religious beliefs) were against interracial marriage.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      
  7. Seattle Outcast says:

    But to answer your question, plenty of organizations ( under the rubric of their religious beliefs) were against interracial marriage.

    You can still find morons railing against people “polluting” the gene pool via interracial marriage – a quick search of the internet will turn up plenty.

    Makes you wonder at their lack of education; any basic biology class will be quick to point out that groups that are too genetically similar have lower fertility rates, and a quick history primer would inform them that just a century ago many people defined “white” as being northern European only – if your gene pool didn’t include blue eyed blondes, then the club doors were closed.

    Fast forward a century and if you live in the right places (Seattle, for example) then you’ll quickly notice that many people don’t even notice specific types of interracial couples as being interracial – white & asian couples are so common that in some places that they are actually the majority.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Hal_10000 says:

    As a conservative, I’m more concerned with the recent rash of court rulings forcing people to service gay weddings against their religious/personal views. The government forcing a citizen to serve someone else is not a path I want to see the country take.

    Agreed.

    Santino, I wrote about segregation in this context a while back. I think barring private discrimination was justified in that unique circumstance because the edifice of decades of government-supported and -mandated segregation was so strong and so thorough and so universal that it was ridiculous to ask black people to wait 50 years for market forces to bring it down. I don’t think that applies to gay discrimination, which exists, but is not nearly as pervasive (and not as easy, since you can’t tell for certain looking at someone if they’re gay).

    My standard when it comes to government interfering in private discrimination is that is has to impose a significant burden. So if there’s only one hospital in town, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make them treat black patients. But if there’s 27 wedding florists in town and 20 will do a gay wedding, the government should stay the hell out.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  9. CM says:

    What if there are 3 hospitals in town? Is it ok for 1 refuse to take black people, because they have 2 others they can go to?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

      
  10. Xetrov says:

    No Xetrov, not allowing businesses to choose to serve or not serve blacks set the precedent that government can say the same thing about gays,

    No Ed Kline, using the government to infringe on someone’s Religious freedom to not recognize or participate in something they deem as morally wrong is not even in the same sport as not providing service to someone because of skin color.

    But to answer your question, plenty of organizations ( under the rubric of their religious beliefs) were against interracial marriage.

    That doesn’t answer my question. Which religion did not want blacks getting married?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      
  11. Xetrov says:

    My standard when it comes to government interfering in private discrimination is that is has to impose a significant burden. So if there’s only one hospital in town, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to make them treat black patients. But if there’s 27 wedding florists in town and 20 will do a gay wedding, the government should stay the hell out.

    Bingo. If there was say, a local statute that only allowed for one wedding photographer to operate in town limits, and the photographer with that contract refused to service gay weddings, then the government should get involved (by getting rid of the asinine statute, hopefully). But these court cases are coming from gay activists looking to pick a fight with small businesses run by religious families, instead of going to the gay florist/cake baker/photographer down the street who would likely give them a discount just for being gay.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  12. West Virginia Rebel says:

    The right lost this fight when they ignored it as a civil rights issue. That allowed liberals to seize on it as such, and judges didn’t want to be on the “wrong side of history.”
    West Virginia Rebel recently posted..Freedom Of Food ChoiceMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.