Get PJ Media on your Apple

by
Rick Moran

Bio

March 29, 2013 - 12:16 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

Gay-marriage advocates have been laying it on thick these last few days, building what appears to be an unstoppable momentum that will contribute to the inevitable: legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

It’s only unstoppable in their imagination, and if they don’t start taking a longer view of things, they are apt to be royally disappointed. Exactly five polls have come out in the last fortnight that show a majority support for gay marriage — today. Those polls also show a strong minority — more than 40% — still opposed. Such a rapid change in public opinion on an issue that has been controversial for 20 years should be suspect. Other factors could be in play that help explain the shift.

What will those numbers be six months from now? As we’ve seen with the abortion issue and other sensitive social issues, there appears to be a portion of the U.S. population that flits back and forth between the pro and anti positions, depending on which way the political wind is blowing.

One could even argue that the toxicity of the GOP and conservatism in general may be driving some of the increased support for gay marriage. Who wants to take a position on an issue associated with the party of old, bluenose fuddy-duddies?

The bottom line: Anti-gay marriage advocates aren’t giving up and aren’t going anywhere. Those who see opposition to gay marriage as a moral calling or as a cause to save “traditional marriage” may lose a round or two in the courts, but rest assured that they are girding their loins for battle in state legislatures across the country. There are still 41 states that have not approved same-sex marriage, and for the marriage-equality crowd, it’s still going to be a long, uphill climb to achieve their goal.

Jonathan Chait has designated himself obituary writer for the anti-gay marriage movement, claiming that Maggie Gallagher, a prominent figure in the movement, has all but given up:

Now the movement is in a state of total collapse, with every day seeming to bring new converts to the gay-marriage cause and the opposition losing all of its courage. There is no more telling sign of the opposition’s surrender than the public demoralization of Maggie Gallagher, the leading anti-gay-marriage activist and writer.

The unusual thing about the campaign to ban gay marriage is that it was dying from the moment it was born. Even at its peak, at the very outset, the portents of doom were visible on the horizon — polls showed that young voters strongly supported gay marriage. The best case for Gallagher and her allies appeared to be holding on for years, or even decades, but eventually gay-marriage opponents would age out of the electorate.

If Mr. Chait’s crystal ball is that good, he should change careers and become a stock touter. Attitudes of the young can change from generation to generation. For example, more women today are pro-life than were 10 years ago. It’s true that opposition to gay marriage is highest among older Americans. But Chait, who has been touting a similar end to the GOP because of changing demographics in America, should take a closer look at his pet numbers: 66% of black Protestants say that “same-sex marriage would violate their religious beliefs.” And 69% of Catholics — a large percentage being Hispanics — also believe gay marriage would violate their religious tenets. At least 58% of black voters backed Proposition 8 in California (exit polls showed 70% support).

In short, the reported demise of the anti-gay marriage movement has been greatly exaggerated and is based more on wishful thinking than cogent analysis.

Just because a few politicians have recently stuck their fingers into the wind and had a Road to Damascus moment on gay marriage does not denote overwhelming, unstoppable momentum for universal gay-marriage rights in the U.S. This is especially true given the probability that the Supreme Court decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 will serve only to open the door a little wider for states to decide the issue themselves. Yes, it’s a perilous game trying to predict how the Supreme Court will rule in those two cases. Recall that many of the same court watchers predicting victory for gay marriage also predicted the Roberts court would overturn the individual mandate in Obamacare. But the range of possibilities points to partial victories for gay-marriage supporters, with the justices leaving it up to states to decide the issue.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The fact that 33 States have voted against Homosexual Marriage says a great deal. When a left of left State like California votes against Homosexual Marriage, what does that mean? It means the voters were confused about the ballot or they were forced to vote against it. No it means outside of San Francisco the people are not for this issue. When someone calls on the phone it is easy to say whatever, but when you get to the voting booth, you have a real life perspective of what this means.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Roe vs. Wade: Right to Life vs. abortion rights-- Mark my word, when the health care panel starts deciding who can be helped to live and who is not worth the price of medical attention to save a person's life, save the elderly, sickly, unfit(plan parenthood began as erasing the unfit). Then, these bureaucratic 'know betters' on the health care panel will be using the 'full term abortion ruling' as their arguments - theory to justify why they can terminate or deny health care to save a live; even assist someone that a panel might think would die anyway; or speed the process of someone that they think will eventually die; Or someone who is than determine what "too sick is" to stop or never provide medical medication to, stop aid, or deny: doctors visit - deny operation that perhaps would/could save them - deny treatments.... With all that in mind, allowing Abortion opened doors to the mentions above, doors always open other doors and they always provide argument for the next thing.

A couple having a child - a baby - cares for that baby inside the womb and in that womb it is a life, and that woman give birth to the life inside by birthing the life into this world, that life inside the womb and outside the womb are both considered to be 'a life' at conception biblically and at conception by science, yet pathetically so if a woman wants to have an abortion and have many then her unborn is not considered a life. Roe vs. Wade gave legal right to abort a life, that doesn’t make it right to take life. Even Roe vs. Wade doesn’t make it right to take it right it just makes it a pathetic legal right. What Roe vs. Wade did was lend more to a large can of worms that since passing in to law has done nothing but open wider and wider and more wider – and it still hasn’t really stop, don’t think it will… it will continues to make excuse for anything the progressives want to accomplish when it comes to right to life. It gave us full term pregnancy abortion passage. What age of life is next? To take a life at any stage is still takes a life. Then after full term pregnancy abortion we got the so called botched abortion right to terminate human being who was breathing air outside the womb.

It doesn't matter how you look at abortion by science the 'extermination of life' by their own definition of a when life begins, at conception. To abort a life is to murder that life. Abortion is a pathetic convenience for someone that puts irresponsible sex before a life.

When this monster Health Care kicks in and the day comes. The gov’t will not discriminate a persons Age – it will be any age of life they see fit by their hands through some person working for them to pull the plug or have a life aborted by what ever means they choose. Not even your family will be able to stop them. Remember this post in a year or twenty years or what ever the time frame because once a Can of worming legislation is open it grows and grows and grows. Do not be so blind to amuse yourselves about this marriage issue there will be a can of worms crawling out form that if it goes through.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Liberalism is an extortion racket. You buy their identities and they leave you alone. For a day. Next, brother sister marriage. And another blackmail scheme to the right side of history.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (50)
All Comments   (50)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The "polls" say that a "majority" of Americans are now OK with gay marriage or something. So how come every time there's a referendum on the subject in just about every state that has had one that gay marriage gets voted down? And before anyone says that's a "red state" phenomenon, I remind everyone of California and Prop 8.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm sorry, I don't see you comment relative to mine. Am I missing something? Sure! States legislatures can legislate equal rights protections for a 'class' as determined by the courts to include marriage/union and equal benefits. California is different, is it not, in that a peoples proposition initiative was involved? I have no issues with either instance you cite -- by a states supreme court or by a states legislation. If there are appellant issues granted legal standing, then so beit. As society progresses, so do eventual, the high courts. Society is progressing slowly but surely in a direction of support on the issues surrounding homosexuality.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This response was meant for -- claytoncramer -- way down below.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is constitutionally impermissible under the 14th Amendment for states to deny the equal protection of the law to citizens, and impermissible under the 5th Amendment for the United States to deny equal protections to citizens. Prop 8 is unconstitutional under the 14th, and DOMA is unconstitutional under the 5th. To be permissible, discriminatory laws must be based on a compelling government interest, and the government action must be closely tailored to the government's goal.

Traditional Marriage proponents argue that the prevailing social order/sanctity of marriage is a compelling government interest, however they have yet to produce any data showing that legalizing gay marriage dissolves the social fabric. Further, if protecting the social fabric/sanctity of marriage is the compelling interest, then legislators have the burden of showing how this law will fulfill that goal, e.g., why is this particular law, instead of one that creates more barriers for obtaining divorce, is the correct path.

This being the case, from a constitutional perspective it really doesn't matter what the public's opinion is on the matter; public opinion can't bring back slavery, Jim Crow, bans on interracial marriage, or other unconstitutional programs. Even if a state decides it wants to ban gay marriage, it must show that this does not violate constitutional equal protections, and unfortunately "my religion frowns upon gays" is not a suitable compelling government interest to deny the benefits of marriage to two consenting adults.

The answer is this: Government grants civil unions to consenting adults who want the legal/financial benefits of marriage. Churches grant marriages, i.e., the religious aspect which grants your union recognition in your church, but no legal rights. In this way, any two committed people who want to can get the legal recognition and benefits, but churches will not have to marry gays. The term "marriage" remains property of the Church, but the church cannot prevent gays from getting state civil unions, and all states must recognize unions, gay or straight.

If you're serious about the Constitutional protections of equal rights and due process, this is the way it's gotta be.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Except gays are not being denied equal protection since they can marry someone of the opposite sex who is not a relative and of age just like everyone else. Marriage is not a 'right' nor has it ever been hence the regulating and limitations of it prior to this country ever being a speck in a pilgrim's eye. And let me remind you SCOTUS did regulate marriage long ago with the upholding of the federal ban of polygamy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
This is just false. Homosexuals can participate in marriage. There is no discrimination. They can enter into marriage and procreate for the benefit of society and the prosperity of the tribe just like anyone else.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I wonder what the results would look like if polls on the issue of same-sex marriage also polled the respondent's "intensity". That is, "how strongly do you feel about the issue?"

It might turn out that a large number of people voting for it just don't care, and instead of voting "yes, I think marriage should be redefined" are in fact voting, "yes, I wish people would just STFU about the whole thing".
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The fact that 33 States have voted against Homosexual Marriage says a great deal. When a left of left State like California votes against Homosexual Marriage, what does that mean? It means the voters were confused about the ballot or they were forced to vote against it. No it means outside of San Francisco the people are not for this issue. When someone calls on the phone it is easy to say whatever, but when you get to the voting booth, you have a real life perspective of what this means.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Roe vs. Wade: Right to Life vs. abortion rights-- Mark my word, when the health care panel starts deciding who can be helped to live and who is not worth the price of medical attention to save a person's life, save the elderly, sickly, unfit(plan parenthood began as erasing the unfit). Then, these bureaucratic 'know betters' on the health care panel will be using the 'full term abortion ruling' as their arguments - theory to justify why they can terminate or deny health care to save a live; even assist someone that a panel might think would die anyway; or speed the process of someone that they think will eventually die; Or someone who is than determine what "too sick is" to stop or never provide medical medication to, stop aid, or deny: doctors visit - deny operation that perhaps would/could save them - deny treatments.... With all that in mind, allowing Abortion opened doors to the mentions above, doors always open other doors and they always provide argument for the next thing.

A couple having a child - a baby - cares for that baby inside the womb and in that womb it is a life, and that woman give birth to the life inside by birthing the life into this world, that life inside the womb and outside the womb are both considered to be 'a life' at conception biblically and at conception by science, yet pathetically so if a woman wants to have an abortion and have many then her unborn is not considered a life. Roe vs. Wade gave legal right to abort a life, that doesn’t make it right to take life. Even Roe vs. Wade doesn’t make it right to take it right it just makes it a pathetic legal right. What Roe vs. Wade did was lend more to a large can of worms that since passing in to law has done nothing but open wider and wider and more wider – and it still hasn’t really stop, don’t think it will… it will continues to make excuse for anything the progressives want to accomplish when it comes to right to life. It gave us full term pregnancy abortion passage. What age of life is next? To take a life at any stage is still takes a life. Then after full term pregnancy abortion we got the so called botched abortion right to terminate human being who was breathing air outside the womb.

It doesn't matter how you look at abortion by science the 'extermination of life' by their own definition of a when life begins, at conception. To abort a life is to murder that life. Abortion is a pathetic convenience for someone that puts irresponsible sex before a life.

When this monster Health Care kicks in and the day comes. The gov’t will not discriminate a persons Age – it will be any age of life they see fit by their hands through some person working for them to pull the plug or have a life aborted by what ever means they choose. Not even your family will be able to stop them. Remember this post in a year or twenty years or what ever the time frame because once a Can of worming legislation is open it grows and grows and grows. Do not be so blind to amuse yourselves about this marriage issue there will be a can of worms crawling out form that if it goes through.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
the support and voters of the left by default believe every thing coming out the left side in the medial and Washington. Even voters on the right do not believe everything coming of the right. The saying: 'don't believe everything coming out of persons mouth' holds some truth, it was also a very logical and valued statement. the left side voters better wake up their radical sided party - the pain will be on every citizen not just those us on the right.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Liberalism is an extortion racket. You buy their identities and they leave you alone. For a day. Next, brother sister marriage. And another blackmail scheme to the right side of history.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don't see this issue as being a real winner for the SoCons, for several reasons:

1. With abortion, the pro-life SoCons are taking a stand to preserve *innocent human life*, which is a highly emotionally charged issue. Whereas SSM would be an alteration to a *legalistic institution*--civil marriage. Not to religious marriage, but to that marriage license you get from the state in which you reside. "Save Traditional Marriage Licenses" doesn't sound like the kind of slogan that will get people to hold massive demonstrations or launch political campaigns. In contrast to the pro-life movement, there are no horrific pictures of dead babies or inspiring fetal ultrasounds to show with the "Save Traditional Marriage Licenses" movement.

2. The slogan "Preserve Traditional Marriage" begs the question of just what actions SoCons would like to see to make that happen. At a time when 40% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it should be obvious that the biggest threat to marriage is--ending it. Thus the more SoCons talk about "Preserving Traditional Marriage," the more that couples who have gotten divorced or have thought about getting divorced will see that as a threat to them.

3. A political movement to "Save Traditional Marriage" by opposing SSM while ignoring the whole problem of no-fault easy divorce, is going to be slicing things very thin. It won't look consistent at all.

4. The liberal media would love to stick it to the SoCons seeking to "Preserve Traditional Marriage" by showing how many of them have gotten divorced themselves.

So before reacting reflexively, SoCons should do some homework. They should figure out just what they mean by "traditional marriage"--how traditional are state marriage licenses anyway? And whether opposing SSM really does much to preserve marriage in America. (If SSM never became legal but the divorce rate rose even further, would marriage truly be preserved?)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Personally, I don't care about gay marriage per se. If two men want to pretend they're a married couple, then by all means, pop the corks, so far as I'm concerned. I just don't care. And if three women want to marry the second son of the third woman, then, well, whatcha gonna do?

But that is NOT what this is about. This is a Constitutional issue. A Federalist issue. It is a question of whether the people of the STATE of California have a Constitutional right to define the definition of "marriage" as the coupling of one man and one woman. It is a question of whether or not the 9th Federal Circus, with the blessing (or not) of the U.S. Supreme Court, can DENY California voters to vote on the strict meaning of a social institution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
--- "Wishful thinking."

Well, yeah ... if you're a RINO.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All