Sunday, January 5, 2014

Windsor's Wave: The Zeitgeist of Gay Marriage

Despite most likely being overshadowed by the outcome of the all important 2014 midterms, 2013 will be looked back upon as the year when support for gay marriage hit the tipping point. As recently as 2012 North Carolina voters passed an amendment to their state constitution banning same sex marriage. In Iowa three state judge who approved gay marriage in 2009 was facing possible defeat, possibly tipping the state's supreme court towards anti-gay conservatives. A Gallup poll measured stronger support for "traditional values" among younger voters. Until November 2012, no state which had legalized gay marriage had done it through popular referendum. Even the Democratic president of the United States had until that point opposed gay marriage. California voters, perhaps the bluests of states, passed on leading the issue by voting for prop. 8. Then in an interview, vice president Joe Biden came out in favor of gay marriage, forcing Obama to claify his position. He choose not to contradict Biden and came out in full support of gay marriage, but only at a state level. His reelection solidified the viability of a pro gay marriage candidate. That November, Maine, Washington and Minnesotta became the first states to legalize gay marriage by popular vote. Minnesotta voters voted down an anti gay marriage amendment. The final talking point that every time gay marriage was put to a popular vote it would lose was moot.

2012 saw the national mood shift, but 2013 is when that turned into real world action. 2013 is pivotal because of the nature of our constitutional system. The constitution's supremacy clause states that the federal constitution is the highest and final law of the land. Since the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the constitution's meaning, their word is what gives ultimate sanction. So when the court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act provision in 2013 which forbade federal benefits to spouses of the same sex, gay marriage gained constitutional muster. It was no longer the product of renegage judges, it could be seen as part of the larger constitutional rights gained for groups who deserved them.

Antonin Scalia of all people realized the legitimacy given to the issue by the majority in United States v. Windsor. His dissent predicted an end to the issue without much struggle over the next few years.

"As far as this Court is concerned, no one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.
By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition"

The language used in the majority opinion declared the discrimination against same sex partners to have no rational basis, so therefore the purpose of such laws is only to demean a group of people. The laws have no legitimacy, and will fall like dominoes.

And in 2013 within months this happened. The New Jersey Supreme Court struck down that state's ban on same sex marriage, which the Republican governor Chris Christie chose not to appeal. But New Jersey is a reliably Democratic state, so it wasn't going against the grain. But very late in 2013, the 10th federal district court knocked down Utah's state ban. Utah is one of the most conservative states in the union, so this was a big deal. Instantaneously marriage licenses were being granted. This could be the tipping point where gay rights become national and not just restricted to the more liberal parts of the country. There are now 18 states where gay marriage is legal, up from only one in Massachusetts in 2003 a decade before Utah. And now a majority of those states have done it either through the legislature or by referendum, marking the stage of popular viability and not only court action.7 out of the so far 18 are by court decision, 8 by legislatures, and 3 by ballot initiative. Windsor came right when support for same sex marriage has tipped past 50% in national polls, and for the future it seems a dual route will be taken. Democratically in blue states and by courts, following the Supreme Court, in the red states.