Polity: Gay marriage, weed, and death with dignity
29 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
There’s a really good illustration of how quickly this change has occurred (source with code), and the tipping point seems to have come in 2013.
I’d like to think about what all of this means for a country which thinks of itself as “liberal” and “progressive”, but which sometimes stutters towards progress.
-
My prediction on this is that there will be some Republican wailing and gnashing-of-teeth this Republican primary cycle, then the eventual nominee will choose not to make it a big deal in the general election because, you know, 60% like the change
60% who were never going to vote for them any way, according to radical right demonology. I'll be very happy to be proved wrong on this, but there are far too many in the GOP (and let's not forget the Presidency is not the only thing up for grabs next November) who've invested far too much in demonizing LGBT for far too long to stop. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is already trolling to be sued which should help get the base out next November, and his credibility if he eventually decides to move on up the political food chain.
-
Just a comment on these points:
...how quickly the country went from its first law permitting same-sex marriage (2004, in Massachusetts), to a majority of States first acting to ban same-sex marriage, then after 2012 a majority of States moving to allow it (36 by last week)...
A majority of the States had already allowed same-sex marriage before the US Supreme Court acted. This is very different from abortion, where only around a third of States had acted pre-Court.
I'd note that a lot of the States that permitted same sex marriage pre-Supreme Court decision did so because other courts told them that they had to. Some of those courts were State ones (applying State constitutional provisions - like happened in Massachusetts), but a bunch were Federal (applying the US Constitution - like Mississippi). So it's not that the States were independently moving through their legislative/referenda process to allow this practice. Rather, it's that the courts decided pretty much en masse that the States had to let this happen ... with the Supreme Court simply being the latest one to do so (as well as the most important, because once it says it has to happen, then ALL the States have to listen).
Why, then, did the courts do so? Part of it is that society's view did change ... judges know how to read opinion polls just like politicians do. But part of it also was that the legal precedents were pretty well set - it's hard to read Loving v Virginia and not apply the exact same reasoning to same-sex relationships. And, by the same token, there is a far more active and developed public interest litigation strategy in place today - c.f., say, female suffrage, when the idea of getting the courts to tell States they had to let women vote just wasn't on anyone's radar.
How, then, does this map onto the two other issues you touch on - pot and aid in dying? Well, pot doesn't raise an issue of constitutional rights, so there isn't a Bill of Rights path to the Supreme Court. Which means it has to be fought State by State through the political process. And aid in dying may have gone too soon - in the 1990s the Supreme Court said that it wouldn't rule on the matter, but instead leave it to the "laboratory of the States" to deal with. Which means that, at least until a bunch more States follow Oregon/Washington/Vermont, it'll keep out of the fray (as well as keeping other federal courts out of it, too).
-
Cannabis is different though in that the US attempts to prohibit it at federal level (on fairly dubious legal grounds). To get to the situation with alcohol pre-1920, or gay marriage before this week, the US would need to remove these prohibitions, or limit them to real areas of federal concern, such as traffic between states.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Loving v Virginia
I regularly listen to a podcast called Stuff you missed in history class and they did a two part podcast on this case. It really was interesting both for the efforts to allow interracial marriage and for the view of society at that time (noting that some places are still stuck in that time).
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Well, pot doesn’t raise an issue of constitutional rights, so there isn’t a Bill of Rights path to the Supreme Court. Which means it has to be fought State by State through the political process.
Except it's becoming pretty clear that by legalizing it those states have been able to tax it. Nothing like a source of revenue to make a politician sit up and take notice. My bet is most states will have legalized it and taxed it to death within 5 years.
-
Robyn Gallagher, in reply to
There’s a really good illustration of how quickly this change has occurred, and the tipping point seems to have come in 2013.
And 2013 is when New Zealand happily legalised same-sex marriage, going with the flow. It now seems quite weird and old fashioned that Australia is the only anglophonic country to not have same-sex marriage.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
It now seems quite weird and old fashioned that Australia is the only anglophonic country to not have same-sex marriage.
The Hobart Mercury's Christopher Downes nails the weirdness.
-
The voice of the "moderate" (AKA "sensible", "mainstream", you all know the code) politician throughout the ages:
1) "I'm not going anywhere near that" (where "that" shall be issues pertaining to drugs, race, sexuality, euthanasia, you all know the list).
2) "Somebody else has made it happen? Well, I'm on board now - and always was, honestly!"
In New Zealand these voices belong to the Prime Minister, much of his party, and sadly, much of the official opposition party too. With a few honourable exceptions, leaders they are not.
Bill Clinton supported the "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. It was election year. 17 years later, it wasn't any more - so he finally opposed the law he signed.
There are too many Clintons in our Parliament. If they do call for change and take a stand, it's usually in their valedictory speeches.
-
Marriage equality has come at a very convenient time for Obama and corporates pushing the TPA etc.
-
With the SCOTUS ruling on same sex marriage, it's only fitting to drag this back out.
-
I find fairly persuasive the argument that this kind of social change has been somewhat accelerated by social media – we are emboldened by seeing that others think alike.
Marriage equality has the virtue (for most people) of being morally uncomplicated compared to euthanasia and straightforward compared to legalising weed. We have a template already for same-sex marriage, while we’re faced with devising ways to handle the other two. And it’s a happy and positive thing, helped if anything by a societal swing back to traditional marriage.
It’s been a little irksome seeing some queer activists dismissing marriage equality. It’s something people have struggled for for decades, something that seemed wild and unreachable for a lot of that time. It should be okay to celebrate a win and then look ahead.
-
I think this Pew graph (source) illustrates the problem that Republican candidates face over same sex marriage. The people who vote in their primaries are lagging behind the general population.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
The people who vote in their primaries are lagging behind the general population.
That’s an interesting point. So it basically means that a Republican candidate needs to express an anti-marriage equality position to win the primaries, but a pro-marriage equality position to win the election? It’ll be entertaining watching the candidates formulate positions that they can spin either way….
Although, when it comes to the presidential vote, it’s not a straight majority vote, right? So it would really depend on how voter opinion was split in the swing states. -
George Darroch, in reply to
It’s been a little irksome seeing some queer activists dismissing marriage equality. It’s something people have struggled for for decades, something that seemed wild and unreachable for a lot of that time. It should be okay to celebrate a win and then look ahead.
Quite. This makes a whole bunch of things they’re fighting for more likely.
Even if a rainbow picture is the ultimate in slacktivism, it’s that person saying – ‘your rights are ones that I endorse’. And that support (weak or not) means that progress is less difficult. I don't think that this is a mass exercise in self-congratulation by well-meaning straight people, but I could be wrong.
-
That Pew graph is also from before the Supreme Court decision. Presumably support will get a bump of several points among independents and Democrats, and a slight boost among Republicans. But a majority of Republicans will still oppose marriage equality, particularly the activist base. A very difficult position to be in.
I suspect any successful candidate will seek to put this on the sidelines.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
That’s an interesting point. So it basically means that a Republican candidate needs to express an anti-marriage equality position to win the primaries, but a pro-marriage equality position to win the election?
I suspect that if you sat down and did some reading you could find a dozen issues where the same applies.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
True dat.
-
I predict that the Republican nominee for president will be either a conservative posturing as a lunatic, or a genuine lunatic. The nominating process pretty much guarantees it.
-
Craig Young, in reply to
Unfortunately, the United Kingdom and almost all the jurisdictions within Australia directly include gender identity within antidiscrimination legislation, as do most Canadian provinces. Canada does not do so at the federal level, nor does New Zealand. And the Key administration refuses to do so.
-
TracyMac, in reply to
Well, as a queer non-activist, I find all the focus on marriage hugely irritating. Even if I wanted to, I couldn’t get married – I’m not monogamous. I’m also not thrilled about the priviliging of certain relationships over others – in the US, you get tax breaks just for being married. Nothing to do with whether you have kids (different tax breaks if you’re a parent/guardian – fair enough).
Yes, it’s a huge symbolic* thing in terms of eroding second-class citizenship in the law, and I’m glad for the Americans. But I think what we achieved in NZ with our equal rights legislation in the 90s had much more of an impact on our lives. For all of us, not just the ones who want to get married. Yes, it took longer for marriage rights, but was untenable in the long term given that legislative bedrock.
Maybe gay marriage will encourage the Americans to illegalise discrimination at the state level, but with the bleating about “state rights” already, I’m not holding my breath.
So maybe I’m not as curmudgeonly as some about this achievement – it’s a start – but there’s a way to go. Even in the US.
Although I have to admit I’m even more irritated by our second-class citizenship in Australia, so there’s that.
*Obviously not that symbolic for those already married in some US states, or those who wanted to elsewhere. I'm now curious about the status of overseas same-sex marriages in the US - are try now recognised? -
Paul Campbell, in reply to
in the US, you get tax breaks just for being married
Well only sort of, mostly all you get to do the equivalent of income averaging - you file jointly and the progressive tax steps are adjusted accordingly.
Mind you I guess in the US filing jointly is a big tax break simply because you only have to file one return, you get to save 100 pages of paper
-
Danielle, in reply to
Maybe gay marriage will encourage the Americans to illegalise discrimination at the state level, but with the bleating about “state rights” already, I’m not holding my breath.
The ruling makes it a lot harder for states to get away with that, though. That's why it's A Good Thing, in general.
-
Moz, in reply to
It’s been a little irksome seeing some queer activists dismissing marriage equality.
Come on Russell, give it a break. Let the monogamous monosexuals run round congratulating themselves on being progressive and liberal while pretending that there are no problems with marriage as it now is. How can you be so mean as to bring up this subject now, when we should be celebrating the amazingness of slightly expanding the legal definition of marriage? Marriage equality can wait, we have gay marriage and it's Faaabulous!
-
Craig Young, in reply to
Moz, I do intend to eventually gladly campaign for polyamorous spousal rights for bisexuals, although I suspect given what happened in the case of monogamous gay marriage equality and same-sex parenting, it'll take about ten to fifteen years to develop a sufficient head of steam with affirmative articles in pediatrics and developmental psychology journals. As I would if parthenogenesis ever becomes feasible, and I'm in favour of an infant intersex "remedial" surgery ban similar to the one that Malta recently enacted.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.