The Pew Forum reports:
Reports that the Democratic Party may add support for gay marriage to its party platform are in keeping with a significant shift of opinion on this issue among Democrats nationwide. Just four years ago, in 2008, only half (50%) of Democrats favored allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, while 42% were opposed. Support for gay marriage among Democrats has jumped to 65% today, more than double the percentage that is opposed (29%).
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted June 28-July 9, 2012, among 2,973 adults, finds that the partisan divide over gay marriage continues to widen. Just 24% of Republicans now favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, which is only slightly higher than the percentage of Republicans who supported gay marriage in 2008 (19%). Independent support for gay marriage has grown substantially since 2008. More independents today favor (51%) than oppose (40%) gay marriage; four years ago independents were divided evenly (44% favor, 45% oppose).
Ross Douthat wonders aloud whether we’re headed to long-term polarization rather than the all-out victory many expect, either with hope or fear:
It’s possible that there are inherent limits to the process of marginalizing dissent even on an issue where elites are increasingly united and the underlying trend is clear, because the overall incentive to conform is matched by the partisan incentive to dissent. (Here it’s worth contrasting the way opinion on gay marriage shifted in the first two years of the Obama era among Democrats and independents with the way it mostly didn’t shift among Republicans and conservatives.) This reality might complicate the advantages of legal pressure as a tool of social change. It’s at least possible that the anti-Chick-Fil-A mayors are hastening the consolidation of support for gay marriage in certain important climates (big cities, the business world, etc.), but also hardening resistance to same-sex marriage among the many Americans conditioned by polarization to disagree with anything that Rahm Emanuel does no matter what.
It is strange to live in a day when opposing the murder of the unborn and believing marriage can only exist between a woman and a man qualifies one as a conservative. The bar for entering the reactionary club gets progressively lower.
August 1st, 2012 | 1:30 pm
The last line should read “The bar for entering the reactionary club get [[italics] progressively [italics] lower.
August 1st, 2012 | 1:48 pm
Wait. “Becoming” a partisan issue?
August 1st, 2012 | 3:12 pm
All political parties, especially in a two-party system, represent broad coalitions of interests, with few or none of their supporters agreeing with every policy in their manifestos.
People may be, quite sincerely, in favour of a particular policy, without it determining their voting preference. They might be more interested in a party’s stance on some other issue, say, defence spending or tariff reform. In a certain mood, one sympathises.
August 1st, 2012 | 4:13 pm
I think this issue mirrors the abortion issue in this way. Abortion, up until the 80s, was a fairly non-partisan issue in the sense that there were pluralities in both political parties that were on both sides of the issue. The 1972 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee, Sargent Shriver, was one of the most ardent anti-abortion politicians of his era. Likewise, the 1976 Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Nelson Rockefeller was long a pro-abortion politician. It wasn’t until the later that the abortion began to sort itself out along party lines. That sorting is almost complete at this point. I think it is sad that such a serious, weighty moral issue has become a plaything of partisan politics. But it has and I think the issue of gay marriage is headed in the same direction.
August 1st, 2012 | 4:41 pm
Douthat is right on polarization. Steve has an excellent observation regarding abortion Both suggest that it would be exceptionally reckless for the Supreme Court to pull a SSM Roe v. Wade next year and mandate the practice nationally.
The Czech Republic and Slovakia parted ways. Scotland is contemplating a secession referendum. Flemish and Walloon Belgium are barely on speaking terms. At this point, what besides debt, reckless consumerism and war is keeping the United States together?
August 1st, 2012 | 9:50 pm
it would be exceptionally reckless for the Supreme Court to pull a SSM Roe v. Wade next year and mandate the practice nationally.
I have no doubt it will be just like Roe v. Wade: the courts will impose it on the populace, and after a decade or three of refusing to accept as normal and good that which is not normal and good, eventually people will start to come to the point where critique becomes possible.
Right now, people genuinely believe those who insist that the only possible reason anyone could oppose same sex marriage is hatred of gays. It’s a cynical sort of dishonesty – the people who spread this untruth know better, and do it anyway, but what else can they do? If the conversation is allowed to degenerate to actual argument, they lose. They can’t support their position, because their position is only tenable when same sex marriage is presented as a situation where only one minor, irrelevant variable will change (while all other variables stay the same), and furthermore gays must be represented as the only stakeholders. As soon as the focus stops being on how gay people feel and what gay people want – and ad hominems against those who interfere with what gay people want – the argument is lost.
August 2nd, 2012 | 8:08 am
C.S. Lewis pointed out that you can’t address someone’s motives until you actually address their arguments. “That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man’s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.”
So instead of playing the ‘motive game’, I’ll just ask Blake – yet again – to try to support his claims. “What’s the proportion of ‘gay parents’ who labor to sever all ties with the other biological parent? Just a rough estimate would be fine, I know you can’t point to any actual numbers.”
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:10 am
Ray:
Blake has a point: almost all the arguments that I have seen for SSM are pure appeals to sentimentality – “How could you deny marriage to people who are so in love?” etc. This is the classic fallacy of “argumentum ad misericordiam.” I have seen no pro-SSM argument that argues that it is an objective good, either for the individuals involved or for society. There are, of course, the very abstract appeals to “equality” – but what do you mean by “equality”? As Aristotle observed, it is actually unjust to call things equal that are not equal. To appeal to “equality” without any other qualificaiton is meaningless.
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:39 am
As to long-term polarization, there are contra-indications. Black people are overwhelmingly against same-sex marriage; Obama’s recent “conversion” moved the needle only a few points. A national group of black pastors is asking black people to stay home on election day; I don’t know how influential they are. Many blacks feel betrayed by Obama on the issue; it is something basic to their beliefs. Here in Maryland, black churches were key to getting the just-passed SSM law on the ballot for a referendum. I doubt that the dissent of blacks on this issue will make a lot of difference to their stance on other issues, though some conservative groups and individual candidates are trying hard to make inroads. The November election will tell how important SSM is to the diverse coalition that is the Democratic Party. If a considerable number of blacks stay home, and Romney wins, Democrats will have some hard thinking to do about how polarizing they want to be.
August 2nd, 2012 | 10:40 am
I have seen no pro-SSM argument that argues that it is an objective good, either for the individuals involved or for society.
Heraclitus,
But there are plenty such arguments. Just as there is a positive correlation between marriage and health (and longevity) for heterosexuals, there is a positive correlation for committed same-sex couples as well. There have been a number of efforts to make a “conservative case for same-sex marriage.” Those who are anti-gay often charge gay people with being promiscuous. If no incentive or support is given for lasting, stable relationships, what exactly do they expect? Lifelong celibacy? It doesn’t even work for Catholic priests, half of whom at any given time are not practicing celibacy.
There are all kinds of benefits of marriage that same-sex couples who are unable to marry have a very hard time legally cobbling together when they are in a committed relationship.
Even from a simple economic standpoint, there are efficiencies achieved by two people partnering that they could not achieve as single individuals.
And as for equality, the court cases in which marriage equality has been upheld have not consisted of vague arguments that do not have any clear concept of what equality means.
“How could you deny marriage to people who are so in love?” etc. This is the classic fallacy of “argumentum ad misericordiam.”
This is the classic fallacy of the straw man. If the only argument for same-sex marriage were claiming that it’s heartless to deny marriage to two people who are in love, same-sex marriage would not have gotten this far.
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:21 am
Steve Billingsley makes a very good point.
It is noticeable in Europe how often political parties have refused to include contentious moral issues in their manifestos, even when a majority of the party hold a definite view on them. There is also a long-standing tradition, whereby all parties agree to allow their members a “free vote” on such issues in the legislature, or arrange for legislation on the issue to be introduced as a private member’s bill. This is the case, even when the ultimate vote shows a strict division on party lines.
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:22 am
I have seen no pro-SSM argument that argues that it is an objective good, either for the individuals involved or for society.
I have seen plenty of such arguments.
They just don’t stand up to scrutiny. They start off logical, but when you go over point-by-point, they either revert to the emotional appeals – or they just shut up.
I’ve noticed certain arguments instantly stop all attempts at logic – for instance:
That argument is intolerable for two reasons: first, because we’re supposed to accept that “marriage isn’t procreative” – but of course gays are not willing to accept that their unions are necessarily barren; “equality” means that they have the right to expect everyone to treat them as just as procreative as any other couple. Their argument necessarily requires that they flip back and forth, like Saruman who uses different voices on different people; the argument doesn’t hold up if both arguments are put together into the same space.
But also, gay marriage arguments require that we view children strictly through the lens of parental rights, not in terms of the child’s legal rights. This is because the same things that gays present as being incredibly important for themselves are also things they wish to deny their children.
Once again, we find arguments that stop making sense when you put them together. Relationships are important; it is a major human rights violation to deprive someone of the chance to have a relationship that is “important”, “valued”, “recognized by society”, or “that makes you different from other people”. But not having a mother-relationship is no big deal. Note the double standard.
Likewise, men and women are interchangeable – for the child. Obviously, men and women aren’t interchangeable for the adult.
Gay rights advocates are full of logical arguments. The only problem is, for every argument, they rely on a double standard – one standard for themselves (“marriage is procreative”, “male is different from female”, “relationships are important”) and a very different standard for everyone else (“marriage is not procreative”, “sexes are interchangeable”, and so on).
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:34 am
or they just shut up.
If you want to silence gay marriage “logic”, just start asking lots of questions about the point where parental rights start to conflict with what’s best for children.
Logic gives way to a thousand and one ways of saying, “People make decisions that aren’t about what’s best for children all the time, therefore there’s no reason why custody decisions should be about the child’s best interest”.
Except that custody cases are different, because we all have a basic right to expect that when a guardian is put in charge of guarding our interests, that the guardian (in this case the institution that grants custody decisions) will guard our interests – not some other person’s interests at our expense.
The only time a child is supposed to be deprived of the legal right to a relationship with that child’s biological parents is when severing that relationship is in the child’s best interest. That puts gay marriage claims in conflict with the child they claim to “love” so much. The basic question is, if, in a custody situation, what’s best for the child and what’s best for the parents are in conflict, whose interests should prevail?
Gay marriage requires that we prioritize gays as having a special claim that entitles their rights to be prioritized over the claims that children are entitled to make on those who guard their interests.
Notice that the minute gays stop insisting that we view them as “equal” – that is, as soon as they stop insisting that they have the right to force us to view procreative relationships and barren ones as inherently equal (even if that means we have to force people to lie, lose their religious rights, and force children into dysfunctional situations) – as soon as they stop demanding an equality that isn’t grounded in reality, the problem goes away. There is no objection that can be made to gay marriage when gays recognize that they have the right to claim recognition as life partners, but they don’t have the right to claim to be equal to procreative couples.
They compare themselves against childless couples, but that’s backwards: childless couples are entitled to claim procreative benefits (they have met all the criteria to qualify for “baby making benefits”) but don’t claim those benefits; gays are not entitled to claim procreative benefits, but want to anyway, even though treating them as procreative is dishonest and destructive.
August 2nd, 2012 | 11:43 am
David,
You write: “lifelong celibacy… doesn’t even work for Catholic priests, half of whom at any given time are not practicing celibacy…”
I am not Catholic but I find that an extraordinarily loose even reckless assertion. A definition of “celibacy” would be helpful and some sort of source for your numbers as well.
I ask because the clear inference is that at any given time half of all Catholic priests are involved in a sexual relationship with another person? Something that prevalent and so clearly counter to the established dogma and traditions of the Church, were it true, would dwarf the pedophilia scandal, would it not?
August 2nd, 2012 | 12:22 pm
Heraclitus,
“I have seen no pro-SSM argument that argues that it is an objective good, either for the individuals involved or for society. There are, of course, the very abstract appeals to “equality” – but what do you mean by “equality”?”
You say that no one argues that gay marriage is an objective good, but then in the next sentence you provide an example of just such an argument. You then make clear that you don’t find that argument persuasive, but all that means is that you’re not persuaded. It doesn’t mean that people aren’t arguing that gay marriage is an objective good.
Why not just say that you’ve never been persuaded by any argument for gay marriage? Why do you have to argue that those who accept the right of gays to marry are simply irrational? All of this intellectual contempt distorts the truth of the situation and is tiresome.
August 2nd, 2012 | 3:00 pm
I ask because the clear inference is that at any given time half of all Catholic priests are involved in a sexual relationship with another person? Something that prevalent and so clearly counter to the established dogma and traditions of the Church, were it true, would dwarf the pedophilia scandal, would it not?
david c.,
I think the information is known to anyone who is actually interesting in knowing it. There is a man called Richard Sipe who has a web site devoted to these issues. I have quoted from one of the documents below. You can check out his credentials on Wikipedia. I have never run across anything that made me doubt his work or his statements. If anyone can cite any substantive criticisms of what he says, I would be more than happy to take a look at them.
Celibacy is not a matter of dogma. It is a “discipline,” not a theological requirement for the priesthood. Married clergy from the Anglican and Lutheran churches who convert to Catholicism and become Catholic priests are permitted to stay married.
August 2nd, 2012 | 4:35 pm
I think the information is known to anyone who is actually interesting in knowing it.
What an incredible standard of proof you’ve brought us.
I particularly like how you cite people I’ve never heard of, who just say it’s true.
Would you like to be judged according to the same standards by which you judge others? Somehow I don’t think you would.
August 2nd, 2012 | 5:06 pm
Blake,
“or they just shut up”
If only.
August 2nd, 2012 | 5:44 pm
What an incredible standard of proof you’ve brought us.
I particularly like how you cite people I’ve never heard of, who just say it’s true.
Blake,
It is not my fault you have never heard of Richard Sipe. I can guarantee you that any Catholic who has a true interest in celibacy and sexuality in the priesthood would know who he is. I just did a Google search for “sex celibacy priesthood” and his was the sixth site that came up.
But I didn’t just assert certain things as facts. I linked to his web site, I linked to his credentials in Wikipedia, and I said, “If anyone can cite any substantive criticisms of what he says, I would be more than happy to take a look at them.” That is an open invitation to refute the information that I quoted, which you have not attempted to do.
Would you like to be judged according to the same standards by which you judge others? Somehow I don’t think you would.
Whom am I judging? I am citing the most accurate facts I can find about priestly celibacy. If you can find better facts, I would be more than happy to know what they are, and if they are convincing, I’ll change my opinion. But so far, I have no reason to doubt Richard Sipe. Do you?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact