Reacting to Rapid Changes

I was struck by this comment in “First Read,” a weekday wrap-up of political news put together by Chuck Todd and others at NBC News:

If you follow American politics day by day, tweet by tweet, poll by poll, and speech by speech, it’s easy to lose sight of the biggest story over the past five years--just how much change (both socially and demographically) this country has witnessed over the past four years. The nation has its first African-American president who won re-election a year ago. A majority of Americas now support gay marriage, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that married same-sex couples are entitled to federal benefits. The country is on track to be a majority-minority nation 30 years from now. And the Senate is poised to pass immigration legislation giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship.

Taken together, this is a stunning amount of social change in a very short period of time. And all of that change helps to explain much of the partisanship and politics over the past four years. After all, when one side is pursuing change, the other side is often resisting it. In fact, the last time this country witnessed so much social change was in the 1960s (first Catholic president, civil-rights movement, environmental movement, Medicare, resistance to Vietnam War), and the politics back then was far nastier. Yet between the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and Obama’s election, the country was mostly running in place when it came to big social change. It’s why the two parties for those 30-plus years worked so hard to copy each other, rather than distinguish themselves. That’s not true anymore.

Today’s edition of “First Read” offers more here.

Parishes Reject Homophobic Rhetoric

This is one of those times when I feel proud to be a Seattleite:

At least six Catholic parishes in Washington state have ignored the Seattle Archbishop’s call to gather signatures for a referendum repealing the state’s recently-enacted marriage equality law, calling the effort “hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.” “Seattle’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church gave the Rev. Tim Clark a standing ovation Sunday” when he announced that the parish would not be participating in the anti-equality effort ...

As Think Progress notes, “Opinion polls have consistently shown that Catholics reject the Church’s opposition to marriage equality, with nearly three-quarters of Catholics favoring ‘either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry (43%) or allowing them to form civil unions (31%). Only 22% of Catholics say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.’”

The full report is here.

One Step Forward, One Back

Earlier this week, Washington’s Democratic governor, Christine Gregoire, signed landmark legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the Evergreen State. Today, New Jersey’s Assembly passed a bill making same-sex marriages legal in that state as well, but New Jersey’s Republican governor, Chris Christie, has already declared he’ll veto it. Christie says he would prefer that the issue be put to a public vote, but that’s nothing more than a delaying tactic.

As The Associated Press reports, the odds of overriding Christie’s veto are high. But that doesn’t mean supporters of marriage equality in the Garden State are ready to give up:

The bill would need several Republican votes in each house to override the governor; Christie himself essentially guaranteed that that won’t happen.

With that in mind, Democrats who identified same-sex marriage as their No. 1 priority for the two-year legislative session that began in January have adopted a longer view. They say there’s no rush for an override vote, especially because the Legislature has been unsuccessful in every prior attempt to override Christie, most notably to reinstate a surcharge on millionaires.

Instead, they plan to bide their time in hopes that support for gay marriage--currently 52-42 percent in New Jersey, according to one recent voter poll--will continue to grow.

Dems are right in their calculation. Recent polls show a majority of Americans now approve of same-sex marriage. And even Jim Daly, president of the right-wing group Focus on the Family, concedes that a rising tide of young people who favor marriage equality means “we’ve probably lost that [debate].”

It’s only a matter of time before New Jersey falls in line behind Washington, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., in granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Marriage Equality Is Now the Law

It’s a day to stand up proud as a Washingtonian:

In a crowded reception room surrounded by applauding gay couples and lawmakers, and with media from around the country looking on, Gov. Chris Gregoire on Monday signed landmark legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in Washington state.

The historic event brings Washington in line with six other states and the District of Columbia, which allow gays to marry.

With the signing, Washington also becomes the first state in the country to strike down state law that specifically limits marriage to one man and one woman.

Click here to read the Seattle Times report on this historic event.

READ MORE: “Marriage Equality Reaches Washington,” by Steve Benen (The Maddow Blog).

Same-Sex Marriage Votes Coming Together

With Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire’s recent backing, it looks as if Washington might soon take the important step of legalizing same-sex marriage. As the Associated Press reports:

As lawmakers held their first public hearing on legalizing same-sex marriage, a previously undecided Democratic senator on Monday announced her support for the measure, all but ensuring that Washington will become the seventh state to allow gay and lesbian couples to get married.

The announcement by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, that she would cast the 25th and deciding vote in favor of the issue came as hundreds of people filled the Capitol [in Olympia] to advocate for and against gay marriage. ...

The state House is widely expected to have enough support to pass gay marriage, and Gov. Chris Gregoire publicly endorsed the proposal earlier this month. If a marriage bill is passed during this legislative session, gay and lesbian couples will be able to get married starting in June unless opponents file a referendum to challenge it. Opponents have already said they will.

The Political Carnival notes that “Gay marriage foes [attending the hearing] wore buttons that said ‘Marriage. One Man. One Woman.’” The blog goes on to quip: “The buttons should have added, ‘… at a time.’ See: Gingrich, Newton Leroy.”

READ MORE: “Historic Senate Vote Clears Way for Gay Marriage in State,” by Andrew Garber (The Seattle Times).

Good for Gregoire

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire took an important step toward marriage equality, Reuters points out,

announc[ing] her support for gay marriage legislation on Wednesday, potentially putting the state on track to become the nation’s seventh to fully recognize same-sex unions.

Democrat Gregoire, in the final year of her second term, is backing legislation to be introduced before the Washington state legislature, which reconvenes next week.

“It is time in Washington state for marriage equality,” said Gregoire at a media conference in the state capital of Olympia. “It is time, it's the right thing to do.”

Six U.S. states currently allow same-sex marriage: New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa. Gay marriage is also legal in the District of Columbia.

The Seattle Times has more on Gregoire’s decision.

Proposition 8 Overturned

Despite howling from loony, bigoted right-wingers, a U.S. district judge’s ruling today on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8--which insisted in 2008 that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”--is definitely just, reasonable, and fair. From Think Progress:

Moments ago, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Proposition 8, passed by California voters in November 2008, which prohibited same-sex couples from marrying in the state. Walker found that the Prop 8 undermined both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, arguing that “[e]ach challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation”:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Judge Walker, by the way, was appointed to the federal district court by President George H.W. Bush.

There’s more on his ruling from Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen.

READ MORE: “Proposition 8 Ruling: Don’t Pick the Caterer Just Yet,” by Linda Hirshman (Salon); “Proposition 8 Overturned: The Facts, Not the Law, Matter,” by Marc Ambinder (Atlantic Monthly).

Should Voters Not Always Have a Say?

Blogger and educator Bobby Cramer (aka Mustang Bobby) makes an excellent point in The Reaction today, reflecting on Tuesday’s disappointing vote to overturn Maine’s marriage equality law:

Beyond the analysis of who voted for or against the measure and what part of the state they lived in, one of the questions that arises is whether or not such a question should even be put to a popular vote. Are there some rights that are so fundamental that leaving them up to the whims and the machinations of the campaign trail puts them in danger? Do you really think that the people of Kansas would have repealed state laws that allowed school segregation in 1954? What would the state of civil rights be if, in 1964 and 1965, Congress had not passed federal legislation that established fair housing and voting rights and had instead left them up to the states? Would Virginia have repealed their miscegenation laws without the ruling from the Supreme Court in 1967? Would women have the right to vote had it been left up to the states like it was in 1920 before the passage of the 19th Amendment?

The response of a lot of people is that the voters should have the final say, and if they pass a referendum, that’s it. That is a noble sentiment, but that’s not the system we have. We have a representative democracy; we elect people to go to the city council, the county commission, the state house, and the United States Congress to do our business for us and to do more than just be a rubber stamp. And we have an equal part of our government in the judiciary that oversees whether or not the laws that are passed by the people or the legislature are fair or are equally applied. Just because a majority of voters cast a vote for an issue doesn’t make it right; our history is replete with unjust laws that have been voted through. Case in point, Colorado’s odious Amendment 2 that “would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action from recognizing gay citizens as a Protected class.” It took a Supreme Court ruling in 1996 to say yes, indeed, in some cases, gay citizens have the same rights as everyone else and can sue for discrimination. In short, the voters can--and have--made mistakes. They can be swayed by emotional arguments that have no bearing on the law, and as is the case of marriage equality, fear and loathing of The Gay isn’t far beneath the surface.

Cramer’s full post can be found here.

I’m in agreement with Cramer on this matter. Sometimes, lawmakers need to step up and take actions that are in the best interests of the nation, even if Americans don’t necessarily recognize those best interests. Fear of change--which is always going to be with us--can’t be allowed to stand in the way of justice, equality, or public assistance, regardless of whether the fear has to do with gays and lesbians getting married, health-care reforms, or the short-term costs of long-term advances.

As pertains to same-sex marriage, though, Katie Connolly of Newsweek’s political blog, The Gaggle, reassures us that today’s obstructionists are fighting a losing battle:

I tend to think of gay rights as a generational issue. Nate Silver, the FiveThirtyEight blogger who builds extraordinarily insightful electoral models, finds that support for banning gay marriage is eroding at a pace of 2 percentage points each year. Young people tend to be more supportive, and over time, I think that view will prevail. In years to come, opposition to gay rights will be as outdated a mindset as denying women the vote seems today. The train is moving in one direction, and, like many movements before it, young people are driving.

There are lots of reasons young people are less bothered by gay rights than older folks. Young people are more comfortable coming out than ever (although I imagine it’s still no easy feat). More and more young people know someone who is openly gay, and research conducted by Gallup indicates that people are more likely to support gay rights, like marriage, if they personally know someone who is gay. A Hattaway Communications/Lake Research Partners poll conducted earlier this year in Massachusetts also found that opposition to gay marriage had diminished significantly since that state first legalized it more than five years ago. As Massachusetts residents grew accustomed to having gay married couples in their state, the poll found that they even began to associate marriage equality with promoting family values.

So, while same-sex marriage supporters in Maine, California, and elsewhere are justifiably frustrated now, they might rest assured that their viewpoint will win out in time. How much time is needed, of course, can’t yet be judged.

READ MORE: “Urban, Rural Divide Defines Differing Views on Marriage,” by Kevin Miller (Bangor Daily News).