Marriage already redefined

Last week, about the time the Supremes finished hearing oral arguments in the two gay marriage cases, Time put out an edition with the cover story "Gay Marriage Already Won." You can buy the issue with a cover showing two men or two women kissing.

During the second case before the Supremes Chief Justice Roberts made a lot of noise about gays being "politically powerful," noting the slew of senators trumpeting their support of marriage equality. Perhaps Roberts was saying "Don't bother us, you can get there through politics."

Many in the gay community are telling Time (and Roberts), "Not so fast." There are still 33 states that ban gay marriage and most of them in the state constitution. According to Nate Silver the last few states may not overturn their ban for another decade. Edie Windsor, at the center of one of last week's cases, is 83 and doesn't have a decade.

We may no doubt win, but we haven't won yet. Our opposition will be fighting nasty. Heroes (on our side) will still be created.



Ari Ezra Waldman reviews the arguments against gay marriage along with their refutation. He actually posted this before the cases were heard last week, alas I'm only getting to it now. The rundown:

* The country has an interest in upholding morality. But the Supremes have already ruled that morality, especially moral disapproval of a group, cannot be the sole reason for discrimination.

* We can't afford granting gay couples federal benefits when money is scarce. Again, Supremes have already ruled that administrative costs cannot justify discrimination.

* We as a nation need the uniformity of DOMA's denial of federal benefits while states work out who can and can't get married. Repealing DOMA has no effect on the states working through the issue.

* The state has an interest in the optimal family structure and in encouraging straight couples to produce babies within marriage. This is really the only argument that got much airing before the justices.

The reply to the last one has two parts:

* Gays used to be portrayed as promiscuous. This argument actually claims that gays shouldn't marry because straights are promiscuous.

* Banning gays from marriage does nothing to promote straights to get hitched.



Brian Dickerson in the Sunday Free Press notes that marriage has already been redefined, and not by gays. These days 48% of women give birth to their first child before getting married. This change started more than 20 years ago. Yes, two parents are better, but the sex of the parents doesn't matter. Perhaps excluding some people from marriage convinces others that marriage doesn't matter?

That question is worth exploring. But the consequences of the trend needs to be taken into account. Do we condemn these women or help them finish their education? Do we offer gov't support or do we pay for remedial education and incarceration of their offspring? But however we help these single-parent families it is completely separate from barring some people from getting married.