Tipping Point

The US is a notorious chain-dragger on a range of progressive issues. They seem to have a disproportionate number of evolution deniers, extremist pro-lifers and ‘traditionalists’ (read: homophobes). Increasingly, these issues are being decided in state and federal courts and finding their way onto ballot propositions (like Prop 8). While there have been setbacks (and there will be more), I get the feeling that on same-sex marriage at least, the scales may well be reaching tipping point.

While Proposition 8 was passed in California, effectively banning gay marriage in that state – Massachusetts and Connecticut continued granting marriages to same sex couples. This week, Vermont became the first state to pass laws to legalise same sex marriage. The legislature overturned the governor’s veto with overwhelming votes in both houses (100-49 and 23-5). So, 3 New England states (of the 50) support gay marriage – that’s hardly a turning tide, you might say – especially when 29 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage…

What gives me hope on this issue is the recent battleground of mid-western Iowa. On April 3 their Supreme Court ruled the state's ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional – a clear victory in this war. Still, my interest was not only in the win – but in the arguments used by the prosecutors. Out-loud, in a courtroom, gay marriage opponents argued to continue the ban in order to: protect tradition, promote a good environment for children, promote procreation, promote stability in opposite-sex relationships, and save the state money. Let that sink in for a minute.

Now while, Judge Robert Hanson had the good sense to dismiss this arguments as insufficient, I’m pleased that these reasons were articulated – as I find them especially damaging to the opponents of same sex marriage. The prosecutors moved beyond simple religious (God Intended It) reasoning and skated out onto some very thin ice. Applied to the whole community, will marriage be denied to couples who create a ‘bad’ environment for children, or who choose not to (or are unable to) procreate? And are we seriously expected to contemplate that gay marriage undermines the stability of opposite-sex relationships? Please.

Overall, it was a pretty farcical case, which I hope does irrevocable damage to anti-gay crusaders everywhere. The stated reasons are based largely on a number of false gay stereotypes and could not possibly be digested by any self respecting individual (or court). The heterosexual community leaves in a giant glass mansion on this one, and I strongly suggest keeping these stones un-thrown.