| Let's say the state does the right thing and passes marriage equality legislation this year, perhaps in the lame-duck session. What would be the fallout? How would New Jersey feel about same-sex marriage by 2014?
Thanks to federalism, we have a good idea, because it is is now five years after the first Massachusetts "gay weddings." An AP article on the Massachusetts experience looks at statistics and the personal experiences of various people who were pro- and anti-marriage. The lack of federal recognition of the marriages clearly causes a lot of problems, but couples are generally happy and proud. Some have been divorced, but that's normal today. Our concern is the politics, and at the state level, marriage equality is now widely accepted in the state legislature:
One of the striking developments, since 2004, is the fading away of opposition to gay marriage among elected officials in Massachusetts....
The near-consensus now among political leaders is a far cry from 2003-04, when the debate was wrenching for legislators such as Sen. Marian Walsh. Her district, including parts of Boston and some close-in suburbs, is heavily Catholic and socially conservative, so when same-sex marriage became a public issue, "there wasn't an appetite to discuss it, let alone support it," Walsh said...
"They said marriage is always between a man and women," Walsh mused. "I used to think that was true. I had those same premises, but those premises were false."
That's not to say that there is no opposition, for example "Opposition to same-sex marriage remains strong in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, though church leaders are less vocal on the issue than a few years," but the loud complaints seems to have faded to real zealots. After all, the Church doesn't accept divorce either, but few people even think of voting on the issue even though Christ was quite clear on the subject. I had to laugh at the hypocritical complaints of this guy:
Statewide, there is no mandate that schools teach about same-sex marriage, but [Catholic law professor Scott] FitzGibbon said he was troubled by some local districts' policies. Citing a 2004 anti-bias directive in Boston, he said a teacher there could risk his or her career "by encouraging an examination of the cons as well as the pros of same-sex marriage."
I went K-12 to a public school in a liberal state, and church school too, and I can assure the professor that no teacher ever discussed the "cons" of marriage. Imagine the conservatives if they found out public school teachers were told to teach about reasons for couples not to get married!
I think the statistics are worth noting too:
According to the latest state figures, through September 2008, there had been 12,167 same-sex marriages in Massachusetts - 64 percent of them between women - out of 170,209 marriages in all.
I find this very impressive because that is 7% of all marriages, and that's comparable to the percentage of homosexuals in the population. For example, 4% of 2004 and 2008 voters self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual. I've seen critics try to claim that not enough people are applying for marriages or civil unions, but now I'd say Massachusetts proves that idea is false.
Overall, the Massachusetts experience of five years of marriage equality shows that it will be widely accepted. By 2014, New Jersey could have many happy gay couples and our politicians could still enjoy their safe incumbency.
(Thanks to digitall565 at Open Left for pointing out this article.) |
