Thank the Law for Marriage Equality Momentum

A_scaliaIn previous columns, I have argued that even though legal decision-making is supposed to be insulated from the political winds of the day, politics can move law. Public opinion not only gives judges an indication of how well-received their decisions will be, but it can also give them license (and political cover) to make tough choices on divisive issues. Some judges explicitly consider versions of public opinion when they inquire into Congressional intent and consider the majorities that voted for a given piece of legislation that might be up for constitutional review. We saw Justice Scalia make counterintuitive use of Congressional majorities in the Voting Rights Act case, for example.

The judiciary is highly politicized, and contrary to nostalgic lamentations about modern hyperpartisanship, judicial nominations and judges' responsibilities have always been red meat for politics. Democratic-Republicans were furious with President Adams and the Federalists who pushed through the nomination of Chief Justice Marshall minutes before the end of the last Federalist majority in Congress. They, and their subsequent iterations, made judicial reform and nominations central pieces of their platforms.

Judges also reflect political changes in more subtle ways, declining to get too far afield from the vanguard of public opinion unless there is proof of an "emerging consensus" among the population about a particular issue. This is the reason Justice Scalia insisted on making the erroneous statement that sociologists are split on the issue of gay families. It also explains why Justice Alito said that gay marriage is younger "than cellphones" and why supporters of Prop 8 and DOMA warned against broad pro-equality rulings because the issue of marriage "is being worked out in the States." There is no "emerging consensus," they argue; we, like the experts, are wrestling with the issue, debating the laws and unsure of what to do.

Set aside the legitimacy of that view, which enforces a natural bias against judicial leadership and in favor of judicial submission to the elected branches of government, and notice how the opposite may be true in the case of the freedom to marry. 

WapoThe media's favorite gay rights topic isn't substance; it's a process story about how fast public attitudes have changed over such a short time. If you look at the Washington Post's graph on the change over time, you will see opposition to marriage equality falling from about 60 to 48 percent from 2004 to 2009. There is no doubt that vigorous education campaigns contributed to that fall. But, between 2009 and 2010, public opinion reached a plateau, with opposition hovering around 48 to 50 percent, but not falling. 

Then came the avalanche of court decisions striking down DOMA and Prop 8. In July 2010, Massachusetts Federal District Joseph Tauro struck down DOMA. Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 in August 2010. Then came Edie Windsor's case and a similar challenge to DOMA in Connecticut. The Ninth Circuit then took down Prop 8. Out in San Francisco, Judge White declared DOMA unconstitutional shortly thereafter. And the dominoes kept falling as 23 bankruptcy court judges in Los Angeles joined a decision finding that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The media covered each decision and at each news spot, roundtable discussion, or talking head ping-pong match, mainstream and online media brought on legal and political experts. They talked about marriage and gay rights at length, forcing traditionalists into ever more desperate arguments that sounded more ridiculous every minute. The public was watching and taking note, realizing that the opposition to gays marrying was run by a cadre of bigots and realizing that there is nothing wrong with love.

Court cases laid bare the emptiness of opposition to the freedom to marry. Several powerful and well-argued cases at the front of our quest for equality put the question in stark terms of justice, without the cacophonous confusion of political campaigns and elections. It quickly became clear that a legal strategy must go hand-in-hand with a political strategy; one could not wait for the other.


  1. David says

    The law is a big part of it, but I think what is really ramping up the movement is our wins at the ballot box last November. It’s one thing to have the courts on our side, but to have wins in public opinion? That’s huge.

  2. Michaelandfred says

    While I won’t disagree, I think another huge catalyst was the passing of Prop 8 itself. I think it woke a lot of people up, both liberal and conservative. I think for a lot of people who are middle of the road heterosexuals who don’t have a stake and might personally not “get” the gay thing but believe in fairness were shocked to actually see up close, who might have themselves voted for it, or not at all, assuming it would lose….I think a lot of those people got a real wake up call and realized how much animosity there really is out there.

    If even California could pass it….. I think for a lot of people it then became something they felt they needed to take a stand on. They saw the church’s and the money and the lies for the first time.

  3. BobN says

    Not quite sure why Portman is included when you talk about “marriage equality”. He still supports DOMA and Prop 8.

  4. Zlick says

    I agree with Michaelandfred. Both of them. But Ari’s right, too. And it would have been great if, in Response to Chief Justice Roberts, that lawyer who struggled to come up with reasons for the burgeoning public acceptance of equal marriage could have laid bare the very row of falling legal dominoes that led to being before the Chief Justice and his colleagues in the first place.

    So yeah, all of it. The legal avalanche, the politicians falling over themselves, the TV characters, and most prominently the coming out of gay people everywhere such that everyone now knows someone – or knows someone who knows someone gay!

    To me, though, Prop 8 itself is the keystone. In retrospect, I think it’s the best thing that’s ever happened to affect gay civil rights.

  5. Rich says

    We always stand on the shoulders of those who went before. As one of those whose marriage has been delayed by Prop 8, I have trouble agreeing that this was part of the progress we made. However, the court decisions since then and the ballot box victories in November have laid bare the animus that created 8, and thus illuminated the struggle. But it still feels like saying that the fact that slaves were beaten and raped was a good thing since it hastened the end of the Peculiar Institution.

  6. Rexford says

    The 2013 poll shown above indicates that 58% are for allowing gays to be married and 36% are against. But that leaves 6% who don’t have an opinion. I say throw those people in with 58%, to make 64%, because if you really don’t care enough to have formed an opinion on the subject by now, then you probably wouldn’t care if you’re gay neighbors were married.

  7. BrainVacation says

    I would also like to add the repeal of DADT had a great deal to do with changing public opinion. Many Republican senators were predicting chaos within the ranks which never materialized. The public realized that the bogeymen under the bed were not real and that gay rights were nothing to be afraid of. Thank you Ari for your continued analysis and accessible coverage.