Opposing Gay Marriage Is a Waste of Your Time

Like those who stood against civil rights for African-Americans, gay-marriage foes are fighting a battle they can’t win.

National Journal
Ron Fournier
May 14, 2014, 7:57 p.m.

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Nine slender statues stand be­neath a win­dow to the Arkan­sas gov­ernor’s of­fice — bronze, life-size im­ages of the black chil­dren who in­teg­rated Little Rock Cent­ral High School on Sept. 25, 1957, and helped ig­nite the civil-rights era. “They de­fied pre­ju­dice,” says Gregory Don­ald­son, an Afric­an-Amer­ic­an Baptist min­is­ter from St. Louis vis­it­ing the dis­play with his wife Nanette. “They de­fied bigotry.”

A few blocks away, at the very same mo­ment, Sam­antha Head mar­ries her part­ner of sev­en years, Sam­antha Kertz. Their simple ce­re­mony is one of dozens of gay wed­dings con­duc­ted at the Pu­laski County Court­house since Sat­urday, when a county judge ruled the state’s gay-mar­riage ban in vi­ol­a­tion of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion. The de­cision thrust Arkan­sas in­to a fa­mil­i­ar spot: squarely in the middle of a civil-rights fight.

In 1957, the battle lines were hardened but the out­come was cer­tain: Even­tu­ally, the na­tion’s schools and oth­er in­sti­tu­tions would de­seg­reg­ate. And so it is now, when a gray, rain-spit­ting work­day in Little Rock il­lus­trates how far the gay-rights move­ment has come — and how far it will go.

As with the Little Rock school-de­seg­reg­a­tion crisis, the chief prot­ag­on­ists in this story rep­res­ent both the past and the fu­ture. Slightly ahead of his time (and his state) is Pu­laski County Cir­cuit Judge Chris Piazza, who ruled that a con­sti­tu­tion­al amend­ment over­whelm­ingly passed by voters in 2004 ban­ning gay mar­riage was “an un­con­sti­tu­tion­al at­tempt to nar­row the defin­i­tion of equal­ity.” Try­ing to turn back time are the likes of Re­pub­lic­an state Sen. Jason Rapert, a fierce op­pon­ent of gay rights who wants Piazza im­peached.

Every­body else seems to fall between Rapert and Piazza — neither her­oes nor vil­lains, all strug­gling at their own pace to ac­cept and ad­just to rap­id so­cial change. They re­flect the evolving Amer­ic­an pub­lic. In just the last week, pro­fes­sion­al foot­ball’s first openly gay play­er was draf­ted by an NFL team and a fed­er­al judge struck down Idaho’s ban on gay mar­riage, say­ing it re­leg­ated same-sex couples to a second-class status.

Don­ald­son, the black Baptist min­is­ter, wrinkles his nose when I tell him about the gay mar­riages un­der­way at the nearby court­house, not to men­tion what’s hap­pen­ing in the NFL and Idaho. “I’m not for gay mar­riage,” he seethes. “I’m against what God’s against.”

But wait. That’s pre­cisely the jus­ti­fic­a­tion giv­en by se­greg­a­tion­ist politi­cians of the civil-rights era. In Geor­gia, Gov. Al­len Cand­ler said, “God made them Negroes and we can­not by edu­ca­tion make them white folks.” Ross Barnett be­came Mis­sis­sippi’s gov­ernor in 1960 after claim­ing that “the good Lord was the ori­gin­al se­greg­a­tion­ist.”

I ask Don­ald­son, How can a black man echo big­ots to stifle gay rights?

“As far as hatred,” he says, “I would nev­er have hatred to­ward any­body.”

But you sound like a se­greg­a­tion­ist, I say po­litely. Don­ald­son and his wife seem like a kind, lov­ing couple, pil­lars of their com­munity. But he did sound like Or­val Faubus, the se­greg­a­tion­ist gov­ernor who de­fied the Su­preme Court in 1957 (and who, years ago, I caught crash­ing a Little Rock Nine trib­ute).

“There’s a dif­fer­ence,” Don­ald­son coos. “The dif­fer­ence is [ra­cists] in­ter­preted the Bible to sup­port their polit­ic­al am­bi­tions. I don’t in­ter­pret the Bible. I do what it says.”

Later, I walk in­to Bill Clin­ton’s old of­fice and shake hands with Arkan­sas Gov. Mike Beebe, a mod­er­ate Demo­crat I’ve known for years. Not sur­pris­ingly, Beebe’s po­s­i­tion on gay rights is close to the state’s main­stream opin­ion. While he op­poses dis­crim­in­a­tion against gays in the work­place, he be­lieves mar­riage is a uni­on between a man and a wo­man.

“It’s an­oth­er step for me to get to gay mar­riage,” he says. Even a stranger to Beebe’s nu­anced polit­ics would re­cog­nize him sig­nal­ing that both he and his state are evolving, al­beit slowly, to­ward that step.

When I com­pare his jus­ti­fic­a­tions for op­pos­ing gay mar­riage to those used by Faubus, Beebe sternly makes two dis­tinc­tions. First, the se­greg­a­tion­ist gov­ernor took ac­tions he knew were wrong to fur­ther his polit­ic­al ca­reer (Beebe plans to re­tire after his term ex­pires next year). Second, Faubus broke the law and “I wouldn’t do that.”

Someday, I say, leg­al bans on gay mar­riage may be ruled un­con­sti­tu­tion­al, and not just at a county level. Beebe smiles.

For lunch, I eat with At­tor­ney Gen­er­al Dustin McDaniel in his of­fice. Two weeks ago, he be­came the first politi­cian elec­ted statewide to en­dorse gay mar­riage. And yet, he plans to ap­peal Piazza’s rul­ing. The state is his cli­ent and he’s ob­lig­ated to ar­gue its case, McDaniel says, just as a de­fense at­tor­ney must rep­res­ent a known crim­in­al. Drag­ging a spoon through his soup, McDaniel out­lines his case against Piazza’s rul­ing, point-by-point in a sing-song voice that be­lies his am­bi­val­ence.

Polit­ic­ally, the am­bi­tious Demo­crat is thread­ing a needle. His para­dox­ic­al po­s­i­tion may al­low him to be a cham­pi­on of gays without an­ger­ing con­ser­vat­ive Demo­crats and in­de­pend­ents.

I tell McDaniel that he’s fur­ther evolved on the top­ic than Beebe, and that pub­lic opin­ion is mov­ing to­ward ac­cept­ance of gay mar­riage. In par­tic­u­lar, the mil­len­ni­al gen­er­a­tion, which soon in­her­its Amer­ica’s fu­ture, over­whelm­ingly em­braces the most tol­er­ant views to­ward ho­mo­sexu­als.

“I think we are put­ting for­ward le­git­im­ate leg­al ar­gu­ments” against Piazza’s rul­ing, based on the state Con­sti­tu­tion, he says. But, he adds, “I think from a policy per­spect­ive, yes, your the­ory is right. The trend is clear. Young Amer­ic­ans don’t see [gay mar­riage] as an is­sue at all.”

Which brings me to the Pu­laski County Court­house where the two Sam­anthas, both in their mid-20s and from nearby Jack­son­ville, Ark., em­brace and kiss after ex­chan­ging vows. Theirs is one of the last same-sex wed­dings be­fore coun­try clerks stop the prac­tice — after just five days — to await clar­ity on Piazza’s rul­ing from the Su­preme Court.

Hold­ing their mar­riage li­cense, Sam­antha Head says the last per­son she told about her sexu­al ori­ent­a­tion was her grand­moth­er. She was afraid a wo­man in her ninth dec­ade would ob­ject. In­stead, the grand­moth­er told Sam­antha, “Screw the con­ser­vat­ives and screw the die-hard Chris­ti­ans. You love each oth­er. So I love my Sam­mies.”

It’s easy to de­mon­ize con­ser­vat­ives and Chris­ti­ans. It’s harder to re­cog­nize that faith is a stern mas­ter, es­pe­cially among Afric­an-Amer­ic­ans whose an­im­us to­ward ho­mo­sexu­al­ity runs deep. We should know by now that so­cial change takes times, but the Amer­ic­an pub­lic tends to even­tu­ally get things right.

“The arc of the mor­al uni­verse is long but it bends to­ward justice,” Mar­tin Luth­er King Jr. said of the fight for ra­cial equal­ity. Five dec­ades later, Don­ald­son and his wife posed for pic­tures in front of the Little Rock Nine monu­ment and dis­missed the fight for sexu­al equal­ity. In the not-too-dis­tant fu­ture, their views on ho­mo­sexu­al­ity will pass in­to his­tory. Nobody can stop the arc of justice.

Mar­riage no­tices in Wed­nes­day’s Arkan­sas Demo­crat­ic-Gaz­ette in­clude scores of same-sex couples. (Ron Fourni­er)

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×