November 11, 2008

The Prop Eights of the Future

From the irrepressible, indispensable Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, the new and future genius of all things statistical: 

At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.

The good news for supporters of marriage equity is that -- and there's no polite way to put this -- the older voters aren't going to be around for all that much longer, and they'll gradually be cycled out and replaced by younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era. Everyone knew going in that Prop 8 was going to be a photo finish -- California might be 
just progressive enough and 2008 might be just soon enough for the voters to affirm marriage equity. Or, it might fall just short, which is what happened. But two or four or six or eight years from now, it will get across the finish line.
Just as an aside, I noted on election night that Chuck Todd, MSNBC's former electoral genius, appeared to be hearing footsteps.  He seemed to strain to find some way to discover a miscalculation in all the pro-Obama forecasts, particularly those of Nate Silver.  Nate's serene, eerily calm and consistent prognostications of an Obama landslide were, of course, vindicated in force.  You had your run, Chuck; problem is, you've been supplanted by a genuine number-cruncher, a guy who's not so telegenic but can do something you can't: understand statistics.  If you want a further example of just how deep Nate goes, read his current comments on the Franken - Coleman runoff in Minnesota.

So take heart, marriage rights advocates.  The old homophobes aren't going to be around forever and your day will come.  Coccooned within their religious dogmatism, the Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons who are so certain that marriage is only "between one man and one woman" (although the Mormons, at least, have not always thought so), cannot see that the future will be very different.  Procreation occurs between one man and one woman, one must grant that.  But it is just like the religious, who are so confused about so many biological things (like evolution), not to see the distinction between this fact of life and emotional commitment, which is available to a broader class of humans.  To everybody, in fact.  I know enough about the generation to come, the kids who are now in their twenties or so, to know that they simply don't care at all, by an overwhelming majority, who gets married.  If heterosexuals want to get married, fine; if gays want to get married, fine; if nobody wants to get married, that works too.  

The religious, after all, are weighted down by ancient myths devised in the pre-scientific era (thousands of years ago).  Thus, naturally they are prey to ideas of "sin" in connection with sexual preference -- one chooses to be gay out of an errant appetite.  Silly beliefs like this cloud the perception that homosexuality is hard-wired, which is why religious zealots find themselves in the ridiculous position of arguing against studies, for example, which demonstrate homosexuality among penguins, specifically, Silo & Roy at the Manhattan Zoo.  Personally, what Silo & Roy do on the privacy of their own ice floe is without consequence to me.  Mormons, I guess, are somewhat freaked but can handle it as long as S&R don't try to sanctify their relationship with marriage.  Which is a shame, because they're both already wearing tuxedoes.

One way that the Prop 8 dreariness doesn't have to be repeated is if an Obama-liberalized U.S. Supreme Court considers the issue under an Equal Protection analysis.  Think about it.  In Brown vs. Board of Education, the issue was whether providing "separate but equal" schools for black children comported with Equal Protection.  No, it didn't, said the Warren Court.  The stigma of separate facilities makes such a practice inherently unequal.  Because of the fervent and irrational quality of homophobia, it is difficult for the intolerant to see that the issue of gay marriage is more or less exactly the same.  Providing civil unions while denying marriage stigmatizes a minority of citizens who possess a trait (sexual preference) over which they have no control, as assuredly as race.  

Most of us are now completely at ease with the holding of the Court in Brown.  Naturally, there are lingering Jim Crow advocates who will disagree now and disagree forever, as George Wallace said about segregation.  And there will be religious zealots who justify their bigotry and intolerance now and forever against gays, but history will also push them aside in the long run. They see their lingering battle as heroic; I think it's simply one more obstacle to overcome on the road to Equal Rights.


2 comments:

  1. Anonymous3:59 AM

    You mention "Younger voters who grew up in a more tolerant era." Here we go again. Why don't we just drop the pretense of tolerance -- drop the word completely. There obviously is no tolerance from the left toward people like me who hold traditional, Christian values (look at the recent demonstrations in Calif). It seems that the "tolerant" left finds no problem with labeling Christians as "homophobes." So let's not pretend that one group is tolerant and the other is not. Obviously, if Christians just tolerate, but do not endorse homosexuality, the the "tolerant" left responds with fierce, mean-spirited, hateful demonstrations. Seems like irrational bigotry to me. I guess it depends on one's perspective, but why don't we just quit talking about tolerance when there is none.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous6:30 AM

    "...denying marriage stigmatizes a minority of citizens who possess a trait (sexual preference) over which they have no control, as assuredly as race." Let me just throw in something from a theological perspective, although I know that such thinking is nonsense to most people. Emily, a little girl my wife, Patti, watches from time to time, told Patti (regarding gays), "they're born that way." Patti responded, " Emily we're all born that way," explaining that in the fall of Adam we inherited fallen natures ("in sin did my mother conceive me" Ps 51; and Paul's statement "Oh wretched man that I am" Romans 7). The problem between people like Patti and me and those who want to endorse homosexuality, is not that we don't feel that some people are inclined that way or that we are morally superior because in that area we are not inclined that way, but that such behavior is wrong according to God. The problem we have is that, because of our beliefs, we cannot put our stamp of approval on the behavior. That does not mean we cannot love and tolerate people who do not agree with our beliefs. It would be nice if the other side could extend to people like us the same courtesy. Also, I just want to mention that behavior and skin color are two different things. We are born with skin color, but we choose behaviors. Chosen behaviors are not something over which I have no control. For example, I might be inclined to lie, but I do not have to lie. Anyway, thanks for this outlet. God bless (and He can).

    ReplyDelete