Despite angry Republican denunciations of the Massachusetts courts decision, federal intervention to stop gay marriages is not likely. Republicans are threatening to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, but any enacting any law requiring ratification by 38 states is virtually impossible. As for the Democrats, just look at the six major presidential candidates: They all support civil unions but oppose gay marriage; they know they dont want to be talking about this issue next Fall. A Pew Research Poll in October found that while Republicans oppose gay marriage five to one, Democrats are split — 46% for and 48% against.
The states dont have the luxury of inaction, but theyre dealing with the issue at their own speeds. Vermont grappled with it in 2000. The state Supreme Court had ruled the previous year on behalf of three same-sex couples that the legislature had to pass a law giving them at least the same legal rights as married couples. But the justices made it clear in their decision that civil unions, which provide all the civil rights of marriage without the actual marriage, would be just fine. Then-Governor Howard Dean jumped on that life raft, backing a civil unions bill. The legislature passed it after contentious debate, Dean signed it without cameras in the room and Vermont made history. Some legislators in both parties lost their jobs that fall, but Dean kept his, and polls showed a slight majority of the state had accepted the unions law.
Massachusetts doesnt have that luxury because its justices did not provide an easy way out. The 4-3 decision said that under the state constitutions guarantees of equality, the state may not exclude qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage. Then, just to make sure the court wasnt the only controversial government institution in town, the justices delayed implementing their ruling for 180 days to allow the legislature to craft a law to implement the decision. Republican Governor Mitt Romney has said he will push for an amendment to the state constitution banning marriage rights for homosexuals. But hell have to wait — amending the constitution requires votes on any measure in two straight legislative sessions and then a statewide referendum, meaning nothing will happen on that front for three years. (Apparently John Adams didnt want hasty amendments when he wrote the states constitution 223 years ago). Some Democrats had been backing a civil unions bill before the decision came down, but now that bill wont satisfy the courts, and they dont want to push for full marriage rights. Many legislators are just throwing up their hands. If they do nothing, the courts decision will allow marriages and lawmakers wont take the blame — they hope.
The Louisiana legislature is not even contemplating gay marriage. Reform-minded lawmakers are still having no luck outlawing discrimination against gays. Protecting homosexuals from abuse and losing their jobs needs to come first. But the issue has come up in New Orleans. Ten years ago, the city council established a registry for homosexual domestic partners. By registering, couples could receive benefits from any employers offering them. Across the country, more than 50 cities and counties offer such registries. In 1997, New Orleans also began offering benefits to domestic partners of municipal employees. Now six city residents — five members of the Vieux Carr Assembly of God Church in the French Quarter and their pastor, the Rev. Gregory Pembo — are suing the city to abolish the registry and benefits, angry that their tax dollars are providing benefits to homosexual partners. A decision in the case is expected in the next six months.
Polls show younger Americans are far more supportive of gay marriage than their elders. In all likelihood, this issue will be settled in patchwork fashion — in individual states and cities — in years to come. Thats not new. In 1948 California was the first state to forbid a prohibition on interracial marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not conclusively strike down such barriers until 1967. Whether its fair or not, when it comes to divisive social issues, Americans sometimes need a little time to see things arent so black and white.