Moral What???

According to the exit polls, a significant proportion of the electorate chose "moral values" as the deciding factor in preferring GWB over JFK. I understand this phrase as denoting opposition to reproductive rights (including stem cell research) and gay rights -- the primary "moral values" that GWB ran on, and the same "moral values" that conservative Catholic bishops condemned Kerry on. That Rove/Bush were intent on increasing the salience of these issues with their congressional motion to approve an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment was transparently obvious months ago. It seems to have worked, especially where ended up mattering most -- in Ohio.

In all 11 states where constitutional amendments banning gay marriage were proposed, they were approved. This includes two states that Kerry won, Michigan and Oregon, and the third-largest state Kerry lost--Ohio. It is almost certain that the campaigns for (and against) these initiatives and their presence on the ballot raised the salience of "moral values" for presidential voters.

It is worth noting that there were two types of amendments: narrow ones, saying only that only heterosexual marriage is recognized (e.g., ""It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage"), and broader ones that appear to prohibit the recognition of civil unions (e.g., "Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by [Ohio] and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."). Based on the ballot language and election results shown in the Washington Post, 7 or 11 amendments were of the broader type. Five passed with more than 75% of the vote, and the only two that received under 60% of the vote were the two states Kerry won (Ohio's amendment got 62% of the vote).

While the narrow amendments seem sufficient for a symbolic affirmation of belief in the goodness and rightness of heterosexuality and the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage, the broader ones seem to me as expressive mainly of mean-spiritedness. To refuse gay couples the right to marry, and then refuse to allow them any way to acquire any of the rights and privileges that accrue to married heterosexuals is simply cruel. (BTW, while I am now married, when I first moved to New York, I personally benefited from the state's domestic partnership registry, which gave me & my partner rights that appear to be precluded by the broader amendments that passed yesterday; this isn't only about gay rights.)

In any event, what is the import of this anti-gay marriage movement? I don't think that it is necessarily all bad. First, the issue has come up because of recent court rulings both outside and inside the U.S. that find the gay exclusion from marriage to be discriminatory and without legal basis. This is a move forward. This makes banning gay mariage a clearly discriminatory act, clearly an act of taking away civil rights. Banning gay marriage is an act that, even before it is executed, is clealry illegitimate from a liberal rights perspective. I think that the seeds for countering this movement have already been sown.

Second, for social and economic reasons having absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality, marriage really does need defending if it's going to survive much longer as a mass institution. Delayed marriage, high levels of out-of-wedlock childbirth, and high levels of divorce are not marks of moral depravity, but of increased options for women, decreased job opportunities for men, and social and economic policies that make it difficult for families to get by.

The attention brought to bear on marriage by this movement may -- it's possible -- help bring change. Third, many gays and many others supportive of gays have wondered whether gay endorsement of marriage is such a great idea. There are many critiques of marriage, and I'm not going to cite them here. The movement against gay marriage may help bring about a seperation of the religious trappings of marriage (all that "sanctity" crap) from the social and legal rights and obligations of parents and partners.

New arrangements are needed to ensure that children have adequate care and support regardless of who their parents are, and that partners can care for each other and be recognized as family units regardless of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs. If we can believe anything that Engels/Morgan have to about the changes over time in family form and in the formal/informal regulation of family, it does not seem impossible for additional change to come. (Although Engels does note that formal recognition of changes in family form have typically lagged far behind actual changes in family form.) I am cautiously optimistic that today's events will help bring these changes about.

One more thing about "moral values": The GWB who repeatedly used the phrase "culture of life" to denigrate both pro-choice forces and terrorists, implicitly linking the two, is also the GWB who as governor oversaw more executions (as I understand it) than any other governor in US history. (He obviously agrees with Orrin Hatch that "Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life.") He is also the man who, according to Bob Woodward, said "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the Earth in defense of our great nation."

I can respect Catholics (and others) who have a consistent pro-life (in the generic, not the trademarked sense) position, opposing abortion, capital punishment, and war equally. GWB, however, has about as much respect for life (especially the lives of non-Americans) as he does for democracy or truth, which is to say: none.