For gay marriage, difficult terrain ahead
Dante Chinni
Posted: 11.04.2009 / 9:00 AM PST
Over the coming weeks, one of the most discussed results from Election Day will probably be the rejection by Maine voters of a law allowing same-sex couples to marry.
After a string of electoral defeats, supporters of gay-marriage rights thought they might have a winner in Maine. The New England state has an ingrained strain of stay-out-of-my-business libertarianism. But 53 percent of voters (according to the tally early Wednesday morning) did not support the law.
Yet when the results are looked at through the prism of Patchwork Nation, they’re not completely unexpected.
Much of Maine is made up small-town “Service Worker Centers,” and those communities tend to lean against gay marriage. According to our analysis of a recent poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, more than 65 percent of those in “Service Worker Centers” oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.
The fight over gay marriage isn’t going away, however. And a look at the opinions in Patchwork Nation’s 12 community types shows how complicated the views on same-sex marriage are. It also shows how hard any efforts to legalize gay marriage may be.
Where the support is
Only two of the 12 community types show strong, solid majorities in “favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry legally,” according to data from the Pew Research Center survey, which was in August. In the relatively wealthy “Monied ’Burbs,” about 55 percent offer support. In the collegiate “Campus and Careers” counties, that number is about 58 percent. (A third community, the aging “Emptying Nests,” look be to very slightly in favor.)
The one “Monied ’Burb” county in Maine – Cumberland – supported the gay-marriage law by big margins – more than 60 percent as of 1 a.m. Wednesday. Meanwhile, the three “Service Worker Center” counties immediately around Cumberland voted against keeping the law. (Maine does not have any “Campus and Careers” counties.)
What can we say about America’s “ ’Burbs” and “Campus and Careers” counties? Both community types voted for Barack Obama last November by sizable margins.
But understanding the voter breakdown on the gay marriage is more complicated than simply looking at the last presidential race. Take, for example, the big-city “Industrial Metropolis” counties. Mr. Obama won them in a landslide, with 68 percent of the vote – the most of any community type. On the whole, however, they are not in favor of gay marriage. About 55 percent oppose it, according to the results from the Pew Research Center poll.
That number isn’t too different from the one in the “Military Bastions.” In these places, 58 percent oppose gay marriage. And this community type voted for John McCain last November.
The breakdown on gay marriage, in other words, has to do with more than politics. Broader cultural issues come into play.
The terrain ahead
For supporters of same-sex marriage, a look at Patchwork Nation shows difficulties in building a strategy around just the friendly territory of the “Monied ’Burbs” and “Campus and Careers.” Yes, the “Monied ’Burbs” are populous, but in most states, they are counterbalanced by large areas of land that contain other community types. And although “Campus and Careers” counties are spread out across the United States, there are not many of them overall, and they tend to be more isolated.
With these limitations in gay-marriage support, proponents of same-sex marriage may find voter referendums a hard place to win for a while.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:32 am PST
[…] Patchwork Nation: After a string of electoral defeats, supporters of gay-marriage rights thought they might have a winner in Maine. The New England state has an ingrained strain of stay-out-of-my-business libertarianism. But 53 percent of voters (according to the tally early Wednesday morning) did not support the law. […]
November 4th, 2009 at 10:09 am PST
You conclusion is correct: Referenda aren’t the way to go, not as long as majorities get to vote on rights for minorities.
The question is, what is the right way to go, when conservative Federal courts are hostile and occasionally sympathetic politicians are timid?
November 4th, 2009 at 10:12 am PST
“With these limitations in gay-marriage support [in only some types of communities], proponents of same-sex marriage may find voter referendums a hard place to win for a while.”
Voter referendums have not been initiated by any groups who support marriage equality for gays. Just as voter referendums were not used to establish laws for anyone who wished to marry. Legislatures and courts have defined marriage in America until this era of “religious terrorism.”
Asking people to vote and tell other adults who they can marry, is the same as adult children asking their parents who they should fall in love with and marry.
“Voter initiatives” turn out to be a rather dismal reflection on the people who sponsor them - a community of perpetual adolescents. That community seems to be spread throughout America, and growing.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am PST
I am haunted by the pictures of the anti-marraige people celebrating. They are so happy, but for what? To have taken away the rights of others…it is a chilling reminder that no one’s rights are safe if everyone does not have them. This mob will strike again, I fear.
November 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am PST
the fight over “gay marriage rights” can be stopped. OUTLAW CIVIL MARRIAGE ALTOGETHER. Put marriage back in the religious community where it belongs.
stop government entities from issuing marriage licences and elected or appointed officials from performing marriage ceremonies.
Marriage is a religious sacrament - keep it in religious institutions where it belongs. There are enough laws and statutes on the books to protect the rights of any two individuals, regardless of sex, who want to “shack up” together.
I maintain that when any government entitiy enters into the realm of marriage, that entity is violating the Constitution which guarantees SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
Why is there a license issued for marriage? There is no licence requirement for baptisim, the Eucharist, or ordination of priests and ministers. This violation of the constitution has gone on long enough.
We have become a nation of hypocrits…..it’s “against the law” to display any religious emblems (the Ten Commandments) on government property. It’s wrong to teach religion in school. BUT….IT’S OK FOR A JUDGE OR JP TO PERFORM A MARRIAGE CEREMONY AND IT’S OK FOR THE STATE TO ISSUE A MARRIAGE LICENSE
I cannot help but wonder when some smart lawyer will see the light and take this to the Supreme Court as a matter of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
November 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am PST
Heterosexuals have not protected the “institution” of marriage so why should they be so concerned with gays getting married?? This is a ridiculous! Leslie’s comments hit the nail on the head. And to Faith, civil marriage is there to protect the rights of both parties….people married in the church get divorced the same as non-religious people. I don’t support organized religion because I don’t believe you can be a jerk everyday then on Sunday you go to church and it makes everything all better. There are a lot of very wonderful people who have never set foot in a church but have more concern for their fellow man and the world we live in.
Let people live their lives, gay marriage hurts no one.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
November 4th, 2009 at 11:08 am PST
Sorry Faith but you are sadly mistaken that marriage is a religious rite. The early Christian church did not preform marriages as it was a civil function. It was only when Rome had so totally collapsed and there was no longer a civil government in much of europe that the church was pressured into preforming them. This started with the Justinian code in the 500’s AD The church started developing rites in the 1,100’s AD. However it was not until the council of trent in 1563, that a Catholic marriage was required to be preformed in a Catholic church with a priest and two witnesses. Countries like France do not recognize church marriages and all marriages must be registered with the government. The benefits the states and the federal government give to married people are given by the government not the church.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am PST
I noted this description of Maine voter’s supposed leanings as ,” . . . stay-out-of-my-business libertarianism.” I am a STRONG libertarian but I find that the way gay people try and force their way into other peoples’ lives and institutions is anything but “libertarian”. First of all the government has no business whatsoever in the marriage business. They should issue domestic partnership agreements but these must NOT be limited to only SEXUAL relationships. They should enable people in ANY relationship to organize in this manner if the cohabit. If two people wish to get married, they should be free to do so in a church which shares their views and leave the rest of us out of it.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:35 am PST
[…] Law Allowing Gay Marriage New York Times Dejection fills ballroom after gay marriage vote AP For gay marriage, difficult terrain ahead Christian Science Monitor Maine voters repeal marriage-equality law Windy City Times Maine voters […]
November 4th, 2009 at 11:38 am PST
Instead of gay ‘marriage’, gays should fight to change laws to provide benefits to ‘civil unions’ rather than trying to redefine ‘marriage’. By reshaping all laws to give benefits only to those in a civil union, gays would bypass the “marriage” issue. And then all “minorities” who want to form a civil union would be covered, not only gay civil unions, but polygamists, families, sibling pairings, etc - any union of two or more people that are living together and are dependent on each other and share a living space. This is the ultimate outcome for any redefinition of “marriage” so in order to accomplish this, it must be renamed.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
November 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm PST
Jeff, being gay is not a religion. We don’t need to win “converts.”
Do you want voters to go to the polls and tell the rest of us which religions will be recognized? Which churches get benefits of tax-exemption?
Are “rights” to be handed out or won at the ballot box? Will they change over time with each election?
Then “rites” to marry in a church must be defended or won the same way.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm PST
People still have beliefs that will complicate issues that are relevant in their society. They consider marriage as something sacred, but are not disillusioned by the amount of DIVORCES that occur within less than six months, so I guess the word sacred is not appropriate. Gays and lesbians have rights just like everyone else, so what is wrong if they want to get married? If we put it to the vote of the people, gay marriage will always be drowned. However, I believe that some other source needs to step in and provide these people with the right to marry. It is very sad though that they have been deprived of this expectation time and again.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:10 pm PST
Bobby — Read Ignatius of Antioch’s letters for insight into a Bishop’s role vis-a-vis marriage in the early Church.
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
November 4th, 2009 at 12:49 pm PST
Gary, so if the homosexuals of the world decided to split off their own Christian based religion like so many other secs have that have found parts of the Bible too restrictive (e.g. Women are property to be stoned to death for any trivial reason, shellfish being an abomination, etc.) then as a religion (cult?) they’d have the right to push their beliefs on you. You need to ask yourself, what you are afraid of? Homosexuals have been around since recorded history and straight parents continue to have them so shouldn’t this energy be better placed on something positive?
We left England long ago to leave the persecution of “THE” Church and set up a separation of Church and State for people to live their lives and believe what they wanted to believe. Have we learned nothing in 300 years?
No one wants to drag you anywhere - they simply wanted to be recognized with EQUAL (not better) rights to love whom they choose to love just as you do. Leave your Bible out of it and try using some free will and thought and show some compassion.
November 4th, 2009 at 1:12 pm PST
[…] For gay marriage, difficult terrain ahead […]
[Admin: Readers don't think this comment adds to the discussion.]
November 4th, 2009 at 4:22 pm PST
[…]
November 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm PST
Another victory for prejudice and religion. Another loss for reason, fair play, equal protection under the law, no established religion and freedom of and from religion.
Oh Well, maybe next century.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:53 pm PST
[…] Patchwork Nation: American communities in a time of change. > Patchwork Nation Blog | The Christi… patchworknation.csmonitor.com/csmstaff/2009/1104/for-gay-marriage-difficult-terrain-ahead
November 4th, 2009 at 5:35 pm PST
A majority should NOT be voting on the rights of a minority. Excuse me, but who I decide to love and marry is none of your ******* business. I can date and screw as many guys as I want, I have a constitutional right to. I don’t give two damns what your religious views or opinions are. As Nancy Pelosi said, “I’m sorry, but these are people don’t believe in global warming. I don’t pay much attention to them.”
Fact is, your opinions are FOR restricting freedom, and imposing your archaic & outdated religious views upon a persecuted minority. You seek to destroy my life, a life that I made with my own blood, sweat, and tears. I’ve never once been in trouble with the law, never smoked, drank, or done drugs a day in my life, I’ve never hurt somebody physically, and I always make it my goal to help a friend or two that is in need. I grew up with a 4.0 in high school and college, and met my partner in college where we fell in love. I must ask you, how is this affecting your life? How is my lifestyle, which you are free to think is so horrible, affecting you in any way, shape, or form?
This will be won in the Supreme Court in a few years, and I’ll have the last laugh on you hateful *******. And by the way, no, I am not tolerant of your intolerance. And I am a bigot towards bigots, and I hate hateful people.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:47 pm PST
· Leslie wrote at:
November 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm PST
“Jeff, being gay is not a religion. We don’t need to win “converts.””
Of course the converts I am talking about have nothing to do with religious conversions but rather converts to the affirmative side of gay marriage in future ballot measures. I think it was amply clear that I was talking about voters changing their positions. The fact is there are churches that will marry gays now. It is the government recognition of those marriages that is at issue and there is no religious litmus test by government to that. And yes many rights are often a function of the mechanisms of recognition of those rights in particular societies. There is no right to gay marriage in most places. I suspect there will be in many places in the not too distant future. The question is how the path to that takes place. “Like it or not” attitudes can lead to voter backlash.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:51 pm PST
The percentages quoted in the article, the vote in Maine and — certainly! — many of the responses remind me of a depressing (even scary) survey I read about recently. If you put the Bill of Rights up for a vote — all our fundamental rights expressed in simple, everyday language, shorn of constitutional verbal flourishes — the Bill of Rights would be voted down by the American people.
Sad, but — just read some of the comments! — true.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:18 pm PST
The heterosexual-only marriage group is a vindicative and hateful group. You are wrong and will always be wrong no matter the results of polls. Gay couples have a right to marriage. Period.
November 5th, 2009 at 8:02 am PST
I am getting tired of being labeled as “vindictive and hateful” as a form of being pressured into having a particular political opinion.
Gays have a right to a life partnership, but I don’t see why they have the right to a presumption of paternity, or certain other benefits which are specific to parenting. I believe that the only time a child should be separated from its real parents is when doing so is best for the child, but this would require that we assume that the other parent of a gay man or lesbian is someone of the same sex - which I do not believe to be in a child’s best interests.
And since they won’t discuss the issue (either I grant them everything they want, no questions asked, or else I am “vindictive and hateful”) then it’s an impasse.
November 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm PST
Help me please. I’m not smart. Why is sex a political issue? The marriage part here is just a smokescreen. The alleged “normal” people don’t like “aberrant” behavior…bearing in mind that’s purely a vlue judgment (that I personally disagree with) based on ingrained prejudices that people choose to blame on religion. As with any other “substandard” beings it’s o.k. to deny them rights…..they aren’t really people anyway. Haven’t we heard this before?
“Social Conservatives” are nothing more than people more concerned with what YOU do than what’s actually good for society…because caring about the society would be socialist and that’s a SIN. I honestly hope someone can talk some sense to their lawmakers and get them to see that it’s THEIR responsiblity to protect minority rights. We’ve seen, repeatedly, that we can NOT count on the masses to do the right thing.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm PST
As this article shows it is a long road. Ask any black person fighting for civil rights, it is a long, hard road. This nation has not reached the tipping point yet where the majority of people see it is wrong to deny civil rights to anyone on account of characteristics. Just keep on fighting. We need to think of new stratgies such as attacking the notion that civil rights can be put up to a vote. And by the way if anyone thinks Obama could have changed the results, that probably is not true. No one should think that even as President he could have changed things. In his campaign he said ‘Yes We Can’ not ‘Yes He Can.’ He will do what he needs to do when the time comes but this battle is our battle to change the heart and soul of America.
November 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pm PST
Speaking from a “Mormon Outpost” today in Iron County, Utah, the LDS church okayed the City Council of Salt Lake City (I know, this is totally unconstitutional, but this is how the 60% of people who run this state play) to approve an ordinance protecting gay and transgender residents from discrimination. This will be interesting to see in a state where the legislature makes routinely discriminatory statements against gays, but it sure is nice to see the turn. So, yes, it is a long road to justice and equal rights for people of other than heterosexual gender, but the change towards equal rights is happening and will continue to happen ..because discrimination against someone for how they were born is just plain wrong.