The past week or two have seen some big developments, and a great deal of heated commentary - too much to respond to every detail and argument. Instead, just some headlines, and the briefest commentary on the main points.

The most important in terms of immediate change is that in Hawaii, civil unions are now part of the law - Governor Abercrombie has signed the legislation. Depending on how tightly you define “civil union”, this makes Hawaii the 12th US state to grant substantial legal recognition to same sex unions.

Maryland has a few more steps to go, but the state Senate passed legislation for full marriage equality. Approval by the House of Delegates and the Governor Quinn’s signature should follow quickly. More tricky is the ballot fight that will likely follow. Expect high profile campaigning by NOM and the Catholic bishops in opposition. However, there a couple of features to Maryland that could make the task of the forces of darkness more difficult: Catholic voices have been prominent in the fight for equality (as true Catholics really should be), and the title of the bill - “The Protection of Marriage and Religious Freedom Bill”. Now, how could NOM and the Catholic Church possibly present themselves in opposition to that?

The real fun has been around what will not happen - President Obama and his Department of Justice have announced that they will not defend DOMA in the suit between Massachusetts and the federal government. Be very clear what has happened here: the court has already ruled that DOMA (or specific clauses in it) are unconstitutional. The DoJ has simply said that it will no longer oppose the judgement - it has not itself decided to set aside the law. The outraged response from the wingnuts has been a joy to behold.

[ad#In post banner]

Nom sent out an urgent fundraising appeal as soon as the news came out that said, “It’s a constitutional outrage. Why do we even have courts if the president himself gets to decide which laws are constitutional?”

Fred Karger, at the Guardian

Actually, the President hasn’t decided for himself which laws are constitutional. That was the Massachusetts court, which ruled that DOMA is not. The president here has simply decided that he will not contest that decision - that he will not attempt to decide for himself. I also do not recall, in the wake of the Iowa decision on gay marriage in 2009, that NOM was then so concerned about respecting the ability of courts “to decide which laws are constitutional“. Instead, NOM have been vociferous in their attempts ever since to take it upon themselves, who are not even elected representatives, to overrule the courts on such matters.

Elsewhere, some conservatives are arguing that instead of the distraction of interfering in gay marriage, the President should be attending to the more urgent business of healing the economy: but here too, this misses the point. It is precisely by not interfering, by declining to intervene and oppose the court ruling, that he is leaving himself free to attend to more pressing business. It would be the contrary decision, to actively oppose the existing decision, that would represent a distraction.

Some conservatives have promised to make gay marriage a major election issue for 2012 - to which I can only respond, “Bring it on”. If they do, they will likely be every bit as successful as, say, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, or Sharron Angle in Nevada, who in a GOP wave year, last November managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Sadly, much as I would like to see it, it ain’t gonna happen. More astute Republican politicians, like the presidential hopefuls themselves, recognize that the game has changed, as the Baltimore Sun puts in a beautifully written piece, and it will not be an election issue. Homophobia is no longer a reliable vote getter, and does not fire up the base, outside the narrow base of social conservative fanatics. Outside this group, most people no longer care about gay marriage as an election issue - and those that do, like the gay/lesbian community themselves and some younger voters, are passionate in support. As the NY TImes puts it, gay marriage has waned as an election issue.

The Catholic right has also weighed in: an article at Catholic News Agency asked, “Gay marriage: Why do we oppose this again?“ and answered:

..marriage is either between one man and one woman (the “traditional” status quo) or it’s not. As Catholics, it takes a lot more to side against monogamous, heterosexual marriage than it does to justify or condemn deception in cases where human life is at stake. The first is supported explicitly in the Scriptures; the latter isn’t (specifically) discussed at all.

Well, no, actually. Scripture has remarkably little to say about marriage, and where it does, it is emphatically not about “one man and one woman”, but more usually, one man and many women - or even between two men: the prospective groom and the father of the bride to be, who negotiates the deal. (And the peculiar reference to “human life” is a complete red herring, attempting to identify the supporters of gay marriage with the abortionists).

The CNA expands on its theme:

There are two reasons we, as American Catholics, should oppose gay marriage: the first has to do with its fundamental opposition to the natural law; and the second with the threat it poses to the stability of family life in our society.

This is entirely specious. There is nothing in “natural law” to oppose same sex relationships, whether we interpret this much abused term as “what is found in nature”, or as the fulfilment of God’s intentions for human flourishing. Simple observation shows that same sex couples, and even same sex parent couples, occur widely in the natural world. Empirical research has also shown conclusively that for some people, same sex orientation is inborn, given by God - and his intentions for flourishing surely do not include any expectation that we should suppress and deny what He has made. There is no “threat to the family”, either. If it is true that marriage continues to social stability, by strengthening mutual commitment, support for the elderly, and a sound environment for raising children (as Pope Benedict has said), then this is an argument for, not against same sex marriages - because these arguments apply equally to all couples, same sex and opposite sex alike.

This is why some observers, such as Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post, have noted that even Mike Huckabee has (inadvertently) made a strong case in favour of gay marriage.

He pointed to a “$300 billion dad deficit in America every year. That’s the amount of money that we spend as taxpayers to pick up the pieces because dads are derelict in their duties and they’re not raising their kids and supporting them. . . . One of the reasons I came to the conclusion was not for an evangelical reason. It was seeing a lot of money that we spend as a state was spent in picking up the pieces of people whose lives were broken because their families were dysfunctional or shattered.”

Cue Daniel Patrick Moynihan. “He understood the economic reality of out-of-wedlock children,” Huckabee said.

Except - isn’t this an argument for same-sex marriage, not against it?

Unless you believe that the absence of the right to marry will prevent gays and lesbians from having children - and it doesn’t seem to be - you ought to be celebrating their desire to form stable unions and subject themselves to clear legal responsibilities. Gays and lesbians are clamoring for the right to avoid the very societal ill that Huckabee decries.

Just like Pope Benedict’s recent observations, these arguments in favour of marriage and family apply equally to all families - whether headed by same sex or opposite sex couples.

Related articles

• U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Response to DOMA Decision: Continued Demands for the “Right” to Discriminate (bilgrimage.blogspot.com)