Is history unidirectional?

January 12 2009The Marriage DebateDavid Benkof Comments

Many gays and lesbians have assumed that gay marriage is inevitable by projecting past trends in public opinion into the future. This is a mistake, because history does not just move in one direction. The idea that previous generations always have fewer rights and freedoms than subsequent generations is demonstrably historically false.

For example, in 1977, it seemed like the Equal Rights Amendment was inevitable, but determined opposition by conservative groups, including vigorous participation by traditionalist women, doomed that proposal. Similarly, in the 1920s a lot of Americans - and Europeans - expected greater rights for women, Jews, and other minorities to be an inevitable consequence of the forward march of history. But the 1930s brought a retrenchment and a setback for civil rights of all kinds. In gay and lesbian history, setbacks have been related to anything from an orange juice spokeswoman (Anita Bryant) to a devastating plague (AIDS).

It is impossible to predict public opinion a decade from now based on public opinion today. It’s not like predicting how many amoebas will result after two hours if an amoeba splits in half every 10 seconds. Public opinion can be affected by unforeseeable events, by persuasive leadership, and by the Zeitgeist of the times.

Finally, there’s the concept of “low-hanging fruit.” To predict that 2.5 percent of the public will switch to support of gay marriage every  year is to ignore the fact that the more persuadable switch first, and each year of progress makes it harder to get people to switch the next year.

2 comments:

  1. Mark Barton, 12. January 2009, 13:19

    DB: “The idea that previous generations always have fewer rights and freedoms than subsequent generations is demonstrably historically false.”

    Sure, as I was saying to Fitz in the original thread, it _is_ crude math, but there’s no particular reason to suppose that anything more complicated is required to predict California in particular because it’s a 50% threshold to undo Prop 8, and there’s a lot more low-hanging fruit in the vicinity of 50%. If you ask me when we’re going to get to 70% in California and/or deliver SSM to the plantation states, I’m not nearly so sanguine.

     
  2. Fitz, 12. January 2009, 17:32

    There is also the very real possibility of legal rulings overturning same-sex “marriage’- even when enacted democratically. The fact of the matter is that multiple SCOTUS opinions posit marriage quo “marriage” as a constitutional right.

    This is much ignored but very real possibility. States no more have the ability to change the definition of a constitutional right than they can redefine “speech” or “religion” or “arms” in an attempt to achieve a desired policy. Simply put gay ‘marriage’ is transparently unconstitutional.

     

Write a comment: