Gay marriage rushed into campaign 2004 like a flash flood on an arid riverbed, raising the rhetoric faster than the political ground could absorb. Like a swollen creek after a sudden surge, the battle lines in the debate are murky. It’s unclear where the spillover is going to occur, or how.
The politics surrounding the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman are opaque, too. Have advocates of gay marriage pushed the limits of public acceptance too quickly? Are defenders of traditional marriage prepared to effectively engage the battle? Voter sentiment is clearly in flux and shaped not only by what is said about the issue, but who says it and how it’s articulated. There is preliminary evidence that the issue could provide a political advantage to advocates of traditional marriage, but a secular shift toward cultural relativism might wipe out this gain.
Given the controversial nature of the topic, many in the political class have not known how to handle the issue. Weighing into the fray, Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, recently traversed the tricky shoals surrounding this issue in a memo to his colleagues. His analysis underscores why language and leadership are critical in helping voters sort out this issue.
Despite the assaults on marriage in modern culture, voters believe traditional marriage holds a special place in our culture, voicing some acceptance of “gay civil union” but frowning on “gay marriage.” Citing a March survey of 1,000 registered voters by pollster Dave Winston, Mr. Santorum notes the large differences between gay civil union (48 percent-43 percent favor-oppose) compared to gay marriage (27 percent-61 percent favor-oppose).
A majority of voters also support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman (57 percent-39 percent favor-oppose), yet they have concerns about the impact of such an amendment on civil rights. Voters split almost evenly when asked if such an amendment would discriminate against gay citizens.
Navigating through these conflicting views challenges both sides in the debate. The survey notes that when the constitutional amendment is defined as “preserving the institution between a man and a woman,” support for traditional marriage carries an 18-point advantage; when it’s defined as “banning gay marriage” support drops by 29 percent. It’s critical, according to Mr. Santorum, to “remain committed to civil rights and showing tolerance, while asserting that certain groups do not have the right to redefine marriage for the entire society.”
Given these crosscurrents, what are the political implications? Mr. Santorum suggests that how it gets defined has a major impact on who captures the advantage. His theory received support last month in a Massachusetts state senate race that some considered a “barometer of gay marriage as an election issue,” according to the Associated Press. In a heavily Democratic district, Republican Scott Brown, who opposed gay marriage, defeated Democrat Angus McQuilken, a strong gay-marriage proponent. Several analysts suggested Mr. Brown could have never won were it not for the candidates’ polarized views on marriage. Indeed, 27,000 Democratic ballots were cast in the presidential primary in that district in 2004, compared to 10,000 Republicans, indicating a massive crossover vote to elect Mr. Brown.
Yet before traditional marriage supporters pop the champagne corks, there is a more sobering consideration. The inconsistent poll numbers are symptoms of a deeper cultural malady. All sides in the debate claim to be protecting some kind of “rights.” Yet, as professor Hadley Arkes observes in his book “Natural Rights and the Rights to Choose,” these so-called rights have been detached from any kind of objective moral principles, so how do we determine which ones are more valid? As Mr. Arkes says, the man on the street may know nothing of Nietzsche, Heidegger or post-modernism, but he has absorbed their (its) moral relativism. We are left to evaluate the legitimacy of institutions like traditional marriage without any basis for judgment other than personal feelings. Today a “majority” supports traditional marriage, but most are unclear why.
This debate deserves a deeper dialogue and more intense introspection, lest it devolve into another torrent with both sides talking past each other. Mr. Santorum deserves credit for trying to redirect the flood waters.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.