In this article she posted many of the changes which have occured recently.
She reported: “The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage, providing a toehold in the heartland. And the Vermont Legislature legalized gay marriage, marking the first time that elected lawmakers, rather than state judges, initiated such change.”
This latter development is important and it is well that Harrop notes this. While one may agree or disagree regarding gay marriage, the legislature making the move, rather than judges making a decision is an important step in this process. Legislators are elected and can be held accountable. The move towards democratization of the process is a positive step as the representatives of the people are in fact, doing their job.
She later wrote:
“There’s much to be said for letting states settle the question of gay marriage, one step and one jurisdiction at a time. This pragmatic approach does not always sit well with gay rights activists. They consider marriage a basic human right that should not be honored in one place and abridged in another.”
This is also true. There is a deep divide whether marriage is a right, and one that the need for licensure seems to give weight that it is not an inherent right. While one has a right say to free speech, they would have to obtain a license to exercise that free speech in certain conditions. The same is true for heterosexual couples as for homosexual couples. The states have statutory authority to restrict or grant licenses, and the people have a right via the legislature to express their voice. Granting the rights of legal status are not analogous of limiting exercise of property rights, visitation rights, and expansion of benefits of employment, public housing and services etc. to homosexual couples. Many gay activists understandably wish for the process to be expedited, but this is not in their long term interests. Roe v Wade is still not accepted by large parts of the nation, and as Harrop reports, is still looked on unfavorably from a Constitutional vantage point by many “Pro-Choice” legal experts. In the end states will make this decision, and for all parties this is the best remedy. States are closer to the people and in that view are more democratic than federal interventions.
Harrop also reports on the changing of cultural norms:
In a poll done shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court threw out the ban on same-sex marriages, over half those residents surveyed said they wanted a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to between one man and one woman. But a poll taken three years later found that 56 percent of the Massachusetts respondents would oppose such an amendment.
What happened in Massachusetts? Gay marriage had become legal, and the sky hadn’t fallen in. People got used to the idea.
The strongest ally for homosexual partners who wish to become legally married is the changing of cultural perspectives on the norms of human relationships and sexuality. Harrop does not report about another factor that leads to shifts in cultural norms and mores, the role of the media. Right or wrong the media has framed homosexual relationships in positive light or at the very least in neutral lights. This along with homosexuals become more visible and vocal in society has lead to the formation of new cultural perspectives regarding this aspect of human sexuality. Younger people are more attuned to viewing homosexuality as an alternate form of human sexuality and not an aberrant or discrepant form of sexual expression. The media has played a large part in this normalization process, and an occlusion of the old paradigm has coalesced with the formation of a newer paradigm.
There is also the perception among many that this issue is a human rights issue. Once that perception becomes the reality, in a democracy the outcome is inevitably going to side with the group that is seeking a rise in their status to acceptance. This is not inherently a bad thing; while for some it may be emotionally painful. It is merely the reshaping of the norms of a society and has happened throughout history. Of course many will reply that homosexuality is the bane of a powerful culture and a sure sign its demise is imminent. That is a ludicrous proposition based on emotion and not fact. Homosexuality was practiced by segments of society that were rather formidable in history. Cultures decline for other reasons, usually economic and military, apart from the practices of people regarding their sexual choices.
Harrop correctly concludes that the “straight path” to change is often not as beneficial as the slow steady road that this issue seems to be taking in American society.