DOMA's Dead, Long Live....What?

The Leave it to Beaver Cleaver Family

 A few nights ago we had dinner with some of our extended family--a sister-in-law of my two adopted nuyorican children, along with her her half-sister, whose mother is Colombian.  This is just the beginning of a complicated skein of relations and social origins that make up my extended family featuring numerous second (or more) marriages, step and half-siblings, adoptions, mixed couples, and so on.  There is not much "normal" in it, if by "normal" we mean the mythical US family made up of a nuclear couple in its one and only marriage, with two children, all the same race or ethnicity, all straight.  Now, we know that this is not always the typical family, but it is the norm--we can see it in the TV families of the 1950s and 60s (think Leave it to Beaver).  We can see this norm invoked in the non-traditional families that began popping up in the 1970s, ones that were edgy (One Day at a Time), comedic (Brady Bunch), or quaintly cute (The Courtship of Eddy's Father). They were--or tried to be--edgy, comedic, or cute precisely because they were not normal families.

Same-sex couple with two adopted children.
From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/
gay-family-photos-project_n_3436299.html

Though less powerful today--this norm still holds a sway over many Americans.  Witness the anger and grief over the Supreme Court's recent rulings dooming the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's Proposition 8.  A narrow majority, 5-4, declared DOMA unconstitutional.  Another 5-4 decision, with a different mix of judges, refused on procedural grounds to deliberate a suit regarding California's Prop 8, a ban on same-sex marriage.  This turned the case back to a lower court that had already ruled against the ban.  In effect, this legalized same-sex marriage in California (NPR story).

The narrow splits in the Supreme Court reflect the seeming polarization of the American people on the matter LGBT issues and their connection to marriage and family.  A recent Pew Survey finds that a narrow 51% majority supports the legalization of same-sex marriage.  But I said "seeming" because this percentage shot up dramatically from 32% in 2003.  Moreover, 2/3 of Americans support the idea of civil unions for same-sex couples, and 60% agree that "society should accept homosexuality." So there's a social sea change out there that the Court does not appear to reflect regarding the issue of homosexuality.

In a harsh dissent, Justice Scalia called the ruling a "judicial distortion," but what really irked him was the subtext he saw in it.  The ruling painted pro-DOMA people as "hateful," as an "enemy of human decency," as "monsters" (Politico).  I didn't read the entire 77 page decision, but summaries (e.g. Huffington Post) of the decision can be boiled down to two issues.  The majority found that DOMA violated the the Fifth Amendment's "due process" clause, and that it unjustifiably denied a class of people equal standing before the law.  That is unconstitutional discrimination (it's not surprising that the decision cited the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case that struck down a state law banning inter-racial marriage--Washington Post).

Justice Antonio Scalia
http://www.oyez.org/justices/antonin_scalia

Scalia came up with those terms characterizing those opposed to full equality for homosexuals, exaggerating the language of his judicial opponents.  I think he did so in order to make the point that he should be allowed to be morally comfortable with discrimination.  It is not hateful or indecent to treat LGBT folks as second-class citizens, and how dare you suggest that...

Other reactions were equally visceral.  Mike Huckabee, former governor and presidential contender and current Fox commentator, tweeted "Jesus wept," a curious equation of Lazarus and DOMA (what Christ-like figure will appear to call to DOMA "Come forth!"?).  American Family Association radio host, Bryan Fischer, trotted out the tired saw that the ruling would lead to a sexapocalypse: "The DOMA ruling has now made the normalization of polygamy, pedophilia, incest and bestiality inevitable. Matter of time."  More sedate, the Conference of US Catholic Bishops called it a "tragic day for marriage"  (Tweets at Religious News).  Or you can go over to Rightwingwatch.org and wade through a slew of all sorts of dire predictions and accusations, starting with Focus on the Family James Dobson, who claims that the DOMA ruling "threaten[s] the entire superstructure of society" (Superstructure? Apparently, he doesn't know what the term means, but I prefer to think he's channeling Marx...).

I could go on like this, but I'll just get more sarcastic and snarky.  On this issue there's a gulf between a sizable minority and slim majority of Americans.  Those opposed to full equality for homosexuals depict their discriminatory position as moral or legal while those in favor of that equality see it as immoral or illegal.  There's no easy way over this gulf.  Every advance of equality has involved failed efforts to reason with one another, and ensuing conflict and bitterness.  We'll just have to endure it, and know that people in a generation or two--just as we do now looking back on the civil rights movements--will shake their heads at us, wondering how we could have been so obdurate

By the way--this decision has had immediate consequences here in Michigan, where a

...federal judge has ordered Michigan to stop enforcing a law that has barred community colleges and many other government agencies (though not universities) from providing any benefits to the same-sex partners of employees (Inside Higher Education).

This is perhaps a sign that all states that have passed laws designed to deny government benefits to same-sex couples--that is, trying to DOMA them at the local level--will face legal challenges in the near future.

You say you want a polarization...well, you know...

A recent Pew Survey reports growing partisan polarization over the Bush and Obama years.  That is, over time, a growing number of people identifying as Democrats or Republicans strongly disagree with positions held by those of the other party.  For example, in 1987 23% fewer Republicans than Democrats agreed with the statements "The government should take care of people who cannot take care of themselves" and "The government should help more needy people, even if it means going deeper in debt (social safety net)."  This year there is a 41% difference.

From "Partisan Polarization
Surges in Bush, Obama Years"

And as you can see in the chart to the left, partisan gaps have grown greatly over issues of the environment, and immigration.  These changes result not from growing Democratic support for the environmental regulation and comprehensive immigration reform, but because of sharp declines within the GOP ranks for these positions.

Conversely, the growing divisions over religiosity and social conservatism (i.e. "family values" positions) are due to changing attitudes among Democrats.  For example, in 1987 86% of Demos agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about marriage and family." That number dropped to 60% in 2012.

The survey does not explain why this polarization has occurred.  One reason could be the decline of our two main parties, their weakening ability to pull in new supporters and hold on to their present ones.  Though the numbers bump up and down raggedly over the past twenty years, the percentage of people identifying as Republicans has dropped from 31 to 24% while Democrats has inched down from 33 to 32%.  Independents have surged, from 29 to 38%.

This may mean that those who do join a party, or remain it, are more likely to be stalwart supporters of key party positions--the Pew survey does say that people within each party have become more "ideologically homogenous."  However, majorities in both parties, particularly the Republicans, are unhappy with their party's advancement of their traditional goals (71% of GOPers, and 58% of Demos). What do we make of that--having more like-minded people in the party means a more dysfunctional organization?

CNN pundit Fareed Zakaria blames four things: 1) redistricting, which creates safe seats for many House members, who then need only appeal to their base to get re-elected rather than reach out to the center; 2) small groups of party activists who take over the primary campaigns, pushing candidates to more extreme positions; 3) Congress's "sunshine laws," which opened up committee deliberations to the public, though in practice it opened it to those who pay the most attention to the legislative--well-financed lobbyists, whose carrots and sticks make it hard for bipartisan, compromise legislation; and 4) the new media, which feeds off and fuels polarization.

Sensible reasons, though we've had safe seats for generations--most incumbents win reelection (over 80% since 1964 in House races, see "Reelection Rates Over the Years" at opensecrets.org).  So I'm not sure why gerrymandering matters so much more now.  As for the second reason, I think Zakaria is really talking about the impact of the Tea Party in GOP primaries, and that begs the question (as Zakaria himself says) of what explains the rise of the Tea Party, and whether it's a symptom of polarization, or one of its causes (or both?).  I find his third and fourth reasons more convincing, though people have been able to find media material--conspiracy theory stuff--to support their extremist positions before the internet (think of the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings back in the 1850s, or the John Birchers a century later).  Still, the internet's speed, its delivery of news and opinion that match one's predilections, and its sheer glossiness, probably leads some (or many) to confuse hype with authenticity and content.

I guess where I'm headed here is that I remain mystified over the origins of polarization. Maybe because I am a part of it, and have contributed something to it with this blog which has been very critical of some conservative positions and people, and of Christian fundamentalism, among other things.  It's not that my views have gone further left.  I score the same on political ideology surveys as I did in my early twenties.  And I argued with people I disagreed with back then--it was the beginning of the so-called "Reagan Revolution," accompanied by the rise of the "Moral Majority."  Maybe I'm glossing the past, but I don't remember a lot of acrimony in those arguments. I don't remember the anger, despite, or disgust that I feel today about certain beliefs, movements, and public figures.  I thought as I aged I would mellow, either becoming more centrist and pragmatic along with my fellow baby-boomers, or learning how to deal with political differences with more equanimity, more charity.  But I've become more strident, more disposed to defend my positions and criticize those of others.

I could say that the Bush years radicalized me, including the start of my academic career in a small liberal arts college with numerous vocal neo-conservative faculty and students, in a very conservative part of Indiana. It was if the world around me was daring me not to say anything.

Or maybe I'm just the flip side of the Tea Party folks. Repeatedly disappointed by their party's inability to rein in spending, or move on social issues, they got tired, irritable, especially when the Democrats seemed like a juggernaut immediately after the 2008 elections, taking the presidency and enjoying majorities in both the Senate and House (boy, that juggernaut turned out to be an empty shell).

Similarly, I endured eight years of Reagan and four more of Bush, Sr.  Lots of disappointment during the eight years of Clinton, starting with the failed effort to reform healthcare, and ending with his lies about an affair (though I hardly think that merited an impeachment circus).  And then eight years of Bush, Jr., who for me was far worse than Reagan. The Iran-Contra scandal, as stinky as it was, doesn't stack up to two wars, one in Afghanistan that turned into an ill-advised nation-building exercise; the other in Iraq based on false pretenses (and I'm still flummoxed by all the people around me, especially Democrats, who initially went along with it).  Finally, Obama encouraged high expectations, but ran into the wall of GOP filibusters, and then the turnover of the House to Republicans in 2010.  And though his administration does not use the term "war on terror," it has continued many of the Bush era practices in prosecuting this war.

I realize, of course, that relatively few people share all my views on economic, social, and foreign policy.  And given that I'm far more attached to the ideas of egalitarianism and communitarianism than freedom and individualism, I'm bound to be disappointed in a country that celebrates the latter far more than the former.

Or perhaps I'm just caught up in one of the cycles of US history.  We've had polarized moments before.  There was that civil war.  Strife over labor rights in the decades around the turn of the 19th century.  Vast disagreements over whether to enter what we now call the First World War.  Then the civil rights movement and Vietnam.  Maybe we think our particular moment is unprecedented because we're living in it.  Maybe it's a collective senility--it's never been like this before!

But if it's a cycle, that's cold comfort.  These are noisy, angry times, and disheartening for this political scientist. And I am a part of that noise and anger.  In response to a local Republican candidate's email, I responded: "I will never vote for a party who selected Sarah Palin as a VP, and that panders to anti-science loonies and the Christian far right."  Yeah, I'm polarized, but not happy with how I'm dealing with it.