Thursday, August 05, 2004

Missouri Marriage Amendment passes . . . BIG

Last week, I pointed out that the Episcopal Bishop of Missouri opposed the referendum there to amend the state constitution accordingly: "to be valid and recognized in this state a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman."

Well, this week the amendment passed with over 70% of the vote. So if the bishop is right, then over 70% of the Missouri electorate are haters.

But the reason I bring this election up is not to gloat at the bishop having egg on his mitre, but because the result could have implications far beyond Missouri.

First, some relevant facts. Missouri is not a reliably conservative state by any means. It is a swing state. Further, in this election, there was a high Democrat turnout due to a hotly contested primary for governor. Then there is the money spent. The pro-gay marriage side spent almost $400,000 to defeat this amendment. The pro-amendment side by some estimates spent only about $10,000, relying mainly on a word-of-mouth campaign. You read that right – the pro-amendment forces were outspent by up to 40 to 1.

Yet the amendment passed by well over 2 to 1.

This margin has implications far beyond Missouri, I think. It is likely the U. S. Supreme Court will rule on gay marriage in the next year or two. Now it’s long been said by wags that the Supreme Court watches the election returns. There is a reason for that. Supreme Courts know that that their authority would be weakened if their decisions provoke enough opposition. It’s not that they care about democracy so much. (At times, a majority has shown just the opposite.) It’s that they don’t control the means of enforcement. Elected officials do. The Supreme Court is only as powerful as the willingness of elected officials to enforce their decisions. Public tolerance of their rulings is therefore also an important component of their power.

(Now that willingness and that tolerance and the Court’s will to test it has gone far beyond what the Framers of the Constitution envisioned. But that’s a whole ‘nother piece.)

So the Court would prefer not to go beyond that willingness and tolerance. One wonders if the result of Roe v. Wade would be different if the Court would have envisioned that ruling still being widely vilified and abortion still very much a contested question over 30 years later.

My point is that the Missouri results indicate that a Supreme Court ruling mandating gay marriage could provoke wide and strong opposition. Now it may be faint hope and I’m not an optimist on this. But crucial Court Justices might think twice before so risking their authority at the altar of gay marriage.

The other possible implication I would like to point out is perhaps even a longer shot, but still . . . . If any governor or president is of a mind to defy a Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide, results such as Missouri’s will strengthen their hand. Given strong popular opposition to gay marriage, a Supreme Court could have difficulty having their ruling enforced in every state, particularly if a President is unwilling to send in the National Guard or use the lever of federal funds against a defiant state. (Marriage is a matter generally handled by the states.) And popular outrage against a ruling could make a governor or even a president more willing to defy that ruling.

Don’t laugh at me too hard. Supreme Court rulings have been defied before. And the arrogance of a majority of the present court may provoke defiance sooner than you think.

Again, these possible scenarios are still unlikely. I still expect the Supreme Court to impose gay marriage and for weak-minded citizens and their cowardly elected officials to fuss a little, but still go along, just like they did with Roe v Wade and other judicial outrages since 1962. Like I said, I’m not an optimist on this.

But the surprising margin of the Missouri results shows that the gay marriage battle might not be as much of a foregone conclusion as some think and as I recently thought. I wouldn’t be shocked if they give even this Supreme Court pause.

No comments: