Chart of the day (pace of social change)

This is a static image– the animated charts over at are even cooler.



Photo of the day

From the Telegraph’s Animal photos of the week:

A pair of fox cubs play in the woodlands of Lappeenranta in Finland while their mother sleeps nearby

A pair of fox cubs play in the woodlands of Lappeenranta in Finland while their mother sleeps nearbyPicture: TOPI LAINIO / CATERS NEWS

Get over it

As you know, I’m no dancing in the streets, tears of joy, etc., person when it comes to marriage equality.  All well in good, but the negativity over this on the right is just absurd and laughable to me.  For example, Bobby Jindal— a Rhodes Scholar who has turned himself into an utter intellectual embarrassment:

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” Jindal said in a statement on Friday. “If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court.”

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” he added.

Although several other 2016 GOP candidates came out in opposition to the decision, with a few even suggesting the need for a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it, they all stopped short of advocating for what amounts to an undemocratic insurrection.

Enjoyed Jennifer Rubin (a phrase I rarely use) on Jindal

First, the intensity with which one utters disapproval is not a measure of one’s conservative bona fides.  Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s hysterical rhetoric suggesting we defund the Supreme Court does not make him more conservative or more anti-gay marriage than other conservatives who disagreed with the court. Former Texas governor Rick Perry said, “I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench.” The former version not only turns off people who disagree with Jindal on this issue but a great many others who think now think he’s reckless.

But what really got me started on thinking about this post was a NYT article on how Evangelicals are dealing with this new reality:

WEST CHICAGO, Ill. — The tone of the worship service was set at the start. An opening prayer declared it “a dark day.” The sermon focused on a psalm of lament. In between, a pastor read a statement proclaiming the church’s elders and staff “deeply saddened.” …

“I came in with a great sense of lament, because of what happened on Friday,” the church’s teaching pastor, Lon Allison, told worshipers before reading a statement declaring, “We cannot accept or adhere to any legal, political or cultural redefinition of biblical marriage, nor will we conduct or endorse same-sex ceremonies.”

A dark day?  Sadness?  Get over it.  Nobody is going to make you marry gay couples in your church.  Nobody.  Presumably, these churches accept that gay couples exist, whether they like it or not.  Similarly, civil marriage exists, whether they like it or not.  In reality (and not like this point hasn’t been made hundreds of times), it literally has almost nothing to do with them.  A major theme of Christianity is doing what is right, whether it is popular or not.  Well, then, accept that you have an unpopular, minority viewpoint, continue to practice it, and stop freaking out that the majority of America (and our political institutions) disagrees with you.

And, of course, this is really going to have very little impact on people who aren’t actually gay couples or their close families.  And everybody will just get used to it.  Jon Bernstein:

As early as the general election in 2016, but almost certainly soon afterward, same-sex marriage will be an ordinary part of life in the U.S.

Oh, bigotry will still be with us, and it will be appalling in some situations. Changing attitudes takes time. And there are still legal and legislative challenges ahead, beginning with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would make it illegal to fire people because they’re gay.

Marriage, however, is a done deal. And despite the close 5-4 split in Friday’s Supreme Court decision, including vigorous dissents to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, this issue will rapidly be tossed into the history books alongside questions of whether women should vote or alcohol should be prohibited.

In other words, this is going to be very much like Loving v. Virginia, which recognized the right to marriage regardless of race or ethnicity.

How do I know? Because we’ve seen it in state after state in which marriage equality was enacted. There’s no controversy remaining in Massachusetts; for that matter, there’s little or no controversy remaining in Iowa, which had court-imposed marriage equality in 2009. On a related issue, conflict over gays and lesbians serving in the military ended immediately after “don’t ask, don’t tell” was replaced four years ago. In practice, extending full citizenship and human rights to all regardless of sexual orientation and identity is actually not all that controversial — at least not after the fact.

Yep.  Evan (9) is just old enough to get what’s going on here, but by the time Sarah (4) is a teenager she’ll just live in a world where men can marry women, men can marry men, and women can marry women, and that’s that.  This ship has sailed.

%d bloggers like this: