« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Sen. Gordon Smith (R.-Or.), Gay Marriage, Early Mormons, and Davis v. Beason
Earlier today, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, a Republican facing a tough re-election battle this year (aren't they all!) raised eyebrows by likening right-wing efforts to define marriage, and thus preempt gay marriage, as comparable to nineteenth century attacks on polygamy. Eric Kleefeld at TPM wrote that it was "one of the strangest things we've seen in a long time." It is certainly hypocritical, given Smith's opposition to gay marriage and domestic partnership benefits.
Smith stated:
"Part of what I fear, as you start defining marriage -- we have a long history of doing that in this country, and my Mormon pioneer ancestors were the victims of that. They were literally driven from the United States in the dead of winter for following their religious beliefs. I don't want that coming back."
While Eric wrote, "[w]e're still not entirely sure what Smith's position is on gay marriage, or how exactly it relates to the persecution of Mormons over a century ago," Smith is hardly the first to make this comparison, nor is the answer difficult to grasp.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that laws that infringed on political participation by gays could offend the Equal Protection Clause. In dissent from the opinion in Romer, Justice Scalia wrote that there was nothing unconstitutional about antigay discrimination because the Supreme Court, in Davis v. Beason (1890) ruled that Idaho acted constitutionally by depriving polygamists of the right to vote.
One response to Eric's incredulity at the juxtaposing of 21st Century gays and 19th Century Mormon polygamists is that Justice Scalia compared early Mormon polygamists to gays in the important Romer case. Of course, he did so as a sneer, to show that sexual minorities do not deserve rights.
In doing so, Scalia made a conservative rhetorical move against expanding rights by equating a left-wing sexual minority against a right-wing sexual minority, so that each upon reading his argument would be offended at comparison to the other, and crawl back under the bed in silence while heterosexual, Protestant white men golf and drink whiskey, their womenfolk bake, and their sheep get nervous. A pox on all deviants, his dissent reads.
But rights of sexual autonomy and protections of sexual minorities and gender differences are the new civil rights frontier in our society. While Gordon Smith's views of these issues are not in step with justice, it is welcome that a conservative is saying out loud, albeit in his own electoral desperation in a liberal state and a liberal year, that oppression of sexual minorities is both an American tradition and offensive. We should single out Smith for praise for saying such a thing, rather than making fun of him or saying he's babbling. He's not.
Comments (8)
Thanks for the interesting perspective, articleman.
This is a little off-topic (sorry), but All Things Considered had a fantastic (I thought) report on Muslim polygamy a couple weeks ago. It's really interesting -- and moving -- to hear the voices of the people in that story discussing their marriages.
June 13, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd! Slavery and polygamy were the 'twin pillars of barbarism' back in the day. Smith's comparison was dead on, and your post is refreshingly fair.
June 13, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is incoherent about Smith is that he saying he's worried about the ramifications of the government defining marriage, especially on minorities who might be persecuted. Yet he's on record as supporting the Defense of Marriage amendment, which defines marriage. Perhaps, as you suggest, he is changing his prior position for the better; if so, I applaud the shift.
There's an argument (albeit not one I'd ever expect to be accepted in the U.S.) that the government should disassociate itself entirely from the recognition of marriage, on separation of church and state grounds. The legal system could have civil unions, domestic partnerships, or whatever you'd want to call it, to grant legal rights of inheritance, medical decision making, joint tax filing and all the many other legal effects of marriage under current law, but such a legal construct, explicitly not called marriage, would of course be open to couples of mixed or the same sex.
And, as it does now, the government could allow religious figures the power to enact such unions as part of religious ceremony, i.e. marriage in popular consciousness. But the vital distinction is that the religious bodies would then be the only ones defining marriage, and those bodies would of course differ in how they define it, with more progressive sects allowing same-sex marriage, while other denominations would not bless such unions.
The opposite is, ironically, true today: some liberal religious bodies are blessing and celebrating unions that are not legally recognized by their state. The government has no business recognizing religious rites anyhow.
I had the privilege of being a witness to what I believe was the first civil union performed in Hudson County New Jersey. While I (and the couple) would have preferred that the label "marriage" could be applied, if only for simplicity of description, the civil union is at least a step in the right direction.
June 14, 2008 1:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Fos,
(Take two. TPM's software apparently didn't like my links (to Wikipedia??).)
I'm reluctant to comment on what Sen. Smith said without seeing a full transcript of his remarks. Context often matters, and the only published account I've seen was at OregonLive.com (and it doesn't include a full transcript).
I think you and I are generally on the same page, with some caveats.
I don't think that comparing gay marriage and polygamy is helpful. For me, the question isn't the "current definition of marriage", but rather equal treatment under the law. The state should encourage unrelated adults to form families to help and care for each other. Everyone gets sick. Everyone has times when they can't work due to illness, injury, etc. It's in the state's interest to promote adults forming legal bonds so that they can speak and act for each other in many circumstances. It's usually more efficient for two people to share a household than for them to live separately. As long as the state confers benefits, and demands responsibilities, of some adults that live under the same roof, it should not care very much what gender those adults are.
My grandfather and his sister shared a house together in the decades after their spouses died. There was nothing sexual about their relationship, but they were a family as much as any married couple. They cared for each other, supported each other, and were able to live in their own home until well into their 80s. Why shouldn't the state give such a family all the benefits, and responsibilities, of a married couple?
Bringing up polygamy or zoophilia or ... only muddies the waters. Very few societies tolerate polygamy any more, while there is a growing recognition that gay marriage (or civil unions) is as much an equality issue as interracial marriage. Adult couples should be treated equally under the law.
While I'm a strong advocate of the separation of church and state (it's one of our bedrock values, IMO), I do not think that civil marriage ceremonies performed by a "Justice of the Peace" or a ship's captain or ... should be ended. Our marriage was by a JotP and we throughly enjoyed it. I should not be forced to join a church to have that recognition and religious institutions should not have that monopoly. Furthermore, I don't really see the need to restrict the term "marriage" to heterosexual couples. If gay people want to get "married", I do not think we should be afraid of them using that term, nor do I think that the state should either.
It seems to me that if one approaches this "issue" from the viewpoint adults should be treated equally under the law, and families should be encoraged, then I think the "issue" is much easier to resolve. I'm pleased that courts that have ruled on it generally seem to view it as an equal protection issue as well. The benefits and responsibilities of "marriage" should be extended to adult families.
In short, from what I've seen of Sen. Smith's remarks, I don't think they're helpful.
My $0.02.
June 14, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Libgirl here, posting from SW Washington State. We get Portland local stations here, not Seattle. I can tell you that every six years, Smith spends four months pretending to be a centrist. He isn't; and this is bullshit. He is a wingnut. Don't be fooled by Smith. If you have any extra money to donate, please send it to Jeff Merkley.
June 14, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody's gettin' "fooled" ... the post describes Smith as a conservative and makes a very good point: when a conservative presents a valid argument that undercuts the conservative position on an issue like gay marriage, we should applaud him for making the argument, and hope that he continues to make it. It doesn't mean we start campaigning for him. It doesn't mean we're going to vote for him. It simply means that we liberals have more to gain by drawing attention to the validity of the argument than by sneering at it just because it's being made by a political opponent.
June 14, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey libgirl, I too hope Smith gets his ass kicked. Very exciting to see Merkley with a chance to knock him out. Chino is on my point, but as to the race, I am on yours. Best, A
June 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
5. for this weird little post on a slow day.
June 14, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment