Politics: On Same-Sex Marriage and Other Things

This article was requested by a friend of mine last week. While I was not prepared to write it then, I have done enough research over the last week or so to feel confident in what I am putting down - at least in the facts department. Being overly confident about opinions only leads to trouble.

The exact article requested was one for the prediction of which states will be the next to allow same-sex marriage. I'm not only going to cover this, but it will be part of what I'm doing.

So, first of all, the important question you'll all be asking - what do I think about same-sex marriage? Well, my stance is really simple - if you don't like same-sex marriages, don't participate in one. It's pretty straightforward.. No talking around the issue, no talking around my stance on the issue. 

In short, there really isn't any reason for same-sex marriage to not be legal. We'll cover why a bit later, but for now, we're going to move on.

While I do agree that same-sex marriage should be legal, this does not mean I care particularly about the issue. You won't ever find me signing petitions or waving signs. I'm simply not motivated enough, and probably never will be.

Who cares about same-sex marriage, then? Well, the answer is simple - those who might participate in one, those who are close friends and/or family of those who might participate in one, and politicians who want to garner favor with either of these sorts of people.

And who's against same-sex marriage? Again, pretty simple answer - people who feel threatened by changing what they consider a 'sacred' institution, LGBT people who would prefer to keep LGBT culture separated from 'normal' culture, and politicians who want to garner favor with either of these two groups of people.

From this, it's fairly easy to deduce what stance a politician will take on same-sex marriage.

For instance, let's take a look at the Democratic Party as a whole. Usually, Democrats are in favor of same-sex marriage. Some might say this is because they truly care about the issue. While this may be true in a minority of cases, I would say the truth is a bit more complicated - the Democratic Party has adopted a stance in favor of same-sex marriage because large numbers of people who care about same-sex marriage are in states that are normally pillars of political power for the party, while people who oppose it are more dominant in states that are usually under the influence of the Republican Party.

With this stance, then, they keep control over areas important to the party, while losing votes largely in areas that they will not win in, regardless. And, on the plus side, individual politicians running for state/local positions or congress can run on the Democratic ticket and still be opposed to the overall stance on the issue to gain more support on a local level without hurting the party as a whole.

The evolution of the Democratic and Republican Party stances on same-sex marriage, then, are largely a result of demographic pressure, rather than any real desire to go one way or the other on the issue - at least in the general case. I'm sure there are many politicians in both parties that have very real, very strong opinions on the issue. They are simply in the minority, rather than the majority.

To demonstrate a more specific example, let's take a look at Barack Obama in the past two elections and his first term in office. In both cases, Obama ran against an opponent who was staunchly against same-sex marriage. To distinguish himself, all he had to do was speak up in favor of same-sex marriage. However, he has take little to no action on the issue. Why? Because to do so would be to ostracize moderate voters against same-sex marriage, and he could still easily distinguish himself without having to take any action because of the extreme views of his opponent.

Anyways. To show some support of this argument, we'll take a look at some traditional blue and red states, and see what proportion of the population identifies as gay or lesbian, as well as whether or not they have supported same-sex marriage institutionally, or have opposed it.

For data purposes, a map of traditional blue and red states can be found here, a map of states' stances on same-sex marriage can be found here, and the demographics of states based on portion of population that identifies as gay or lesbian can be found here.

(The last link only shows the states with the highest LGBT population, not those with the lowest. I was unable to find this data on the Internet, but if anyone can find some, I'd be very glad to hear it.)

Taking a look, the states with the highest percentage of LGBT population are also those who have - either presently in the past - provided institutional support for same-sex marriage. This should not be overly surprising - as per my three categories of those who care the most about supporting same-sex marriage, all three are more likely to occur in areas with more LGBT people.

More importantly, every state with a high LGBT population is a state that generally votes for Democratic candidates, rather than Republican ones. This means that the Democratic Party has no choice but to support same-sex marriage - if they did not, they would be losing votes to independent and third-party candidates constantly, and always in areas that 

If you take a look at the history of the Democratic Party's stance on same-sex marriage, you will also find that the current stance evolved after two important events. First, a continued upwards trend of the percentage of the population identifying as LGBT over the past few decades - while not terribly sharp, it is obvious that LGBT people are not going away. Secondly, and more importantly, the issue has become a prominent voting point for an expanding portion of the population, with the majority of that expanding population residing in states that they need to continue to have political control over, such as New York and California.

Now to answer the question that inspired this post - which states will be the next to provide institutional support for same-sex marriage? Well, the answer's pretty simple - New Mexico and Colorado. Not only are they largely blue states, they have a large and growing percentage of the population that identifies as LGBT. Much simpler question to answer then I originally thought.

And now on to the final bit - does legalizing same-sex marriage have a negative impact on our culture, government, or the institution of marriage? I'm going to have to say no, and here's why...

(For most of my sources, look on this site. I'm too lazy to individually link to all of the studies listed there, but everything I'm saying is supported by one study or another.)

First, and perhaps foremost, the first state to allow same-sex marriage now has the lowest divorce rate in the United States, even discounting same-sex marriages. On the other hand, Alaska, the first state to impose a ban on same-sex marriages, has among the highest divorce rates.

There is little to no empirical support for the idea that same-sex marriage threatens the institution of 'normal' marriage. While the argument of the 'slippery-slope' descent into polygamy and bestiality is still one that I cannot refute, it has no backing in the real world.

Secondly, there's no definitive conclusion one way or the other that children raised by same-sex couples are any less/more capable or well-adjusted than 'normal' children. In my mind, this one is up in the air, and while I can see why being raised without one sort of parent can skew development, any household is better than none, and this skewing of development could even turn out to be a good thing.

(I will point out that children raised by LGBT parents are more likely to eventually identify as LGBT themselves, but I'm really not seeing the problem with that. It's not like LGBT people are some sort of cancer or disease that we should be looking to get rid of.)

And, finally, no real argument can be made that allowing same-sex marriage yields a net positive or negative effect on the budgets of the state and federal governments. I'm sure there will be changes, but they go both ways. Regardless, making decisions on what is a primarily a civil issue using economic arguments is kind of silly - at least, it is when you can't show certainly that it has a positive or negative effect. If you could demonstrate that same-sex marriage having institutional support would irrevocably bankrupt the United States with little to no doubt I might join you in opposing it, but this simply can't be done.

And now I am done. Hopefully I was not overly offensive to anyone. Usually I try to present my argument in the most direct and logical fashion possible, but this one is a sensitive one and I'm sure I typed up something stupid and offensive in there somewhere. Apologies in advance.

Comments, insults, suggestions for future posts, and your favorite way to cook a rack of ribs can be dropped in the comments section below. Thanks for reading, guys!