<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Marcus: Roberts wrong to compare abortion, same-sex marriage

By
Published:

Writing a judicial opinion can be like fencing. One of the most effective ways to jab at an opponent is to use his — or her — words to make your own case.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts warned in his dissent in the same-sex marriage case about the harmful results of the court’s intervention: “There will be consequences to shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public significance. Closing debate tends to close minds.”

In support, Roberts archly quoted the observations of “one thoughtful commentator” — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on abortion rights. “The political process was moving …, not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting,” then-Judge Ginsburg said in a 1985 lecture critical of the high court’s approach in Roe v. Wade. “Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

Touché!

Except same-sex marriage is not like abortion. The scattered brushfires of resistance to last week’s ruling are already beginning to burn themselves out. Even as abortion continues to divide the country and the justices (see, for example, Monday’s 5-4 vote blocking a Texas abortion law), same-sex marriage, I believe, will prove to be far less inflaming.

Indeed, the Ginsburgian narrative of Roe as a politically polarizing force does not present the full picture. Unlike the case with same-sex marriage, legislative progress to relax abortion restrictions had begun to slow in the years before Roe. But even assuming Roe fueled a poisonous national argument over abortion, there are reasons to doubt that the court’s edict in Obergefell v. Hodges, decreeing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and removing the issue from the democratic arena, will produce an analogous backlash.

Fundamental difference

One reason concerns the fundamental difference between abortion and same-sex marriage, as much as opposition to both is fiercely felt. For those who believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is tantamount to murder, abortion poses clear harm and an identifiable victim.

For those who believe homosexual conduct is sinful and marriage is a sacrament limited to one man and one woman, the potential damage posed by an expanded definition of marriage is much harder — indeed, essentially impossible — to articulate.

The challenge leaves lawyers defending marriage bans stammering about the derivative harm that would somehow befall children in traditional marriages if the link between marriage and procreation were severed.

“There’s harm if you change the definition because, in people’s minds, if marriage and creating children don’t have anything to do with each other, then what do you expect? You expect more children outside of marriage,” John Bursch, defending Michigan’s marriage law, told the justices.

Right, there’s going to be less straight marriage and more out-of-wedlock births if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry.

Another reason to doubt the coming backlash can be found in the polls. The trend line on abortion is essentially flat over the last four decades. In 1975, 19 percent of those surveyed by Gallup believed abortion should be illegal under all circumstances — the same number as in 2015. Meanwhile, the generational differences are muted.

But Pew found 73 percent support for same-sex marriage among millennials, born after 1980. By contrast, just 39 percent of the oldest cohort backed gay marriage, although that was nearly double the share as in 2001. In short, opposition to same-sex marriage is, literally, dying out; opposition to abortion is persisting.

To riff on the chief justice: If you are among the many Americans disappointed in the marriage ruling, by all means, bemoan it.

But do not bemoan the coming public backlash. That part’s not going to happen.

Loading...