Seven Reasons Why The Past Week Marked The End Of The Line For Marriage Equality Opponents

3652271486_f8819e4b7d_bWhen the history of marriage equality is finally written — sorry, Jo Becker — last week will be the one to point to in determining when marriage equality opponents finally lost. For the anti-marriage crowd, there is no recovering from last week. When the Supreme Court decision for marriage equality came down last June, opponents still had hope that they could stem the tide at the state level. That illusion died for good last week. Here are seven reasons why opponents of marriage are now officially losers.

Us: 19 court victories in row. Them: Zero. Right now, marriage equality is on an interrupted run of success. Oregon and Pennsylvania brought the total to 19 favorable court rulings, both federal and state. What do opponents have to show for their court time? A lot of lawyer bills (often at the taxpayers’ expense) and nothing else.

NOM is going down in flames faster than ever. The National Organization for Marriage’s downward trajectory went from a steep hill to a sharp cliff. The loss in Oregon was especially humiliating to NOM, which had tried to insert itself into the marriage case there only to have the (gay) federal judge give it the boot. Then came Pennsylvania, where NOM is laboring under the delusion that it can undo what can’t be undone. To add injury to injury, the organization is facing a record fine in Maine for hiding the sources of its 2000 campaign contributions. Any more weeks like that and NOM might as well start auctioning off its office furniture.

A new poll found a solid majority of Americans support marriage equality. The numbers don’t lie. Young people (otherwise known as the future) overwhelmingly support marriage equality. Even in the South, support is nearing the 50 percent mark. It will be impossible to reverse this trend.

The judge who struck down Pennsylvania’s marriage ban was endorsed by Rick Santorum. Federal Judge John E. Jones III wrote an eloquent opinion upholding the rights of same-sex couples (more on this in a moment). You’d never guess from his opinion that Jones has been a prominent figure in Republican politics whose nomination to the bench was endorsed by none other than Rick Santorum, the politician most associated with opposition to same-sex marriage.

The Pennsylvania decision quoted Ronald Reagan. “We are a better people than what those laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” That’s Jones in his opinion. But as a staunch Republican, Jones would be familiar with one of Ronald Reagan’s most famous speeches, which his writing directly echoes. In an oft-quoted 1982 address, Reagan predicted that “freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.”  In alluding to Reagan, Jones clearly linked marriage equality to a conservative hero in a way that conservatives will immediately recognize (and many will hate). 

PA Gov. Tom Corbett’s decision not to appeal. Tom Corbett is not a moderate Republican (even by the elastic definition that phrase has these days). He has compared marriage equality to incest and is a staunch opponent of anything LGBT. Yet, in a surprise to everyone, Corbett decided not to appeal the ruling striking down his state’s marriage ban. In the end, Corbett apparently concluded that there was no way to win the appeal. If someone with Corbett’s impeccably antigay credentials decides it’s a losing proposition, it’s a clear signal that the game is over.

Anti-marriage leaders are talking like losers. It’s not just Maggie Gallagher who is admitting the cause is hopeless. Other conservatives are sending the same message. In an article in the National Review, Ryan Anderson, co-author of a book called What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, concedes that his side is waging “an uphill battle” and calls upon the like-minded “to take the long view, and to be ready to bear witness to the truth even if law and culture grow increasingly hostile.” That’s the language of someone whistling past the graveyard, not someone taking a victory lap.

Photo credit: Drew Maust

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #johnjonesiii #maggiegallagher #marriage stories and more


  • Mezaien

    LOL, “DEAD END” after NOM, we should start work on bend Christianity, and Islam. GOD HATES WHITES.

  • MarionPaige

    The end of the line for marriage equality is in fact near. “Gay Marriage” could have been an “evergreen” fundraising gimmick for gay.orgs had no state ever actually legalized it. It would have been like uncurable diseases to the medical industry – an evergreen money maker. However, gay marriage has been legalized in 17 states and the issue has already been to the Supreme Court, there is no where else for it to now go except oblivion.

    “Gay Marriage” hogged the national spotlight for more than a decade and it put George Fucking Bush in the White House and LOW AND BEHOLD THERE ARE ONLY AN ESTIMATED 100,000 MARRIED SAME-SEX couples in North America and, MOST OF THOSE ARE FEMALE-FEMALE.

    During World Ward II it was rumored that Churchill allowed an English village to be bombed so as not to tip off the Germans that the German code had been broke – weighing the few over the many. George Bush as president because of gay marriage proved that gay marriage activists were willing to risk all (even the re-election of Obama) over a fabricated cause that gay men don’t give a shit about.

  • BrianZ

    @MarionPaige: So, what exactly is your point here? Are you seriously postulating it would be preferable to not have marriage equality so that 1) Bush wasn’t elected and 2) so that gay organizations could perpetually fundraiser off the issue? #2 really has me laughing I have to admit: Let’s fundraise forever and not accomplish anything. Yay!

    That you suggest that marriage equality is a fabricated issue that gays don’t care about suggests that you and reality are not recently acquainted.

    I can only assume from your heated post (complete with all caps to let us all know how serious you are!) comes from some personal issues you are suffering from and haven’t sought professional help with.

  • MarionPaige

    “Are you seriously postulating it would be preferable to not have marriage equality so that Bush wasn’t elected?”

    Imagine someone suggesting that maybe the world would be a better place if a handful of lesbians couldn’t marry and if George Bush was never elected president.

    And, what exactly is Evan Wolfson and his .org doing now that gay marriage is legal in new york?

  • mjcc1987

    That is an unfounded assumption. Should republicans take the Senate, hold the House (and maybe gain a seat or two), with conservative SCOTUS in the majority and should state house essentially remain red/blue as they are……….. A resurgent hate NOM is back in business. See all kinds of legislation attached to every appropriation that Democrats want that will bring back DADT, eliminate federal recognition of gay marriage in favor of states only to religious freedom to hate, to you name it.

    This is NOT over, not by a long shot. Thought women could use an IUD? Thought contraception couldn’t be excluded by force by the state on insurance plans?

  • toberlin

    That was really interesting for me to read.I am always much more focused on the “Big Picture” in Politics.I don’t know much about all the “ugly Details” of the U.S. People’s Fight to get their Rights.So Mr.Jones think he is one of the “better”People…good to know.

  • unclemike

    @MarionPaige: “LOW AND BEHOLD THERE ARE ONLY AN ESTIMATED 100,000 MARRIED SAME-SEX couples in North America and, MOST OF THOSE ARE FEMALE-FEMALE.” Citation (and less capitals) needed.

    I maintain that if even only one couple is prevented from marrying, that’s one too many.

    I find your idea that gay marriage should remain illegal so that it can rake in wads of cash reprehensible.

  • MarionPaige

    Title 42 Section 1981 vs The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The difference is that the federal circuit didn’t enforce Title 42 Section 1981. And, even though there was 100+ years of case law in the federal circuit on Title 42 Section 1981, that didn’t prevent a conservative packed US Supreme Court from re-interpreting that law in the 1980’s. The Supreme Court has been dismantling The Civil Rights Act of 1964 since Reagan packed the court with Republican appointees.

    The Law According To The US Supreme Court is not etched is stone. The Law According To The US Supreme Court can change depending on the composition of the Court. When you know this, it amounts to absolute fucking brain damage to risk having a Republican President over bullshit like lesbians being able to marry.

  • DickieJohnson

    @Mezaien: Maybe, God hates haters. And, BTW, most Muslims aren’t “white”.

  • DickieJohnson

    @unclemike: Agreed, Uncle, its about the right to marry, not a race to the altar. Discrimination against any citizen has no place in American Law.

  • lykeitiz

    @MarionPaige: Accepting anything less than full equality IS what allows the dregs like Bush to get into office, not bowing for a short term goal. And you seem to forget that Bush was NOT elected, he was appointed President by a majority Repug Supreme Court. Gay marriage had nothing to do with it. And where do you get your stats that most gay marriages have been lesbians? Google hasn’t led me to that info.

  • Cam


    Nice Try sweetie, but the fact that you cannot even provide a link to back up your statements is a dead giveaway.

    Lets look at it a different way, there are still multiple states that don’t have marriage, some haven’t had it more than a few weeks and yet there are ALREADY 100,000 marriages.

    But please, keep on whining.

  • Merv

    @MarionPaige: “… and MOST OF THOSE ARE FEMALE-FEMALE.”

    The horror!

  • 1EqualityUSA

    MarionPaige you are such a fucktard. Go away! Go get the help you need. God! What did your parents do to you?

Comments are closed.