Most TAPPED readers, I assume, are familiar with the conventional non-wisdom that judicial victories favoring same-sex marriage (or at least civil union) benefits are counterproductive. Recent events allow us to make a relevant comparison. In Vermont, one of the first states where the courts required the state to provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, the result has been a massive backlash undermining gay and lesbian rights in perpetuity a political context where the state Senate favors same-sex marriage by an overwhelming margin:
The Vermont Senate on Monday evening overwhelmingly passed a bill legalizing gay marriage, making the state the first in the nation to take legislative rather than judicial steps toward granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.
The state Senate voted 26-4 in favor of the measure introduced by Democratic state Sen. John Campbell. The bill now goes to the state House, where Speaker Shap Smith, also a Democrat, predicted a majority would vote in favor of the "marriage equality" act. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to begin debating the bill Tuesday. A second vote in the state Senate also is expected Tuesday.
Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, has refused to answer questions about whether he would sign the measure, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature. He has said that he believes marriage should be between one man and one woman.
One hopes that Douglas will want to be on the right side of history and not veto the legislation, but his silence makes it clear that he's not confident that his opposition to same-sex marriage rights remains politically popular. Meanwhile, in New York -- where the refusal of the courts to end the denial of fundamental rights was allegedly a panacea for gay and lesbian New Yorkers -- the state seems to be no closer to same-sex marriage rights than it was four years ago. And the evidence that judicial victories produce some kind of unique backlash remains exceptionally weak.
--Scott Lemieux
