To follow up on Adam's excellent post, Emily Bazelon raises a useful contrast between Maine and Massachusetts. In both states, a process was in place that would enable laws providing marriage equality to be changed. In the latter, however, the process required more deliberation, and ultimately opponents of same-sex marriage were unable to secure support from even the necessary 25 percent of the legislature to put the issue to a referendum. Essentially, as more same-sex couples get married (and the apocalyptic claims of opponents look more and more cruel and farcical), support for rolling back rights tends to decline. Alas, Maine voters did not even have the chance to see what the effects of the policy would be, much to the disadvantage of the dignity and equality of its gay and lesbian citizens.
The other key lesson, as I mentioned recently, is that it's foolish to think that obtaining equal marriage benefits from the legislature will somehow preempt opposition. In some states (with Iowa looking like the most recent example) judicial opinions can lead to relatively stable marriage equality, while Maine demonstrates that legislative victories provide no guarantee. As Adam says, the fact that there's a very large overlap between people furious about the courts deferring to elected officials in Kelo and people who claim that their opposition to same-sex marriage is motivated not by bigotry but by opposition to "judicial activism" should make this pretty obvious.
--Scott Lemieux
