After one of the country's most progressive states, California, passed a constitutional amendment overturning the State Supreme Court's ruling permitting gay marriage, it's pretty easy to think that Americans simply aren't tolerant enough to approve gay marriage at the ballot box.
That's not the case, and if you need some proof, you should look right here at Rhode Island. We're quietly on the verge of becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage without a court order.
There are two main paths for achieving marriage equality without court intervention: standard legislation or a legislative constitutional amendment, which needs to be approved by a State House majority and over 50 percent of the state's voters at the next election.
Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI), the state's leading pro-gay marriage association, favors legislation over a constitutional amendment. Both Patrick Crowley, MERI's legislative director, and State Representative Frank Ferri, an openly gay legislator who married his husband in Canada, told me in interviews that they both believed it's wrong to subject fundamental rights to a vote.
It's hard to see how legislation doesn't do the same thing. Either way, the legal status of marriage equality is determined by a vote rather than, say, a court ruling or an executive order. The more important question is which route is the faster and more effective one to achieve marriage equality.
I pressed Crowley and Ferri on this issue, and both said they believed legislation to be the more feasible approach. Ballot initiatives, they argued, are too subject to pressure from interest groups - Crowley noted that federal regulation of spending in ballot initiative campaigns is almost totally unregulated - and the political climate of a particular year to be a reliable way to push marriage equality.
I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Crowley, Representative Ferri and MERI as an organization. On this point, however, I think they should reconsider. Depending on the outcome of the 2010 governor's election, a constitutional amendment may well be our best hope for marriage equality in Rhode Island.
Currently, according to Crowley, "the Governor (Donald Carcieri '65) has been the biggest road block" in the way of the legislation. Though Crowley believes that a majority of state legislators support marriage equality legislation, the Governor is sure to veto, and Crowley doesn't think there would be enough support for an override.
Carcieri's term expires in 2010, and if he is replaced by a Democrat amenable to gay marriage, MERI's current strategy makes sense. However, if a Republican wins - a real possibility given the political talent of likely nominee Steven Laffey - marriage equality legislation would be doomed for the foreseeable future.
If Crowley and Ferri are right about a constitutional amendment, then it would seem Laffey's election would dash hopes for gay marriage in Rhode Island. However, there is good reason to be optimistic about an amendment's prospects for success.
The two groups most likely to oppose gay marriage are white evangelicals and Republicans. Rhode Island has the lowest numbers of both in the nation.
There is also no local anti-gay marriage group to speak of; the only organization to send someone to testify at the most recent state hearings on the issue, the National Organization for Marriage, has no state office or in-state contact listed on its Web site. MERI, on the other hand, has a significant presence in the state, and according to Susan MacNeil, MERI's director of communications and development, has received a surge of new support after the passage of Proposition 8.
Rhode Island was second only to Vermont in percent of votes sent to Obama in the 2008 election. Though encouraging, this does not necessarily translate into support for gay marriage. Obama carried California by a similar margin.
This comparison is not as telling as it may seem, as there are major differences between the two states. To pick just one, Mormons, who made up 80 to 90 percent of volunteers in the Yes on 8 campaign in California and supplied around half of its funding, make up a negligible portion of Rhode Island's population and unlike California, we're nowhere near Utah.
The Catholic Church, which played a major role in recruiting the Mormons to the Yes on 8 movement, could potentially pick up the organizing slack in Rhode Island, as the state has the largest percentage of Catholics in the nation. However, the Church's doctrinal opposition to gay marriage doesn't trickle down to its rank-and-file as well as you might think: A recent Pew survey found that white Catholics were split evenly on whether gay marriage should be permitted.
And Rhode Island Catholics (who are mostly white) are far more liberal on average than their brethren nationally: Though Obama lost white Catholics by five points overall, he won them by a whopping 16 point spread in Rhode Island. Catholics are unlikely to be the organizing edge in Rhode Island that Mormons were in California. Opponents of gay marriage would need such an advantage to compete with MERI, the state Democratic Party and the Obama 2012 operation.
While previous polling has shown mixed support for gay marriage in Rhode Island - two 2006 polls found that a plurality support it - a source well-placed in the Rhode Island marriage equality movement told me that another soon to be released survey found that support for marriage rights among Rhode Islanders has increased since then.
All this evidence might make one think now's the time to push for getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot in 2010. I have mixed feelings about this approach, as midterm elections tend to attract voters unhappy with the party in national power, and a failed constitutional amendment would do significant damage to the statutory route. However, I do think it's worth considering. Though Crowley told me that MERI has "talked about" a constitutional amendment, I think now may be the time to talk again.
Zack Beauchamp '10 supports gay marriage, in case you couldn't tell.
