A federal judge in Alaska struck down that state's marriage ban over the weekend, effectively adding another state to the same-sex marriage column after dizzying developments that started when the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would not accept any of the seven appeals from five states, effectively bringing marriage equality to not only those states – Virginia, Wisconsin, Indiana, Oklahoma, and Utah – but also the remaining states in those federal court circuits. As we go to press, same-sex marriage is legal in 30 states plus the District of Columbia. Although there are related appeals pending in five of those states, marriage equality is expected to arrive soon.
The political developments have been fascinating to observe and started with the muted response from most mainstream Republicans. Those on the tea party fringe, however, were in a huff. So here are some suggestions for a few of them.
To twice-failed presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who's threatened to leave the GOP over same-sex marriage: please do. And take "man on dog" Rick Santorum with you. The party needs to shed itself of people like you, who rely on faith for everything but love. In fact, we think the Republican Party would evolve faster on this issue if it didn't have homophobes like you two in it.
On the American Family Association's radio program last week, Huckabee said he would become an independent if the Republican Party "abdicates" on same-sex marriage. He said the party would lose "a whole bunch of God-fearing Bible-believing people" over the marriage equality issue.
For his part, Santorum, also a two-time loser since he lost his 2006 Senate re-election bid and the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, hasn't threatened to leave the party, but the party is leaving him behind. His home state now has marriage equality.
To Texas Republican Senator (and future failed presidential candidate) Ted Cruz, who said he wants a federal constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from "attacking or striking down state marriage laws," we have four words: been there, done that. Ten years ago, we were dismayed by the blatant politics behind the 11 state constitutional amendments on ballots aimed at helping George W. Bush win re-election (thanks, Karl Rove). In addition to Rove, one of the people behind that strategy was none other than Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman, who in 2010 came out as gay. While we have our issues with Mehlman and still don't think he's adequately explained why he did so much to hurt so many gay and lesbian couples back when he was in the closet, we do appreciate the work he's done within the GOP since he came out to bring about change – work that culminated with securing Republican votes in the New York Legislature to pass a marriage equality law in 2011.
Bush's Federal Marriage Amendment never did pass Congress.
Mr. Cruz, you just don't get it. The country has reached the point of no return on marriage equality. It is here to stay and will only continue to be legalized in the remaining states. Even if other federal circuits decide to uphold marriage bans in some of those remaining states and the U.S. Supreme Court does eventually hear a case, the message the justices sent last week was crystal clear: marriage is a fundamental right. If they didn't believe that, surely they would have accepted one of the several cases before them. They did not, knowing full well the implications of their decision.
And another thing, Ted. Unlike 2004 and 2006, years that saw all those same-sex marriage bans on state ballots, public opinion has changed substantially. As a result, political winds have shifted – Republicans are more likely to come out in support of marriage equality than support a retrograde idea like a federal constitutional amendment. Back when Bush mentioned the need for such an amendment during his 2004 State of the Union speech, there was a mayor sitting in the gallery listening to those hateful words. His name was Gavin Newsom and he had just been sworn in as mayor of San Francisco. After Bush's speech, Newsom came home and ordered city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That jump-started the marriage equality movement and there's no going back.
It's not the federal courts that are to blame. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act last year in United States v. Windsor, federal judges found that they couldn't square state marriage bans with the Supreme Court decision and began ruling that they are unconstitutional.
In his statement, Cruz was critical of the Supreme Court for its decision not to hear any of the cases it had received. But the justices certainly had that option, which they regularly employ. Far from being "judicial activism at its worst," as Cruz said, the high court actually followed its own precedent in that it usually doesn't hear cases where the circuit courts are in agreement, as was the case with the seven appeals.
At any rate, we'll be watching to see what Cruz does when Congress returns from its recess. But we're certain that his proposed amendment will go nowhere. Public support is largely lacking, Congress will never pass it, and even if it did, two-thirds of the states would not approve it. Any amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage is dead on arrival, sort of like Cruz's presidential aspirations.