Why Can't the USA Approve Gay Marriage When Unlikely Nations Have??

A column in the New York Times looks at the issue of gay marriage around the world and the at first blush surprising passage of full same sex marriage laws in South Africa, Spain, Portugal and Argentina, three of which were once viewed as bastions of Catholicism. The author, Frank Bruni comes up the hypothesis that these surprising supporters of same sex marriage have one trait in common: a devotion of equality and civil rights born out of years of regressive and/or dictatorship rule. These nations value modernity and civil equality all the more because they have experienced the opposite alternative and recognize the importance of the rule of law and a secular society. Stated differently, these nations endured the type of government and repressive society that the Christian Taliban would seek to impose in the United States. Bruni also notes something that played a significant role in the passage of same sex marriage laws in Spain and Portugal - and I'd posit in Argentina as well where President Kirchner gave a moving speech before the Argentine Senate passed the legislation: Political leadership and political will on the party leading the effort for change. Under the Obama administration, we have neither. Here are some column highlights:

With minimal international attention, Portugal — tiny, overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Portugal — legalized same-sex marriage last year. Although the country is hardly seen as a Scandinavian-style bastion of social progressivism, it’s one of just 10 countries where such marriages can be performed nationwide, and in this regard it finds itself ahead of a majority of wealthier, more populous European countries, like France, Germany, Italy and Britain. In the United States, only six states and the District of Columbia allow gay marriage. How did that happen? And what wisdom do the answers offer frustrated supporters of same-sex marriage here and elsewhere around the globe?

The eight countries that later joined the club were a mix of largely foreseeable and less predictable additions. In the first category I’d put Canada, Norway, Sweden and Iceland. In the second: South Africa, Spain, Portugal and Argentina.


Why those four countries? People who have studied the issue note that that they have something interesting and relevant in common: each spent a significant period of the late 20th century governed by a dictatorship or brutally discriminatory government, and each emerged from that determined to exhibit a modernity and concern for human rights that put the past to rest.

“They’re countries where the commitment to democracy and equal protection under the law was denied, flouted and oppressed, and the societies have struggled to restore that,” said Evan Wolfson, the president of Freedom to Marry, a New York-based advocacy group, in a recent interview. That dynamic informed Spain’s legalization of same-sex marriage in 2005.

Politicians in Portugal and Argentina — two countries with their own large Catholic majorities, strong geographic or historical ties to Spain, and a palpable desire to keep pace with it — took note of the same-sex marriage legislation there. Spain set off an Iberian wave with trans-Atlantic reach: one of the countries considered most likely to approve same-sex marriage next is Uruguay, which already permits same-sex civil unions and allows gay men and lesbians to adopt.

The idea that Portugal should do no less than Spain came up repeatedly in my conversations with those who pushed for the Portugal measure, and so did the insistence that Portugal was much more cosmopolitan than many outsiders gave it credit for being. I was left with the strong impression that for many highly educated and young people in Portugal . . . . . same-sex marriage became a badge of sophistication, affirming their country as an enlightened place.

And once it became law, everyone for the most part moved on. Sócrates’s government was tripped up by economic matters, not same-sex marriage, support for which rose significantly in polls following its institution, as people saw that their society wasn’t crumbling as a result. “It was a good example of the pedagogical effect of law,” Vale de Almeida said.

San Francisco isn’t all of America, and the religious dynamics and political vitriol in this country are different from Portugal’s. But might it be possible for President Obama, so maddeningly hesitant to endorse same-sex marriage, to take a lead on the issue? And might he find, as Sócrates did, that it wouldn’t make or break him? “At the end of the day,” Sócrates told me, “what we had was the political will.”

The Times also has a map that looks at the range of treatment of gays in nations around the world. Gay acceptance is the lowest and gays are treated most harshly in countries where national levels of education are abysmally low - not surprisingly, Africa and a number of Muslim nations rank the lowest on education levels. Another parallel with gay oppression is the role of religion in the national government. Again, theocratic Muslim nations and African nations under the sway of virulent form of Christianity exported by American Christianists lead the way in oppression. In sum, ignorance (also the reason Christianity is growing in Africa) and religious extremism are the leading causes anti-gay bigotry.