Conservatives, cheer this ruling

The Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in two same-sex marriage cases take a significant step toward nationwide marriage equality for lesbian and gay couples. Renouncing the most sweeping anti-gay measure in American history, the court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denied more than a thousand federal marriage rights to same-sex couples. In the companion case, the court dismissed the appeal taken by the supporters of California’s Prop. 8; that ruling will leave in place the trial court’s judgment invalidating that initiative barring gay marriage, soon making California the 13th state to recognize marriage equality.

This is the Cinderella moment for gay rights, when the once-scorned maiden meets her Princess Charming. It is also a formative moment for American conservatives, many of whom support marriage equality (like former Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney). Conservatives from coast to coast should begin to perceive gay marriage not as a threat but as an opportunity. Why? 1. Constitutional equality. In the DOMA case, the court rested much of its reasoning on bedrock U.S. legal traditions. When the broader question of whether gay married couples deserve equal protection under the Constitution — left undecided for now — returns to the court in a few years, conservatives ought to follow the U.S. tradition of opening up civic institutions to all citizens and support marriage equality.

In the past, some conservatives have argued that the Constitution’s equal protection clause does not apply to discrimination that, in retrospect seems obvious — such as Southern states’ bars to different-race marriages. The Supreme Court struck down this discrimination in Loving vs. Virginia (1967). From a conservative perspective, the court was right to do so, because marriage is a fundamental civic institution, presumptively open to couples willing to take on its duties and commitments.

It is self-evidently a violation of equal protection of the law for states to exclude committed lesbian and gay couples, many of whom are raising children, from civil marriage, without strong justification. Under the rule of law, it is not enough that people disapprove of certain relationships. For the same reason the court was right to strike down different-race marriage exclusions in Loving, the court ought to strike down same-sex marriage exclusions.

The next wave of cases will provide con- servative jurists the opportunity to reveal their principled commitment to rules of law regardless of personal preferences.

2. Family. DOMA rested on the claim that civil marriage would be undermined by recognition of lesbian and gay unions. Is this true? David Blankenhorn, a defense trial expert in the Prop. 8 case, recently changed his mind, based upon the evidence: marriage equality in Europe, Canada and the United States has not undermined committed families. Indeed, the social movement for marriage equality has highlighted the virtues of marriage and has added thousands of eager recruits to the institution.

In light of the evidence, conservatives ought to welcome gay marriage — or at least redirect their energies to flagging policies that actually undermine family values, such as domestic abuse and easy divorce.

As marriage equality advances in public support, traditionalists in red states might even consider a grand bargain: their support for marriage equality, in return for progressives’ support for an additional institution of covenant marriage, where divorce is somewhat harder.

3. Religion. Opposition to marriage equality is sometimes rooted in religious beliefs that homosexual relations are sinful. But Southern Protestants once believed that the Bible supported segregation and bans on different-race marriage.

They no longer believe that, because the civil rights movement (and Loving) opened their hearts to a different reading of Scripture. In other words, legal equality can have a salutary effect on religious discourse.

Just as Jesus said nothing to support racial segregation, neither did He say anything about homosexual relations. (In Matthew 19:9, He did condemn straight people who remarry after securing no-fault divorces.)

Many religious scholars have interpreted Scripture to support committed samesex unions. The marriage equality conversation provides persons of faith, their families and their congregations with an opportunity to reconsider the Bible’s most important lessons.

Conservatives ought to consider the virtues of Cheney family values. If they approach the issue seriously, they can reclaim some of the high ground in American public culture and politics that they have lost in the new millennium.

Eskridge and Spedale are the co-authors of “Gay Marriage: For Better or for Worse? What We’ve Learned From the Evidence.”