Earlier this month, I wrote a Corner post raising questions about why Democrats hadn’t pushed to codify Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. “Many powerful Democrats continue to warn that Obergefell is next up on the chopping block,” I argued. “But if Obergefell is truly on the precipice . . . why not vote to codify it?” One possible answer was “that the Democrats are simply incompetent. As I argued on the heels of Dobbs, the party was completely unprepared for the end of Roe, despite the fact that they had months to see it coming.” But then again, “after Dobbs, Democrats should be prepared to face such a reality. So why isn’t there any sense of urgency — no legislative proposals, no calls for lawmakers to act — about codifying Obergefell?” I concluded:
Incompetence is surely part of it. The more fundamental reason, however, is that they probably don’t believe what they’re saying. Alarmism is good politics; it turns out voters and drives up fundraising numbers. But we should judge a party by its actions, not its words. And the Democratic Party’s actions — or in this case, its lack thereof — stink of cynicism.
On the merits of this particular issue, I was wrong. Yesterday, House and Senate Democrats — and, notably, Susan Collins — introduced the Respect for Marriage Act, which would “officially repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and require federal recognition for same-sex and interracial marriages nationwide,” according to the Hill. In other words, it would essentially codify the right to same-sex marriage that was recognized in Obergefell.
Do I still think Democrats weaponize social issues for cynical political purposes? Of course. And I’m not alone in that belief: Plenty of progressive activists, understandably, feel that the party didn’t act on abortion rights when it had the opportunity because it “liked to leave hanging over voters’ heads the possibility that Roe would be overturned,” as I wrote in June. “It was an effective ‘get out the vote’ talking point, not to mention a fundraising boon.” That, it should be acknowledged, is not exclusive to the Democrats: “There’s an analogue for this on the right,” I continued. “For years, many Republican elites could have cared less about abortion and had little to no intention of ever actually acting on the issue. But they understood its political potency for turning out their base. . . . In other words, contempt for the base voters who care deeply about abortion is a bipartisan phenomenon.”
Still, on this point, Democrats are at least trying to put their money where their mouth is. Fair enough. Mea culpa.