Gay Marriage Allowed in the US in 1972

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

This case determined by the Minnesota Supreme Court stated that a gay marriage ban did not violate the Constitution. There was an appeal to the US Supreme Court to get the case heard but it was denied.

Considering liberal judges ended up legalizing abortion one year later in Roe v. Wade in 1973, what would have been the effects of such an early victory for LGBT rights in America?
 
We'd hear even worse things than denouncing interracial children on the Nixon tapes. :D Read his comments on Archie Bunker- the Bohemian Grove- don't expect much from the White House...
 
The contrast between legislating and legalizing social change is probably one of the most polarizing debates in the United States.

First abortion, then gay rights -- Roe v. Wade actually happened, while your parallel WI didn't (but might have followed similar lines to Roe.)

The judicial means of legalizing abortion in the US bypassed the legislatures and the views of many who consider abortion immoral and/or even murder. While Roe pleased those who had argued that a woman's personal soverignity was clearly contained in the Constitution, many though that such a decision should be of the people. As pro-life advocates might argue, if the states were to decide on their own the "silent majority" would defeat pro-abortion measures. Hence, one of the, if not the, main objectives of the pro-life movement is to reverse Roe and then end abortion through selective state legislation.

I think that a national legalization of gay marriage in 1972 through judicial means would likewise have deeply polarized the nation as much if not even more than abortion. There would be a similar split between the concepts of "autonomous rights" versus morality. The question of judicial or legislative primacy over social change would become even more pronounced. The presence of two highly controversial judicial rulings might spark an earlier evangelical and Catholic political union with the GOP. Combine this with Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the potential for a very strong and earlier social conservative movement in the GOP becomes quite possible. The social conservative versus secular political stratification seen in modern US politics might have begun even earlier than Reagan; and the litmus tests and gridlock in Congress over "values issues" would have characterized much of the 70's.

From a social front, expect massive civil disobedience to the "gay marriage" law in many states (although NY, maybe parts of New England, and parts of the West Coast might perform gay marriages.) There is a precident for this in state abortion law: some states effectively "ban abortion" by having only one abortion clinic in the state. Should gay marriage be legalized in 1972, expect there to be very few places gay couples could go to be wed.
 
Step significantly far. Note when Lawrence v. Texas was decided, for instance, or the way the Court ran screaming away from the decision where it implied the death penalty was unconstitutional.

And yes, race issues. Plessy v. Ferguson compared to Brown v. Board of Ed. Even the abortion issue is a valid example, because it was legal in plenty of places.
 
First of all, this would only be three years after Stonewall. Secondly, very few gay activiists and civil rights leaders were advocating such a thing back in 1972. Therefore you would need a much earlier POD in which homosexuality were giving tolerance and acceptance, and certain civil rights were accorded to. Otherwise this WI is a non-starter.
 
Your problem is --This flys in the face of Territory of Utah v the US [189x?], In this case the Supremes helf that --
Under the 14/5 Equal rites amendments - NO State can pass a law that violates the Laws of the Majority of other States.
[then - Plural marriage, today Gay marriage] [why Connecticut's action was unconstitutional]

Now the OPer may point out that the OP talked about the Court sticking down the and Gay Marriage law on a national basis.

However Marriage is [Firstly] a Contract designed to regulate and regularize the transfer of Property on a Inter & Intra generational basis.
Of second but equal importance, a Marriage is suppose to Regulate and regularize the Act of making Love.

When You get married the presumption is that you will make love. If You don't the marriage is unconsummated , and there fore the Contract is Null and Void

However as the act of Gay Love making are illegal in 35 of the 56 jurisdictions in this country.
[If you don't do those things, then You are not Gay, but a Nonsexual]
therefore - If you enter into a Gay marriage, You are entering into a Contract for illegal Purposes, and the Contract is Null and Void.

Therefore to satisfy the OP the Supremes would have to declare all laws [nationwide] dealing with Oral or Anal Sex Unconstitutional.
I seriously doubt if any Court would ever go this far.
[Unless whe move this thread to the [far] Future forum.]
 
Your problem is --This flys in the face of Territory of Utah v the US [189x?], In this case the Supremes helf that --
Under the 14/5 Equal rites amendments - NO State can pass a law that violates the Laws of the Majority of other States.

I have no idea what you're thinking of; maybe Reynolds v. the US? But it doesn't say what you think itsays.

However Marriage is [Firstly] a Contract designed to regulate and regularize the transfer of Property on a Inter & Intra generational basis.
Of second but equal importance, a Marriage is suppose to Regulate and regularize the Act of making Love.

When You get married the presumption is that you will make love. If You don't the marriage is unconsummated , and there fore the Contract is Null and Void

I have actuallly never seen a marriage statute that says "Void if don't have sex." But I agree that there is an issue in that sodomy was illegal.

Therefore to satisfy the OP the Supremes would have to declare all laws [nationwide] dealing with Oral or Anal Sex Unconstitutional.
I seriously doubt if any Court would ever go this far.
[Unless whe move this thread to the [far] Future forum.]

I guess you're not aware of Lawrence v. Texas?
 
1972 is far too early to legalize gay marriage. The gay rights movement was still fighting for more basic rights then that. Marriage was a long way from even going on the radar screen.

Anyway, Faeelin is right. The court doesn't step in front on social issues unless there's been some prior movement in that direction. Brown v. Board of Education was preceded by an increasingly large civil rights movement. Roe v. Wade was preceded by several states beginning to legalize, at least partially, abortion. Lawrence v. Texas was preceded by most states having already removed their sodomy laws. I could go on for a while, but my point is the court would not legalize gay marriage when homosexuality itself was still illegal in most parts of the nation. Hell, it was still classified as a mental disorder by the APA.
 
There is a precident for this in state abortion law: some states effectively "ban abortion" by having only one abortion clinic in the state. Should gay marriage be legalized in 1972, expect there to be very few places gay couples could go to be wed.

Not quite. If same-sex marriage is legalized by the courts in 1972 (or any other time), each county courthouse with the authority to perform marriages becomes a place for anybody to wed. And that means the reddest places in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah, etc.
 
I guess you're not aware of Lawrence v. Texas?
Yes, but that came after most states had already gotten rid of their anti-sodomy laws, or at least partially abolished them. During 1972, almost all states still had their anti-sodomy laws (I think Illinois was the only state to abolish them before 1970). 1972 and 2003 are two very different landscapes.
 
Yes, but that came after most states had already gotten rid of their anti-sodomy laws, or at least partially abolished them. During 1972, almost all states still had their anti-sodomy laws (I think Illinois was the only state to abolish them before 1970). 1972 and 2003 are two very different landscapes.

Sure; but he was acting as if no court would strike down sodomy statutes even today.
 
I guess you're not aware of Lawrence v. Texas?
I am aware of the case, But my understanding is the Court addressed the Issue of how the Police acted, to gather the evidence. Not the Legality of the Actions the Evidence was about.
 
I am aware of the case, But my understanding is the Court addressed the Issue of how the Police acted, to gather the evidence. Not the Legality of the Actions the Evidence was about.

Npope. Struck down all sodomy laws as invasions of the right to privacy.
 
Not quite. If same-sex marriage is legalized by the courts in 1972 (or any other time), each county courthouse with the authority to perform marriages becomes a place for anybody to wed. And that means the reddest places in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Utah, etc.

In the states that have legalized gay marriage OTL, there haven't been many cases of justices of the peace refusing to marry gay couples. In Connecticut, for example, clergy who conscientiously object are exempt from marrying gays, but a justice of the peace who denies to perform a gay marriage must step down. I haven't heard of any justices of the peace stepping down. Would that be the case in 1972? Would we see scores of justices of the peace in conservative areas just walk off the job instead of wedding gays? Would there just be a handful of justices left willing to wed gay people? Would justices that chose to wed gay people face threats to themselves or their families for their actions? Would states that have a predominantely conservative constituency look the other way at government officials that deny marriage rights to gays? In 1972, I think there would be very strong resistance to gay marriage, and the law would not be observed in many places. 1972 is the beginning of the modern gay rights movement as we now know it, and I do not think that the gay marriage statutes that have been passed in recent years could have happened without more than thirty years of debate on the subject.
 
Roe vs. Wade?

Abortion was legal in IIRC only four states prior to the decision.
Yes, but gay marriage was legal nowhere. Hell, no place in the world had legalized gay marriage. Almost all states still had laws banning any sort of homosexual intercourse. It's two pretty different realities.
 
Top