Marriage Equality May Be the Biggest Winner of the 2012 Election

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

As you probably already know, Sen. Claire McCaskill is the latest politician to evolve on the topic of same-sex marriage:

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.

This is good news: if a Missouri politician can do this, anyone can do it. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that McCaskill waited to make this announcement until she had 68 months to go before her next election. Apparently McCaskill trusts the goodwill of Missouri’s voters only just so far.

Still, it’s good news. Put this together with Rob Portman’s change of heart and Karl Rove’s declaration that he could foresee a Republican presidential candidate supporting gay marriage by 2016, and it’s pretty obvious that this train is on a downhill run. And it’s a funny thing: this might be the single biggest effect of the Republican loss in 2012. They’ve made it clear that their “soul searching” won’t lead to any serious changes in party policy, but they’ve also made it clear that they want to change something as a symbolic bone to throw to all those demographic groups who hate them. Gay marriage may be the perfect sacrificial lamb. After all, the party’s leaders know that the fight against marriage equality is now hopeless; they know it’s killing them with young voters; and let’s be honest: a great many of them have never truly cared about this. They talk the talk as a sop to the Christian Right, not because of any deep-rooted beliefs of their own.

This all would have happened eventually anyway. But it’s the lucky beneficiary of the Republican Party’s need for something to represent their “reinvention” after 2012, and that will speed things up. Who would have guessed?


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend