When we talk about American politics today and somebody brings up "the Social Issues" he almost always means gay marriage and abortion. These two ongoing debates have been shackled together for decades as matters that pit the urban creative elite against more traditional heartland voters. America had gradually moved leftwards with the pro-choice movement leading the charge. Over the past ten years however there has been a remarkable divergence. In 2004 Karl Rove and the George W. Bush campaign put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in Ohio in an effort to motivate social conservatives to come vote for against gay marriage and while in the voting booth re-elect the president. Bush's victory in Ohio that year was the difference between his successful re-election and what otherwise would have been a Kerry presidency.
Fast forward ten years and courts are readily striking down gay marriage bans from state to state.
Opposition to the new marriage equality movement has become socially unacceptable in all but the most traditional circles. The progress has been astounding.
Meanwhile the abortion debate has hardly changed at all. In fact Republicans are using the state legislatures they control to chase abortion providers out of their states at an astounding pace. For us on the political left this is too often painted as a sort of residual bigotry. But why is the pro-life movement slowly gaining strength in a nation where opposition to gay marriage is rapidly collapsing?
The answer is in the details of the debates over these issues. America has long accepted that the law has no business regulating sex or the sort of relationships people form. Most social conservatives today would not advocate a criminal penalty for sodomy―for them it is simply not a matter for the law. Thus liberals have gone on to argue that gay marriage ought to be simply another facet of regular marriage. Homosexual couples act in just the same ways as straight couples when married. They simply want the same institutions for the same conduct. Thus it becomes a matter of civil rights. When two sets of people who act in the same way receive different treatment under the law, there is a serious problem. The argument is premised in the idea that gay people simply wish to be allowed to conduct themselves in the same way as the rest of us outside of their sex lives. An argument that allows gay couples to act as if they are married in every way except maintain the formal status raises the obvious question: why can't they have the formal status. Thus as the left has spread the argument that homosexual Americans are no different from anyone else those listening naturally come to the natural conclusion. Gay people ought to be treated like anyone else.
Regarding abortion social liberals are equally virulent in spreading their message. "Women have a right to do what they want with their bodies. Denying them the ability to end a nine month phenomenon is tantamount to making the condition of their bodies something that is publically legislated". This is a good argument on its own. The trouble is that social liberals seem to be ignoring the argument of their opponents. The right believe that a foetus is a living person and that allowing ordinary women to kill a living person is tantamount to murder. Of course the logical core of the liberal argument is that a foetus is not a living person like you or me. But instead of explaining when, if not at conception, life beings, the left wing media simply scream about property rights more loudly.
Of course if social liberals convince American voters that a foetus is not a human being then the case against abortion will immediately collapse. Who would want to tell somebody "no you can't remove an object from your body"?
Of course, mainly as a way of riling up a base with a desperate fear that their bodily functions will be regulated, the political left continues to harp on about property rights. The trouble is that nobody denies the property aspect of the matter it's just that everybody regards life as more important than property. If the pro-choice movement explains why this is not a life issue they'll win. It's a pity most social liberals are so stupid.
