Debating Same-Sex Marriage: Lessons from <Emphasis Type="Italic">Loving</Emphasis>, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Roe</Emphasis>, and <Emphasis Type="Italic">Reynolds</Emphasis>

The United States Supreme Court, in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, declared a constitutional right to same-sex marriage (SSM). With Republicans now controlling the Congress and presidency, and with value-traditionalists and ‘strict’ constitutionalists influencing the party’s legislative agenda and judicial nominees, Obergefell’s future and the contours of SSM rights are uncertain. Proponents assume the decision will delegitimate opponents, just as Loving v. Virginia (1967) accelerated the delegitimation of racial segregationists. SSM opponents counter with the Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and argue that, like Roe, Obergefell undermines the democratic process, which is better suited to resolve a highly-charged moral dispute. Like Roe, Obergefell will not resolve the debate but, instead, trigger a durable opposition. We add a third possible path, drawing on the evolving public discourse on polygamy since the Supreme Court upheld prohibitions in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The politics of polygamy shows that, if SSM opponents are delegitimated, they may reemerge as legitimate participants in the public sphere. These paths offer insights into uncertainties, contingencies, and predictions regarding the durability of SSM resistance and other oppositional movements. They also lead to revisionist interpretations of the effect on public discourse flowing from these three seminal court decisions. The politics of interracial marriage (after Loving) shunned the losing political faction from the public forum, while those of abortion (after Roe), and, recently, polygamy, illustrate a more vibrant, pluralist model of deliberation. Whether SSM opponents will mimic a Roe model, or follow the trajectory of Loving or Reynolds, is now the question.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Liberellas</Emphasis> Versus <Emphasis Type="Italic">Konservatives</Emphasis>: Social Status,Ideology, and Birth Names in the United States

Despite much public speculation, there is little scholarly research on whether or how ideology shapes American consumer behavior. Borrowing from previous studies, we theorize that ideology is associated with different forms of taste and conspicuous consumption: liberals are more drawn to indicators of “cultural capital” while conservatives favor more explicit signs of “economic capital”. These ideas are tested using birth certificate, U.S. Census, and voting records from California in 2004. We find strong differences in birth naming practices related to race, economic status, and ideology. Although higher status mothers of all races favor more popular birth names, higher status, white liberal mothers more often choose uncommon, culturally obscure birth names. White liberals also favor birth names with “softer, feminine” sounds while conservatives favor names with “harder, masculine” phonemes. These findings have significant implications for both studies of consumption and debates about ideology and political fragmentation in the United States.     

The Persistence of the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Protocols</Emphasis>

The fear of a secret Jewish conspiracy that dominates and manipulates the political economy began not long after the Emancipation from the ghettos, and was formalized over a century ago in the Tsarist forgery known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That document itself has been shredded of credibility, but the animating idea of a Jewish cabal continues to show some life. The figure who inadvertently keeps that fantasy alive is the octogenarian financier George Soros (b. 1930), and the attacks upon his ideas and influence are inflected with the paranoid style that had given birth to the discredited Protocols.     

Allen C. Guelzo, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Redeeming the Great Emancipator</Emphasis>

In the latest of his many books on Lincoln, Allen C. Guelzo argues that the “redeemer president” is himself in need of redemption—redemption from a contemporary mindset that refuses to acknowledge moral indebtedness. Challenging various falsifications of the past, from the neo-abolitionist claim of “self emancipation” to simplistic accounts of the postwar failure of emancipation, Guelzo offers a richly textured and fearless brief for Lincoln’s crucial role in emancipation.