> or the same reason that slavery couldn't be resolved by the states. For the same reason that racism can't be resolved by the states. Because these things haven't gotten resolved by states.
I'm not so sure that the states would not have resolved it (Edit: gay marriage, not slavery).
13 years ago, there were 0 US states with legal gay marriage.
6 years ago it was 3.
2 years ago it was 12.
Yesterday, it was 36 states (plus DC, Guam, and a whole bunch of native american tribes). 70% of the US population lived in areas with legal gay marriage.
You might argue that a few states abolished slavery, too, but that was not going to lead to nationwide abolition without war. I think gay marriage would have been difference, because
1. We have much more interstate trade interdependence now, and
2. We have much more personal mobility.
More and more large national companies are including support for same sex couples in their benefits, and when opening new facilities will take into account if the location is friendly to all their employees, including the LGBT ones. I think as soon as one or two of the hold out states lost some big project that would have brought a lot of jobs and money, and the awarding company cited as a reason for picking a neighboring state was that the winning state is more friendly to their LGBT employees, you'd see a lot of the hold out states changing their tune.
> I'm not so sure that the states would not have resolved it [slavery].
Opinions among historians seem to vary, but the impression I've gotten (albeit not with any careful study) has been that the slave states likely would have been extremely slow to abolish slavery, because:
1) the dollar value ascribed to enslaved people represented a huge proportion of the wealth of politically-powerful slave owners; and
2) many non-slave-owning voters in the slave states --- all white males, of course --- aspired to become slave owners and thus tended to sympathize with the interests of slave owners.
Oops. I meant that I'm not sure the state's would not have resolved gay marriage, not that I'm not sure they would not have resolved slavery. I've edited my comment to clarify.
Unfortunately, the southern states were going the opposite direction. There were states that strongly abolished gay marriage. Even after today's ruling, Texas is making passive-aggressive moves to make it difficult by encouraging county employees to use the "personal objection" reason to not issue licenses.
I'm not so sure that the states would not have resolved it (Edit: gay marriage, not slavery).
13 years ago, there were 0 US states with legal gay marriage.
6 years ago it was 3.
2 years ago it was 12.
Yesterday, it was 36 states (plus DC, Guam, and a whole bunch of native american tribes). 70% of the US population lived in areas with legal gay marriage.
You might argue that a few states abolished slavery, too, but that was not going to lead to nationwide abolition without war. I think gay marriage would have been difference, because
1. We have much more interstate trade interdependence now, and
2. We have much more personal mobility.
More and more large national companies are including support for same sex couples in their benefits, and when opening new facilities will take into account if the location is friendly to all their employees, including the LGBT ones. I think as soon as one or two of the hold out states lost some big project that would have brought a lot of jobs and money, and the awarding company cited as a reason for picking a neighboring state was that the winning state is more friendly to their LGBT employees, you'd see a lot of the hold out states changing their tune.