Sea Change on Same Sex Marriage

This week the Barna people posted a bunch of survey results on the speed at which Americans have changed their mind on Same-sex marriage. Apparently not only the President has “evolved”.

There are a number of reasons given for this remarkable political reversal:

1. Positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in popular media and art
2. Change came through through the courts rather than legislatures
3. As more gays and lesbians came out of the closet people in their personal relationships found that these people and their relationships were not a threat
4. The Science factor: The therapeutic community no longer saw same sex attraction as a dysfunction to attempt to cure.

The change in the “gay agenda” had some pretty substantial adversaries

1. Near universal opposition from all major world religions
2. The common opinion that it was “unnatural”
3. Political polarization between party lines, although even in the mid 2000s few Democrats including 2008 presidential candidates Clinton and Obama favored “civil unions” over “same-sex marriage”.

Why Has Climate Change NOT swept the political field?

On the surface it might seem that climate change SHOULD have been able to sweep the field given a number of its significant strengths.

1. The vast majority of scientific data seems to conclude that the earth is warming quickly in historical terms because of human industrial behavior.
2. Similar to acceptance of same sex behavior, fears of calamitous environmental devastation have been in the arts for a while and a steady stream of educational TV on destruction in nature due to climate change have been produced for decades influencing the young.
3. Democrats have long been more outspoken on climate change than they were on same sex marriage. Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” long predates Obama’s “evolution”.
4. Religious opposition to climate change has not been anything like religious opposition to same-sex marriage. While some religious groups who are politically conservatives have opposed policy change to address climate change there have also been conservative religious groups that have advocated for policy change.

What factors have resisted climate change policy?

1. Climate change is less tangible, personal and easily observable as personal impressions and opinions regarding same-sex attraction. You can’t “know” the climate and say “he seems like a good person even if he wants to sleep with men.”
2. Addressing climate change costs something economically. The economic price tag for same-sex looks low. Many fear that addressing climate change will cost real money and inhibit pursuit of one’s lifestyle or economic aspiration. Morality is easier to embrace with minimal sacrifice.
3. “Harm” and “Fairness” according to Jonathan Haidt have dominated America’s moral feelings especially on the left. Global climate change seems to weigh on the “harm” side for many but it doesn’t have the same type of grip with “fairness” especially while the most dire warnings address the future rather than what is seen or felt by people today.

The Science Question

One of the most interesting things that comparing the two is the role of science.

Theistic-atheistic dialogue and conflict is often portrayed as a competition between superstition and reason or science. What is interesting to me in this comparison is how science weighs far more on the side of climate change than it does on the side of same-sex marriage.

Science cannot tell you whether same sex behavior is “good”. Social sciences are weighing in on whether same sex attraction can be “changed” or whether participating in same sex coupling is damaging to the individuals or whether same sex parents damage children.

Science has similar limitations when it comes to whether climate change is “good” but as this interesting article points out we tend to implicitly choose that less change in sea level or other factors is NOT “good” or rather “desired” by us.

This piece written by “Preston”, a pastor who is abdicating his faith is a good example of how “science” and “rationality” is seen as the clear light of day as opposed to the oppressive enclosure of “faith”.

Many it seems side with Nacho Libre’s  Esqueleto who says “I only believe in science” but his life doesn’t really differ that much from Ignatio, the man of faith.

Initial Conclusions

My hunch is that the “low price tag” difference is the key one. It’s easy to take a position “I’m against environmental devastation”. It’s more difficult to make substantial lifestyle changes responding to it.

I think another issue is the simplicity. Same sex marriage gets legalized either with a court decision or a legislative vote and the world changes. Advocates for the environment offer no single simple solution to the problem.

The same-sex marriage debate also has brought with it a simplistic moral accusation: bigot. The civil rights movement became (remember harm and fairness) a defining moment for public morality in the US. Avoiding becoming an obvious public bigot became a rather easy thing to do, far easier than actually addressing racial discrimination in society or in each of our hearts. The bigot label lands a devastating moral punch. Since the civil rights movement few things are more hateful to be. They can quickly lose you an NBA franchise, a political career, your public reputation.

Being a destroyer of the environment is kind of like being a sinner in a Calvinist church. We’re all one by confession. Addressing it seems impossible and unenjoyable.

I heard a story from a friend who works in California water. Years ago when climate change was coming on the radar and its consequences were beginning to be imagined for California’s water systems he watched that community begin to discuss it. Many advocated “we have to stop this”. He noted, “we should prioritize adjusting to its consequences. We don’t have the political will to stop it, especially since the US won’t be the greater future carbon producers.” I thought, “yep, he’s a Calvinist”

I asked one person this question and she could have shortened my blog considerably.

“You can just change your mind about gay marriage and feel good about yourself (morally). Climate change asks someone of me.”

Refusing to quickly flip on same sex marriage makes you a bigot. You can be a moral hero in an instant and it causes you nothing. Embracing the need for action regarding climate change makes you a frustrated hypocrite. We want to feel good about ourselves. We take the soft position and live in denial on the difficult one. Human nature. I’m a Calvinist too.