More on gay marriage vs. abolition

I blogged recently about Caleb Crain's argument that gay marriage's institutionalization in one state after another parallels the abolition of slavery two centuries ago. Brainiac reader Andre M. suggests that "the parallels are even eerier than Crain suggests, but the situation gets complicated when we assume that it's more than coincidence." I'll give Andre the floor:

Actually, Vermont (not yet a state) adopted by legislative vote a gradual abolition of slavery; the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court then ruled that slavery violated the state's constitution, and freed all the slaves. (In 1790, Massachusetts was the only state with no slaves.) A number of the states followed Vermont's approach. This is pretty much exactly what's happened with gay marriage. (Mass. is at the moment the only state with nominal same-sex marriage).

Other points made by Andre:

* We're not adding new states these days, slowing down the process.

* New York had lots of slaves, and has lots of gay couples, so different situation; Pennsylvania was full of anti-slavery Quakers.

* The Defense of Marriage Act is parallel to the Fugitive Slave Act (federal preemption of state authority); will we see growing opposition to it, most likely over differential tax status, forcing the issue at the national level?

UPDATE: Crain replies to Andre M:

You're right, of course, that those dates on state-by-state abolition are condensing a lot of legal history very crudely. Your analogy between the Defense of Marriage Act and the Fugitive Slave Act is intriguing. I wonder if there will ever be the same kind of popular resistance, though. Helping to ensure that someone pays a more equitable tax burden just doesn't have the same emotional valence as helping someone escape a slave-catcher. But maybe some politician will figure out a way to make the inequity more visible, more moving...

Thanks, Andre! Please keep the emails coming, readers.