Digesting the bitter Prop 8 news, I'm disappointed and sad to have lost gay marriage in California. The adoption of a constitutional ban there has set back the cause by years. What's more frustrating, though, is what I'm hearing from people on our side. "This just shows why civil rights shouldn't be put up for a vote." Or: "We lost this one, but there are other courts to try." To me this translates as: "We're determined not to learn from defeat."
Not just one defeat. On gay marriage, we're now zero for 30 on state constitutional bans. Think about that. Has any other political movement in the history of the United States compiled such an unblemished record of total electoral annihilation? An introspective movement should be doing some fundamental rethinking at this point.
My suggestion: Rethink, first, the wisdom of mindlessly pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public. The result is gay marriage in two states-one of which, Connecticut, would soon have had it anyway-at the cost of a backlash which has made the climb much steeper in dozens of other states, and which, in some states, has banned even civil unions. The California debacle is particularly stinging. We already had civil unions there, and we were only one Democratic governor away from seeing those converted legislatively, hence less controversially, to marriages. First rule of politics: if you're winning anyway, don't kick it away.
Rethink, second, the strategy of telling the public that we're entitled to marriage by right and that anyone who disagrees is a discriminator or, by implication, a bigot. Some portion of the public, let's call it a third, agrees with that proposition, but a third isn't enough. As Dale Carpenter points out, another, let's say, third loaths homosexuality, but they're not winnable. The key is the middle group, people who oppose anti-gay discrimination but see gender as part of the definition of marriage, not as a discriminatory detail. We're going to have to persuade these people that gay marriage is a good idea. We're going to have to talk about gay marriage instead of changing the subject to discrimination. Bludgeoning them with civil-rights rhetoric isn't going to work. Not if it failed in the country's bluest state in a bright-blue year.
The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. Too many gay heads are too strategically locked into a litigation-based mindset that has become counterproductive. Too many people forget that Martin Luther King was a persuader, not a litigator, and that the real breakthroughs came through Congress, not courts.
Addendum: A useful emendation here. In a perverse way, it cheers me up a bit to know that, pre-Prop 8, California was not as close to SSM as I thought.
More: A silver lining in Arizona, courtesy of commenter Throbert...
{ 72 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Let’s say a red-haired guy comes up to someone on the street and kicks him in the shin, throws a pie in his face, and knocks him into a puddle. The man looks up from the puddle and says, “I hate you!” And the guy who did it says, “You bigot–why do you hate me for my red hair?”
The point is, people don’t hate the gay community for being gay. They hate the gay community for Pride parades with drag queens and ass chaps, the exhibitionist behavior at Rainbow rallies, the seeming unconcern for spreading STDs, the exploitation of youth, the meth addiction, the multiple partners, etc., etc., etc. If you asked the voters what qualities they associate with being gay, you know in your heart that’s the list they’d give.
But you say that’s homophobia. They just hate us for being gay. Like the guy in my story wants to blame the hatred on his red hair.
You’re not going to get the votes you want as long as people have that negative stereotype of gays. And you’re not going to change that negative stereotype until gays start behaving like normal people. And you know, but you won’t admit, that a large percentage of those who identify as gay reinforce all the negative stereoptypes. For every Ellen there are 99 George Michaels. Gays can’t have Pride parades with drag queens in Amy Winehouse wigs throwing condoms at the crowd AND the right to marry. Pick one or the other.
P.S. Yes, I know I brought up the Nazi thing and that every thread in every blog devolves into that. It’s too early to use Obama supporters instead of Nazis, though.
“The point is, people don’t hate the gay community for being gay.”
—Some people do, Ashpenaz. There are conservatives who don’t like me in-spite of my credentials. Alan Keyes is a good example, while most republicans “disagree” with gay rights, Alan Keyes HATES gays. Let’s just say I’ve been thrown out of freerepublic so many times I don’t even bother to join anymore.
Take advice from Barack Obama, from his infamous “redistributive change” radio interview:
?And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.?
Drop the reference to “redistributive change” and replace it with “marriage equality” and it’s words to take to heart.
None of the introspection Rauch calls for seems to involve actually changing our behavior. Let’s just keep marching in the streets and trying to subvert the legal system instead of actually trying monogamy, sobriety, and stability.
Good start, Ashpenaz. Now work on your own behavior, and you’ll be just fine. Here’s the thing. First of all, I disagree with your perspective of the gay community somewhat, and definitely your revisionist history. But again, I’ll concede those points, and say you’re 100% right for now. And let’s say people start agreeing with you. That’s not going to change things until years down the road, if at all. You’ve made your opinion known. Now work on yourself and stop blaming others for what you don’t have. Make it my fault, I don’t care. But that doesn’t help you. You know what you want, now go for it. Stop blaming everyone else for what you don’t have.
Ashpenaz, how am I supposed to rein in all these misbehaving gays? I have no control over the people marching in parades or having promiscuous sex. Nor should I. This is America, land of the free.
What you are describing is straight squeamishness at the more extreme gay elements, but why shouldn’t they do as they please? Who is telling frat boys boozing it up and screwing everything in site to behave themselves? Or straight swingers? Or those Bourbon Street revelers? Some gays are sluts and that is their RIGHT. And no, we don’t have to choose between partying and marrying. We can have both and we will have both.
I’m gay. I think I’m normal. I’m not doing drugs off the back of escorts while I bang them sideways with a double dildo. But who cares?
Stop being so self-hating and start living your own life. EVERYONE in America should be free.
OK, I’ve run out ways to say the same thing. We “confirmed bachelors” in flyover country will just have to deal with the fact that urban gays are destroying rights for everyone. When I tell people I’m attracted to men, I’ll continue to say, “I don’t use the word ‘gay’ because of the political and cultural baggage it carries,” because the behavior of urban gays will cause me to continually have to distance myself from them. When I try to express my sexuality with stability, monogamy, and dignity, I’m not going to say, “This is what gays are really like,” because they aren’t. Those three qualities belong to men who are attracted to men, and who have to courage to step outside the Pride cult. Since those who hate marriage have successfully destroyed the chance that those who want marriage will ever have that right, we traditional homosexuals will just have to create rituals and institutions for ourselves, the way we’ve always done. Again, I can’t think of another way to say this, so that’s it for now.
Ashpenaz, you really are very presumptuous.
You don’t know what I want to do or don’t want to do. For your information – not that you care about reality very much, pretty obviously – I’ve argued against the “gay bishops” route pretty consistently, because I think it’s irrelevant and elitist. I frankly don’t give a damn about job opportunities for Episcopal clerics. But please: spare me the laughable analysis of the situation. Homosexuality was illegal in Nigeria and many other places long before Gene Robinson – and believe me that it isn’t because of Gay Pride.
If it were, one would think that there would be a nationwide hue and cry about the heterosexual debauchery that’s on display every Mardi Gras. I won’t hold my breath, though, on that one. Any one of the heterosexuals can get married anytime they feel like it, and they do. Often numerous times. Straight murderers, too, get the privilege, even being allowed to get married while serving life sentences in prison. So, please.
And of course, gay Episcopalians (and other gay people) have made it possible for you to sit here whining about how you can’t get married and about what everybody else is doing to you. In any case, I have said for many months now that the push in the courts was going to backfire. So, really: you don’t know what you’re talking about.
(And think for a second about your “logic”: here are gay people in California who want to commit to one another. One would think, using your line of reasoning, that heterosexuals who detest Gay Pride and Promiscuity would actively support this. I mean, that’s how you see it, right?
No? Gee, what a surprise….)
There are straights who are positively fixated on gayness. It’s an obsession, it just sets them off, and even if we all stayed in our homes, bound and gagged, watching Mr. Rogers and praying to Jesus, they’d still have a problem with us. If Gay Pride ended today, they’d get worked up about something else. It’s thanks to courageous gay rights activists, people who stood up and declared their existence, that we have become unignorable. Why some people are so eager to hide and shrink from our political challenge is beyond my comprehension.
(And FYI: none of the gay people I know are as you describe. Most are part of long-term couples; I haven’t been to Gay Pride in 15 years. I frankly don’t even see the point of Gay Pride; it’s long beyond its past-due date, IMO.
I live in New Jersey, about 15 minutes from Christopher Street, along with literally millions of others (including millions of heterosexuals, some of whom probably have been to Gay Pride) Yet somehow, the legislature passed civil unions here, without much opposition, and we may be one of the next states with marriage. Explain, please.
And while you’re at it, also explain how you’re going to get all those urban gay men to do what you say….)
Shackleford:
This…will instead convince many Mormons that the gay community is indeed a threat to their beliefs.
I think they came to this conclusion before now. That’s why they massively funded opposition to CA Prop 8.
The pro-8 propaganda actually warned of churches losing tax-exempt status if they didn’t accept gay marriage, which was nonsense, and now here they are trying proving them right.
You are correct that churches cannot be forced to perform or host any marriages which they don’t sanction. That’s different from losing tax-exempt status for politicking. The IRS, and then the courts will make that determination.
Oops, “Shackford,” sorry.
I am supporting the effort to take the tax-exempt status away from churches that supported this disgrace.
http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/
You should also give serious thought to a tax protest. Send a message to the state and federal governments. Hit them in the pocket books.
We “confirmed bachelors” in flyover country…
Okay, Ashpenaz, so there are “confirmed bachelor” persons that identify as you do, and share many of the same values. Become friends with them, date them, take a trip to MA, CT, or Canada and marry that special someone. So what’s the problem?
I live in New Jersey, about 15 minutes from Christopher Street, along with literally millions of others (including millions of heterosexuals, some of whom probably have been to Gay Pride)
Bls, I live about 30 minutes away, with no tunnel traffic that is. Most of the GOP in the state are okay enough. But fossils like Richard Merkt, assemblyman from Morris County, is pretty certifiable. He wanted to impeach all 7 of the NJ Supreme Court justices. And now he is thinking of running for governor. Thank God he doesn’t have a chance in hell.
bls: That’s a perfect example of the “tyranny of the majority,” thanks.
No, actually, it’s a perfect example of democracy in action. The tyranny was when 4 judges decided to rewrite the CA Constitution to their personal specifications.
And who’s “we,” BTW?
The majority, whose rights were trampled by those four thugs in black robes.
See, you guys consistently get it wrong. The most fundamental right is the right to have your vote count.
Look up Baker v. Nelson. There is no right to SSM in the US Constitution. Heterosexual marriage, which has existed for all of human society, is a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage, which never existed anywhere until, what, 20 years ago, is not a fundamental right.
Why, then, do you believe you have rights that do not accrue to us?
I don’t. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. We both have the exact same right.
You do not want to marry someone of the opposite sex. That is also your right.
What is not your right is to change the definition of marriage. You have the right to try to convince a majority of your fellow citizens that the definition should be change. But you don’t have the right to demand.
(Anyway, here are a few good reasons why “you” should accept it.
1. Family is important and central to people’s lives, and to life in “society.” And gay people often take care of elderly parents and others.
What does that have to do with changing the definition of marriage?
2. Gay people often have children; at present these children are denied the most basic of legal protections.
Not in CA. Civil Unions carry all the legal benefits of marriage that CA can give. The Federal DoMA blocks members of an SSM from gaining any of the Federal benefits of marriage. So changing teh namefrom civil union to marriage does not get the children anything.
3. Fidelity is a virtue that “society” might want to encourage generally.
A person who cheats on his / her civil union partner is just as likely to cheat on his / her spouse.
If you’re not capable of making a lifetime bond, or even just a bond whose term’s you’ll honor, unless the Government blesses your union, then you’ve got big problems. Problems that won’t be solved by getting that blessing.
4. Marriage is among the most basic of human rights; heterosexuals wouldn’t dream of allowing “society” to tell them that they can never marry anybody. Careful; if it can happen to us, it can happen to you, too.)
No, heterosexual marriage is one of society’s foundations. Freedom of Speech, the right to think as I wish, the right to own property, the right to defend myself, those are fundamental rights.
A marriage is valuable to the extent that its members take their oaths seriously. If you do, the government blessing doesn’t matter. If you don’t, the government blessing won’t save you.
I don’t. I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. We both have the exact same right.
Ugh! Greg, could you at least admit that encouraging gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex is wrong?
But you don’t have the right to demand.
Sure we do. It’s what you alluded to later on in your post…Freedom of Speech.
Heterosexual marriage, which has existed for all of human society, is a fundamental right. Homosexual marriage, which never existed anywhere until, what, 20 years ago, is not a fundamental right.
Really? Tell that to interracial couple as recent as 40 or so years ago.
A person who cheats on his / her civil union partner is just as likely to cheat on his / her spouse.
We’ve seen plenty of that from heterosexual marriages.
No, heterosexual marriage is one of society’s foundations.
Many things were once one of society’s foundations, but no longer are, thank God. So far, the biggest argument I’ve seen for heterosexual’s exclusive claim on marriage is that, well, it’s been around for thousands of years. The question is, why should that still be the case?
Not sure why Greg Q is posting here, but regardless, he’s making a lot of silly arguments in bad faith. I mean asking a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex is deeply dishonest and cruel.
The fact is, gay people have always existed, and always will exist.
Our desire to partner with another is a HUMAN desire, shared by everyone. It deserves to be represented in law.
Until recently, Western societies did not grant rights of any kind to gays, discriminated against them, incarcerated them, and even killed them — just for being gay. In response, gays have fought for equality and won important victories against tradition and the status quo. Greater and greater numbers of our straight citizenry have been won over to our side and this will continue (a reason to hope).
What is more, America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. Judges are going to make anti-democratic decisions against the “will of the majority” from time to time — it’s the way the system is set up. Didn’t you go to high school? If judges didn’t make contrarian decisions and “invented” rights, blacks would still be working the cotton fields.
We’re going to win this, sooner or later. No question about that.
“Until recently, Western societies did not grant rights of any kind to gays, discriminated against them, incarcerated them, and even killed them — just for being gay.”
Umm–no, they didn’t. As I have said many times, if you look at the lives of Tennyson, Lincoln, Thoreau, T. E. Lawrence, Ruskin, Whitman, Thoreau, Melville–or even further back, Richard 1, Aelred, Bacchus, Alexander, Achilles, Jonathan, David, all the way back to the epic of Gilgamesh–uh, no, sorry, gays weren’t persecuted. There is no evidence that any of these gays felt oppressed, either. That’s a myth.
Please use citations for your baseless claims. Find one gay person who was persecuted for being gay prior to the last half of the 20th century. Other than Oscar Wilde. If you can’t, and you can’t, then please stop try to push the myth of victimization which led to the disaster of Stonewall and the the self-defeating Pride parades.
Until recently, Western societies did not grant rights of any kind to gays, discriminated against them, incarcerated them, and even killed them — just for being gay. In response, gays have fought for equality and won important victories against tradition and the status quo. Greater and greater numbers of our straight citizenry have been won over to our side and this will continue (a reason to hope).
Exactly, Marc. It wasn’t until the early Seventies, right around Stonewall, when gays really started getting rights in the U.S. Maybe a little earlier for San Francisco. Before then, you pretty much had to be in the closet to avoid being bashed, persecuted, or oppressed. And as disheartening as Prop. 8 passing was, the polls clearly show that the younger voters were much more supportive of same sex marriage.
As for your comments on judges, I don’t think the Constitution enumerated such rights to the judiciary. But they grabbed it, and no one stopped them. So amendments, and perhaps voter referenda, are the only checks to the judiciary. As such, judges seem to not make rulings in which it appears that a high percentage of the population will reject it, even if they believe such a ruling is constitutional.
You are correct that churches cannot be forced to perform or host any marriages which they don’t sanction. That’s different from losing tax-exempt status for politicking. The IRS, and then the courts will make that determination.
This distinction means nothing to members of the church. Since there’s no way in hell the courts are going to strip the tax-exempt status of the Mormon church (really, it’s not going to happen), the only actual real-world consequence of taking this action is the appearance of having declared war on the church, which will then be used as ammunition to stir members into action the next time a vote like this comes around. There were signs in my neighborhood that said “Vote yes on 8 to protect free speech.” Next time this happens, every single Mormon church-goer will be handed a copy of this stupid petition and will be told, “See! They want to destroy us!”
Pat,
So far, the biggest argument I’ve seen for heterosexual’s exclusive claim on marriage is that, well, it’s been around for thousands of years. The question is, why should that still be the case?
Because no one on the pro-SSM side has even come close to making a good case for why we should change the definition of marriage. You want the change, the burden of proof for why we should change is on you.
“It will make me happier / feel better” is an utterly pathetic reason. “Because it will help gay people” misses the point. The question isn’t “what’s in it for you?” The question is “what’s in it for society?” Heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our society. It provides the people who make our society go (with all due respect to single parent families, their kids do a lot less well, and are a lot less likely to be productive citizens, than do kids from two parent, mother and father families). It therefore makes sense that society should provide the members of this valuable institution with benefits.
Does SSM provide society with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage? No? Then why should it be treated the same way?
Ugh! Greg, could you at least admit that encouraging gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex is wrong?
I’m not encouraging them to do anything, other than respect the law, the Constitution, and democracy. There are lots of things that you can do, that you shouldn’t. You have the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, therefore you have the ability to marry. Whether or not that’s a bad idea is a completely separate issue (certainly plenty of heterosexuals engage in marriages that were a bad idea).
But you don’t have the right to demand.
Sure we do. It’s what you alluded to later on in your post…Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech doesn’t give you the right to call on someone to violate their oath of office.
Tell that to interracial couple as recent as 40 or so years ago.
Um, how many States in the US banned interracial marriage? How many societies in the past have had interracial marriage?
How many States ban SSM? How many societies in the past have had SSM? 30 and 0, yes?
Marc:
We’re going to win this, sooner or later. No question about that.
No, you’re not. Not so long as you keep on going about your goals so dishonestly and thuggishly.
Yes, we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic. But things go into the Constitution because of the decisions of the democratic majority, not because of the decisions of judges / “justices” / self-appointed philosopher kings.
Neither We The People, nor our elected representatives, have ever placed a requirement for “extra special equal treatment” for gays in our Constitutions.
That means it’s not there.
When you claim it is, you reveal yourself as a dishonest individual.
In 2006, the voters of Arizona narrowly voted down an anti-SSM Constitutional Amendment. In 2008, thanks to the CA and CN Supreme Courts rewriting their Constitutions to create a right to SSM, the Arizona voters passed a similar Amendment quite handily.
So much for “history is on our side”.
Because no one on the pro-SSM side has even come close to making a good case for why we should change the definition of marriage. You want the change, the burden of proof for why we should change is on you.
Greg, we disagree on both of these issues, I suppose.
Does SSM provide society with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage? No? Then why should it be treated the same way?
So then you support banning marriage for opposite sex couples that are unable or unwilling to have children. If that’s the case, I’ll at least agree that you’re being consistent.
I’m not encouraging them to do anything, other than respect the law, the Constitution, and democracy. There are lots of things that you can do, that you shouldn’t. You have the ability to marry a member of the opposite sex, therefore you have the ability to marry. Whether or not that’s a bad idea is a completely separate issue (certainly plenty of heterosexuals engage in marriages that were a bad idea).
Gay people are well aware that they can legally marry someone of the opposite sex. And granted having a right and whether one should use that right are two different issues. So forget about the constitutional issues for a second. Is it wrong to encourage a gay person to marry a person of the opposite sex?
Freedom of Speech doesn’t give you the right to call on someone to violate their oath of office.
Um, okay. We were talking about demanding rights. Not about calling on someone to violate their oath of office.
Um, how many States in the US banned interracial marriage? How many societies in the past have had interracial marriage?
How many States ban SSM? How many societies in the past have had SSM? 30 and 0, yes?
I don’t get your point, Greg. My point was that as recent as 40 years ago, some interracial couples were restricted from marrying. I guess you could argue that they had the same rights. That every person had the right to marry a person of the opposite sex and the same race.
No one is asking for special rights here. With same sex marriage, straight people will also have the right to marry someone of the same sex too.
Yes, we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic. But things go into the Constitution because of the decisions of the democratic majority, not because of the decisions of judges / “justices” / self-appointed philosopher kings.
I guess you’ve only studied the Constitution up to Marbury v. Madison then. I’m not disagreeing with your point here. But your ideal vision of government is not reality, and hasn’t been for a long time.
Neither We The People, nor our elected representatives, have ever placed a requirement for “extra special equal treatment” for gays in our Constitutions.
Good. Because, I for one, am not asking for “extra special equal treatment.” Just equal treatment.
So much for “history is on our side”.
I don’t have a crystal ball, but it does seem that the future is on our side. The exit polls show that younger people were overwhelmingly opposed to Prop. 8. Sure, it’s going to be slower in some states, like Arizona. But freedom and equality is on the rise.
Umm–no, they didn’t. As I have said many times, if you look at the lives of Tennyson, Lincoln, Thoreau, T. E. Lawrence, Ruskin, Whitman, Thoreau, Melville–or even further back, Richard 1, Aelred, Bacchus, Alexander, Achilles, Jonathan, David, all the way back to the epic of Gilgamesh–uh, no, sorry, gays weren’t persecuted. There is no evidence that any of these gays felt oppressed, either. That’s a myth.
Please use citations for your baseless claims.
Sorry, Ashpenaz. You can repeat the same revisionist history all you want. But you listed 16 people. If they were the complete list of gay persons in history, and you actually had evidence that none of these persons were never oppressed, you might have something. Assuming that Lincoln was gay, why wasn’t he able to be open about his relationship with men as he was open about with Mary Todd? Any reason why you left off Edward II who was deposed and killed for being gay. His death wasn’t too pretty. As for the others, who did, in fact, thrive, how do you know they were not oppressed. What we do know is that they clearly could not be open about their sexuality and their (gay) relationships as their straight counterparts. Those who did marry, didn’t feel the need to hide their spouses.
You may claim that these persons were happy about hiding (or playing demeaning euphemistic games), and perhaps some were. But the fact is, most free people don’t like to hide if they don’t have to.
Shackford:
[T]he only actual real-world consequence of taking this action is the appearance of having declared war on the church…
The greater point, which you seem to have consistently missed throughout this thread is that the Mormons already declared and are actively waging war against us.
Yes, it was completely predictable that the Mormons would try to play the victim card on this — that’s what religious types do when attacked.
If we surrender every time any religious group screamed “victim,” we’d never get anywhere. They view our mere existence as a threat, and any recognition of our rights as opressing them.
Agree that the attempt to remove their tax-exempt status is not likely to succeed, but it does seem to have rattled them nicely, which is a good thing.
← Previous Comments