Jonathan Rauch makes as good a case as there is for minding our Ps and Qs in the political battle over marriage equality, but I’m just not buying it.
In the first place, lesbians and gay men aren’t a military operation, and there’s no one to enforce the kind of discipline that would be required for us to maintain the virtually unified face his concern would require. How would any group in a country like this be able to “be cautious” about giving any appearance? I’ve long been in Jon’s camp about political moderation and conservative goal setting. But if there’s any way for us, or anyone, to moderate the millions of individuals who don’t share our philosophy, I’ve certainly never found it. I listen to Jon pretty carefully, but I doubt Tony Kushner does.
That goes to the heart of the problem with Jon’s argument. Maggie Gallagher, Bryan Fischer, Bill Donohue and others who oppose marriage equality are fully committed to this last, substanceless defense of their discriminatory dream: “We’re The Victims Now.” No one who’s actually gay has to do anything for them to find the “appearance” of homosexual bullying. I’m quite certain no one at the 125 year old law firm of King & Spalding, 800 lawyers strong, and representing clients from Bank of America to Walmart, had anything like a gun held to their head by a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence, or wound up bloodied and bruised on the (I’d guess) marble floor of a partner’s suite.
In this context, the appearance of bullying comes merely from succeeding. Maggie and her friends know this as well as HRC and Georgia Equality do. Does anyone think HRC wouldn’t have claimed this victory if they’d done virtually nothing substantive – which may not be an inaccurate view? Whether the claim is victory or super-uncool-meanness, it can be based on nothing more than an end result if the party is savvy enough. There will always be details for the spin.
The bar for bullying is now awfully low, partly because we set it there. When we’re talking about children, particularly in school, it’s probably not unfair to see bullying as intimidation that falls short of physical violence. Kids can have a natural streak of cruelty, particularly about sexual orientation, and if that is left unchecked in a school setting, it can become a serious threat to the educational mission.
But while there are good reasons for setting a low bar in school, when you’re talking about adults in the commercial world, it’s harder to draw the line between bullying and hardball. I’d say we’re even having a hard time drawing a line between bullying and softball, or badminton. With all due respect, what Jon is proposing for us could have come right out of the left’s playbook for Lifted Pinky, Ever-So Respectful Political Discourse. It is the artificially heightened sensibilities of Ms. Gallagher that have brought Jon to this point, I think, and while I can’t argue that she has had success with her stratagem, she’ll find her material no matter what.
I’m satisfied to cast my lot with the hardball players on our team. Not the hood ornaments at HRC, but the business leaders who know what the hell they’re doing. They have the most practical, material interest in knowing where the culture is, and in their judgment, opposing marriage equality has more downside than upside. As with all judgments, there are those who differ, and good for them. That’s what makes a market.
Hardball is unavoidable in adult interactions where a great deal is on the line. Should we give it up when it’s quite clear our opponents won’t, as Virginia’s Attorney General has now demonstrated? I think that’s the bottom line to Jon’s formulation of avoiding even the appearance of bullying. Any time we win, our opponents will be able to spin us as bullies. To ungracious losers, winners always give that appearance.
22 Comments for “Hardball”
posted by Houndentenor on
There’s a difference between teasing and bullying. Teasing goes back and forth. Bullying is one sided. And usually it’s a group that has singled out one person to pick on over and over. I think adults know the difference. One deserves a tsk tsk and the other deserves intervention.
No one is bullying Maggie Gallagher and company. When adults choose to be in the limelight they accept that they will be publicly criticized for what they do. I sing opera. Sometimes the reviews are good and occasionally they are not. (Most often there’s a rave with a few barbs thrown in. OUCH!) That’s what I have to accept in exchange for the privilege of performing in front of audiences. Activists and politicians and other public figures are in a parallel situation. I will draw the line about lying about people, but everyone is entitled to express an opinion.
For some reason there are those among us who think that freedom of speech comes with a freedom from criticism for what you said. It does not. And they want to play victim that anyone would dare criticize their views. I find this quality most pervasive among those who are racist, sexist and homophobic. How dare anyone call them what they actually are!
posted by Wilberforce on
I had second thoughts on the issue when that guy fired K&S from representing a Southern State. There does seem to be the possibility of a backlash against our victories. And the other side has vastly greater resources – of voters, capital, and savagery.
But I still agree with Link. Ive said it before and I’ll say it again. The left is the weakest bunch of invertebrates on the planet. And Americans respect strength, even if it occassionally means dirty pool. If we don’t learn to play hard ball, we’ll never get anything done.
posted by Hunter on
“Any time we win, our opponents will be able to spin us as bullies. To ungracious losers, winners always give that appearance.”
We d0n’t even have to win — protesting their bigotry is enough for them to paint us as bullies. It’s at the point where I have no patience with the “play nice” school of gay activism — if you want to call it that. We’re dealing with a group of liars and bullies, and the only way to counter them with any degree of success is, as you say, play hardball — call them on the lies and get right up in their faces about bullying.
Who knows? Maybe something like this will make NYT and Time magazine think twice about inviting James Dobson or Tony Perkins to publish OpEds about gay civil rights.
posted by Tom on
I no longer even pretend to understand Jonathan’s thinking.
Having written what is probably the seminal, and almost certainly the most powerful, conservative argument for marriage equality (Gay Marriage – Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America (2003)), he then, well after the marriage battle was joined and that cat was irrevocably out of the bag, teamed up with David Blankenhorn to propose a “national reconciliation” based on civil unions rather than marriage equality (A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, The New York Times, February 2009).
Now, he is suggesting that King & Spaulding’s internal decision not to become involved, as a firm, in the defense of DOMA, a decision similarly made by a number of other top-tier law firms, is A “Victory” We Could Do Without, sounding for all the world as if “gay activists” (the HRC and Georgia Equality) pushed the firm into the decision, a “fact” that is becoming increasingly questionable, at best.
I have three thoughts on all of this:
(1) As a retired partner of a law firm of equal prominence, the firm that grappled with the questions arising out of Ken Starr’s decision to become the Independent Councel in the Clinton impeachment while remaining a partner in the firm, I would suggest to you all it is most unlikely that King & Spaulding was influenced by the pressure groups like the HRC and Georgia Equality. Whatever the merits of King & Spaulding’s decision, the decision was almost certainly internal, and as the story surrounding the firm’s decision leaks out in bits and drabs, that is becoming increasingly clear. The HRC and Georgia Equality can dance around doing their war whoops, and NOM and other anti-gay groups can yap and whine about “bullying”, but the facts give lie to both versions of events.
(2) The battle for marriage equality is, at this point, joined, and civil unions are no longer a viable alternative to marriage equality, except, perhaps, as a temporary, necessary but unequal step in the process toward marriage equality in a number of states. The only reason that civil unions find support is because civil unions are not marriage, but purport, falsely, to create equal treatment under the law. Civil unions are a sop to liberals and moderates who want to delude themselves with the illusion equality without the risks entailed by standing and delivering on equality. The anti-gay forces know better than to think that civil unions have viability in the long run, and fight civil unions with the same ferocity with which they fight marriage equality.
(3) Civil unions are not viable, in constitutional theory, because civil unions are inherently unequal, but more to the point, civil unions are not viable politically because the anti-gay forces have forced the issue for almost a decade now, equating civil unions with marriage, convincing the American public, for the most part, of their position. Whatever else might happen in the next few years, the anti-gay forces will not accept civil unions as a “reconciliation”, a compromise that is satisfactory. Gays and lesbians should not, either, for a simple reason — “equal means equal”.
I wrote this on IGF in 2006, wrangling with Stephen over his proposal that civil unions were an incremental approach that gays and lesbians should adopt, and I think that it stands, still:
posted by Houndentenor on
I have to admit some pragmatism on this issue. I suspect that civil unions is the best deal gay couples could get in places like Utah and Alabama. But why should proponents of equal rights for same sex couples start out by proposing a compromise when the same groups that oppose marriage also oppose civil unions? This has always perplexed me about the left and it’s the one thing I admire about the right. Why do liberals start out by compromise and then negotiate away everything else they want while conservatives stick to their principles (misguided or not)? Liberals are spineless and it’s why the scare tactics of the right are so hilarious to anyone who actually knows anything about how these groups actually work.
posted by Doug on
Well said Tom. As I recall the colonists didn’t follow all the rules of engagement either and that resulted in the United States of America.
posted by David Link on
Tom, a couple of points on your very thoughtful post.
(1) While I disagree with Jon on this specific issue, I’d urge you not to dismiss him so easily. He’s still, in my opinion, one of the best writers and thinkers on the role of government in our lives today — a fact recognized by any number of well respected publications and organizations. He’s also a hell of a engaging conversationalist and, I think, an overall mensch.
(2) You’re very right that the social conservatives aren’t ever going to see civil unions as a compromise. But social conservatives aren’t the ones we (or anyone else) would ever be able to compromise with. It’s those folks in the middle of the political spectrum whose support we need in legislative votes or elections. Jon and I (and many others) have long been trying to figure out how to move that bulge of fair minded but unconvinced people in our direction, and over the last quarter century (since the first domestic partnership ordinances were passed in California cities in the mid-80s), that has been working. We have gone from a society where no law anywhere on earth recognized same-sex couples to one where recognition is not only conceivable, but actually happening bit by bit. As every other group that has faced explicit disabilities in the law has learned, full equality doesn’t spring forth from the law whole. The legacy of unfairness that permeated the culture, has to be worked out of the culture like any toxin.
Jon has always had a keen eye for that, and he’s not at all wrong. Politics is frustrating and halting, and often perverse, and no one who witnessed the Prop. 8 battle in California — California! — can credibly argue otherwise. Even a court victory can be taken away by the voters. We may yet win something from the federal courts now, but if we do, I’m still not betting it’ll be nationwide marriage equality in one fell swoop.
That means we’ll still have civil unions to kick around for some time in the political arena. No one ever concedes in a culture war. I’ve been energized over the last couple of years, and while I obviously think we can’t let the faux sensitivities of our far-right opponents undermine us (and I doubt there’s anything we could do to salve their pretended wounds), we also need to remember that there are some people out there of good will whose votes or more tacit support we still need. My sense is that the stronger our side gets, the more respect they’ll give us. But it’s also a fair judgment that there could be a lot of them who support equality but still think Maggie has a point (despite all evidence to the contrary). We shouldn’t write them off entirely, and I, for one, would trust Jon to appeal to their better angels.
posted by Tom on
Jon and I (and many others) have long been trying to figure out how to move that bulge of fair minded but unconvinced people in our direction, and over the last quarter century (since the first domestic partnership ordinances were passed in California cities in the mid-80s), that has been working. We have gone from a society where no law anywhere on earth recognized same-sex couples to one where recognition is not only conceivable, but actually happening bit by bit. As every other group that has faced explicit disabilities in the law has learned, full equality doesn’t spring forth from the law whole. The legacy of unfairness that permeated the culture, has to be worked out of the culture like any toxin.
In my view, we now have enough data to suggest that two factors are critical:
As I see things, both factors are largely independent of the so-called LGBT “leadership”. While activist groups have a role in the struggle, I don’t think that their role is critical or even particularly important. The world has changed since the days of the civil rights movement, and the ways in which people’s attitudes are shaped have changed. Most people — even most gays and lesbians — ignore groups like the HRC.
I think that cultural change is being driven from the ground up, not the top down. I think that it is happening independent of the activist groups on both sides of the issue, and for that reason, I don’t think that it can be, or should be, controlled. I also don’t think that we should worry about the antics of groups like the HRC too much, if at all. I don’t think that they have much influence over the process. The “bulge of fair minded but unconvinced people” are moving in our direction despite the efforts of activist groups on both sides to influence them for good or ill.
But, having said that, I think that it is important to recognize that the Republican Party as presently constituted remains a significant barrier to “equal means equal”.
I noted some years back that whenever the Republicans were in charge of a state’s government, anti-gay measures soon followed, and that whenever the Republicans were in charge of a single branch of a state’s government, pro-gay measures were blocked. I have yet to see an exception to that rule of thumb.
Witness your own state of Minnesota. The push for an anti-gay marriage amendment is underway in Minnesota, and yesterday’s vote in the House Civil Law Committee was, as usual, a straight party-line vote — all 10 Republicans voted for the amendment and all 7 DFLs voted against the amendment. As near as I can tell, there is but a single Republican in the entire Minnesota legislature — John Kriesel — who stands in opposition to the anti-marriage amendment.
We will not win over the social conservatives. But so long as the Republican Party continues to front for the Religious Right, the anti-gay arguments of the Religious Right, as demonstrably false and destructive as they may be, will have political muscle behind them and continue to be blessed with respectability. And that patina of respectability is an important factor in our difficulties winning over the “bulge of fair minded but unconvinced people”.
I respect Jon and I follow his writing. But I think that his concern in this instance is misplaced. Because of the cultural gains we’ve made — ground-up gains through our own work, independent of the “leadership” — people are reaching the point where they see Maggie Gallagher for what she is — a hollow shell. The yammering of the HRC may be preposterous in this case — King & Spaulding made the decision in made for its own reasons — but I suspect people are smart enough not to buy into the “bullying” argument. My view is that we should push hard for what we want and go get it, rather than wring our hands about how Maggie & Company are spinning.
posted by Tom on
I note that the bill to put an anti-marriage amendment on the Minnesota ballot passed the Senate yesterday, 38-27. As a matter of course, every Republican in the Senate voted in favor. The Assembly is expected to follow suit shortly. So it looks like Minnesota will be the next to have a culture-war dog fight. So much for the idea that Tea Party Republicans are any different than the rest.
posted by BobN on
They are different. They’re worse.
posted by Jorge on
…In the first place, lesbians and gay men aren’t a military operation, and there’s no one to enforce the kind of discipline that would be required for us to maintain the virtually unified face his concern would require…. But if there’s any way for us, or anyone, to moderate the millions of individuals who don’t share our philosophy, I’ve certainly never found it. I listen to Jon pretty carefully, but I doubt Tony Kushner does.
That’s not necessary. All that’s needed is for people to repudiate the Al Sharptons and the NAACPs of the movement, to answer the question “why doesn’t anyone condemn the nutty things they’re saying”?
Well, it’s certainly nice that this site and many others do that, isn’t it? I suppose I’ll go home now.
posted by BobN on
People give the national lobbying organizations too little credit. They don’t move mountains, obviously, but bit by bit they move organizations. The enormous inroads made in corporate America — to get non-discrimination policies in the Fortune 500 companies — simply would not have happened without the help of HRC and others. The same can be said about Lambda Legal’s efforts in the courts.
The “debate” about our lobbying groups is so strange. It’s as though we should somehow organize ourselves — or disorganize ourselves — in a way no one else does. We are told over and over how ineffective and useless the liberal gay organizations are and who is telling us this? Why, it’s the conservative lobbying organizations, including the gay ones. If they think lobbying is such a pointless exercise, why do they exist?
posted by Jorge on
To convince the masses of uneducated disadvantaged Americans to vote Democratic.
posted by Houndentenor on
HRC seems only to exist to justify a few high paying jobs and to throw some high-profile self-congratulatory parties. After all these years what exactly has HRC actually accomplished. Yes, conservative groups known that lobbying is important (and it is) but they also formed grassroots organizations while the progressive groups have mostly tried to work top down. Who has accomplished more over the last couple of decades? Trying to win all our battles in court rather than in the neighborhoods has been a disaster. When are we going to realize that?
posted by BobN on
“Who has accomplished more over the last couple of decades?”
This is absurd. No liberal grass-roots gay success?
posted by Houndentenor on
I was a contractor in two Fortune 500 companies when each added gays to their nondiscrimination policies. In neither case did HRC or any other lobbying group have anything at all to do with the policy change. The request was made by employees who organized and made a case. In at least one of them there was some (but not that much) angry mail from the religious right (though easily ignored since not one of the letter-writers did substantial business with the company).
Credit for these policy changes goes to the employee groups. Are lobbyists taking credit for these policies now too? That’s shameful.
posted by Tom on
Credit for these policy changes goes to the employee groups. Are lobbyists taking credit for these policies now too? That’s shameful.
I agree. I participated in bringing a top-tier law firm to a 100% HRC rating and observed (as a consultant/contractor for the company’s legal and public policy group) the change process in a big-three automaker. In both cases the changes were driven by internal considerations, not by outside influence.
I think that the HRC index has value, but it is a tracking device. It might have an indirect influence on the change process because, like all tracking devices, it gathers information and puts it in the public eye, allowing gays, lesbians and straights who care about the issue to make choices based on a company’s index score.
But if HRC has played a direct role in bringing change to Fortune 500 companies, as Bob N suggests, it is news to me.
The value we get from lobbying organizations is lobbying. HRC should be measured by its success or failure in that role, and, in my view, should confine itself to that role.
posted by BobN on
“But if HRC has played a direct role in bringing change to Fortune 500 companies, as Bob N suggests, it is news to me. ”
First of all, I in no way give them all the credit and do not assert that they had a direct role in any given company. They did provide support and a national advertising campaign that brought attention to the issue.
My point is that lobbying organizations lobby. It’s what they do. It’s what they’re supposed to do. If there’s no value to them, as so many around here seem to say, then why do they exist? However amorphous their effect, they have one. I personally think their effect is smaller than that of the local, grass-roots, even radical (ahem), organizations. But HRC is no more “useless” than its adversaries, the FRC, AFA, etc.
posted by Amicus on
The K&S thing, if it is “hardball”, is low-risk hardball.
Here’s a poser: now that it is so easy to put referendum on the ballot in Maryland, say, why don’t we put our own up, something that actually exposes the hypocrisy of certain marriage advocates, inviting voters to really live up to “traditional marriage” IF they intend to amend the constitution to needlessly exclude gays?
posted by Tom on
There was an effort, not entirely tongue in cheek, to do something like that in California. I don’t know what happened to it.
posted by Houndentenor on
Too many people are too invested in their own hypocrisy for such a stunt to have any impact. When people who are on marriage #3 and have had multiple affairs can talk about “protecting marriage” and not be greeted with belly laughs, you have to admit that most people just don’t get the contradiction.
posted by frenky on
e25kTX http://gdjI3b7VaWpU1m0dGpvjRrcu9Fk.com