I don’t always agree with Andrew Sullivan, but he is spot on in calling out a truly repugnant “history” of the gay marriage fight that serves, in Sullivan’s words, as a “cringe-inducing hagiography” of Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the Democratic Party’s LGBT fundraising auxillary.
The book Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality,” by Times reporter Jo Becker, was excerpted in the paper’s Sunday Magazine. As Sullivan noted in a series of posts, the book ignores the groundbreaking work on marriage equality by himself, Bruce Bawer, Evan Wolfson, and others (some conservatives, some progressive Democrats), in order to portray HRC as the vanguard force for historical change, under Griffin’s wise leadership. For instance, Sullivan writes:
For Becker, until the still-obscure Griffin came on the scene, the movement for marriage equality was a cause “that for years had largely languished in obscurity.” I really don’t know how to address that statement, because it is so wrong, so myopic and so ignorant it beggars belief that a respectable journalist could actually put it in print.
He observes:
If you woke up after a long sleep in 2009, and suffer from total memory loss, it makes some sort of sense. But if you know anything about the subject or any history before 2008 or know anyone in the movement before then or even now, this book is as absurd as it is stupid. And no lies and spin from Becker about what she actually wrote will change that.
And he cites, among others also taking issue with Becker and the Times, an analysis by Hank Plante regarding:
…how Becker’s attack on everyone in the movement apart from Griffin is just an extension of Griffin’s own contempt for the two decades of staggering progress that made his unseemly credit-grabbing possible.
The point is not just extremely bad political journalism (which I expect from the New York Times these days), but the utter self-serving mendacity of HRC (ok, I expect that as well).
On a happier note, a further sign of changing times—and the sort of development that’s becoming much more common, often despite (rather than because of) party hacks like Chad Griffin: Lawyer who defended Calif. gay marriage ban plans daughter’s gay wedding. Let’s celebrate those who truly have brought about the extraordinary advances for marriage equality.
More. The Washington Blade reports on the controversy.
24 Comments for “Rewriting History”
posted by craig123 on
I’m sure the book is tripe, but I can’t help seeing Sully sitting there crying, “but…but…but…I’M Obama’s favorite!”
posted by J.K. on
Sullivan and Bawer are writers, and their books were important in explaining the arguments in favor of gay marriage at a time when the idea was widely dismissed, including by mainstream activists. But to my mind the much more serious fault with Becker’s book is her dismissal of Evan Wolfson, who IS an activist/organizer who spearheaded state efforts to work against anti-gay-marriage initiatives (which passed anyway, but the ground work for future victories was created). Also (and Sullivan notes this) Tim Gill’s organizations have done amazing work.
posted by Houndentenor on
At last, Stephen, a post with tons I can agree with, even your little digs.
Yes, HRC is self-serving (also bloated, ineffective and inexplicably self-congratulatory).
Yes, the NY Times is a shadow of it’s former self. I gave up on it at last after the Judy Miller/WMD fiasco, but it really is elitist more than liberal.
And finally, the history of the fight for gay marriage in the US goes all the way back to the first lawsuit in 2000. Okay, so that case was dismissed without much fanfare but it is the first. Many couples sued and many lawyers have argued on their behalf. The gay rights groups mostly discouraged all of this for fear that we’d lose in front of the Supreme Court again and be stuck for years like we were with Bowers v. Hardwick before we got another shot. Any single person or group that takes sole or primary credit for recent gay marriage victories is grossly distorting history. It doesn’t surprise me that anyone would do that. People do it all the time. It’s a shame that we have such a pathetic excuse for media (in all forms) that people get away with saying things that bear no resemblance to the facts. I’m glad this article is being blasted.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The HRC has been useless, for the most part, in the marriage equality struggle.
In fact, it worked (in my opinion, anyway) to keep a lid on the ground-up push for equality, locked as it was into a step-by-step, state-by-state incremental approach.
HRC was not, of course, alone. I can recall a dozen posts on IGF that amounted, basically, to hang-wringing about the “backlash” that would swamp the marriage equality movement if unruly gays and lesbians did not follow an incremental approach (search “backlash” in the IGF search box for a sampling).
HRC did many useful things (primarily the CEI and information dissemination) but HRC was not a player in the marriage equality fight.
HRC did many other useful things.
posted by Houndentenor on
People keep telling me that HRC has done many useful things. I was a member at one point. I can’t think of a single one. Oh, they blather on and make up report cards, etc, but I can’t think of one single piece of legislation they successful passed. Their top-down approach has been a dismal failure. Other than throwing lavish parties and getting lots of people to put equal signs on their bumpers, I can’t think of anything HRC has accomplished for decades of fundraising. It’s the “establishment” gay group and has some prestige by being rather large compared to other groups, but what have they actually accomplished besides branding themselves as “the” gay rights organization?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
HRC has not been an effective legal or political player, and since those are the areas where I’ve focused, it is easy for me to dismiss HRC’s usefulness. But I’m careful about doing that, because I think that HRC has added value by:
(1) Keeping a scorecard on politicians, providing a central location for gays and lesbians to find out how politicians responded on key issues. I think that helps voters sort things out.
(2) Keeping a scorecard on major corporations and businesses, providing information on corporate policies regarding gays and lesbians. I think that gives corporations and business information about what other corporations and businesses are doing, and creates a marketplace for competition in employee recruitment.
(3) Keeping a scorecard on health care providers. I think that helps consumers in making choices about providers.
(4) Providing basic information resources to gays and lesbians about what is going on concerning various issues in a reasonably systematic way, which I think helps those who use the resources get an overview of where we are and what is happening.
(5) Providing “coming out” resources to teens, which has to be helpful.
(6) Keeping a somewhat high profile for gays and lesbians, which, I think, helps teens understand that there are a lot of us out there.
I live in a rural area, Houndentenor. The things I’m pointing to might not have the same importance in urban areas, and, of course, when it comes to younger people, social media may well overshadow anything HRC does or doesn’t do. But Michael and I keep an equality symbol on our vehicles (and I keep a pink triangle on my truck’s tailgate, as well, because that symbol has particular resonance for me), and you’d be surprised how many younger people in rural areas know what the equality symbol means.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I guess that I should add that I simply do not understand Stephen’s conviction that HRC is a powerful political player, let alone a front for the Democratic Party. Maybe on Alphabet Street, but not out in the real world.
I spent an inordinate amount of time in Wisconsin Democratic politics from 2006 to 2013, working on turning the party, and I never once — not once — bumped into HRC or anyone from HRC. As far as I can tell, HRC was totally absent from Wisconsin politics in any meaningful sense.
posted by Houndentenor on
Okay #5 is significant. I’ll give you that one. The others could have been done just as well by The Advocate or other gay publications. None of that justifies the vast amount of money the organization has spent of it’s self-congratulatory air. I was a member in the 90s. I had a brief exchange with their staff in 1998 over a ridiculous endorsement they had made. (The candidate lost anyone which in the end made them look even worse.) Their tone was elitist and condescending as if I were politically unaware because I disagreed with them. Why do they continue to think everything can happen in DC when it’s clear that most gay rights issues happen at the state and local level. Since passing ENDA without Democratic supermajorities seems impossible, it seems all the more important to work for a more grassroots approach training local people how to lobby their own elected officials. (Talking points, messaging, etc. Using their own words and telling their own stories.) That is, btw, how marriage equality happened in several states. There were local people who went in and talked to their moderate Republican state representative and explained to them why this was important to them. Votes were won that way. Why isn’t this the strategy? I have been baffled by the entire top-down approach of gay organizations overall. They’ve often failed and that, I think, is the main reason.
And yes, I’m as baffled as you are at the importance to which Stephen and others on the gay right attach to HRC. I suppose perhaps that’s been it’s main significance: as a strawman for gay conservatives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Okay #5 is significant. I’ll give you that one. The others could have been done just as well by The Advocate or other gay publications.
Yes, but hasn’t been. None of the gay publications keeps an up-to-date database on any of those issues, collecting the information in one place in a coherent manner. Instead, you have to pick around through article after article, trying to piece together a picture.
None of that justifies the vast amount of money the organization has spent of it’s self-congratulatory air.
I agree with you on that … I was a member, too, in the 1990’s. I let my membership lapse within a few years, and I haven’t seen a reason to go back.
posted by JohnInCA on
“first lawsuit in 2000”? You mean “first lawsuit in 1970”, right? Baker v. Nelson hit the Supreme Court in, IIRC, 1972.
posted by tom jefferson iii on
First off all; Happy Easter/Pass Over to everyone here.
Second off all, I think it is cute how gay Democrats or gay Republicans think that THEY somehow single handled made the push and that no one else — certainly not in the party that they don’t vote for — could POSSIBLE have been doing anything good. Cute.
The reality is that gay couples have been fighting for marriage equality — in America — since the early 1970s. At, least that is as far back as we can tell for certain.
The nation — and the courts — were not really ready for consider the matter. A few metropolitan cities — with a large number of socially liberal voters — passed some more limited bits of equality in the 1980s.
AIDS might have been more of a priority for some folks in the 1980s and frankly, no one had much hope that the Reagan-Bush Administration was interesting in supporting gay rights.
In the 1990s the ‘same-sex marriage’ debate showed up again, but much of the national and the courts were not really read then either, but a few signs in the right direction were starting to unfold.
True, this is when Andrew Sullivan started starting about gay marriage as being a great, conservative issue — I just started reading his book ‘Virtually Normal’ today — but he was not the first gay person to express support for gay marriage.
Heck, I think that the big 1955 obscenity lawsuit about a gay marriage was specifically about an article in the magazine about gay marriage.
I suspect that some earlier supporters of marriage equality existed as well and they probably were not all tories….The fight for marriage equality has involved people from many different backgrounds and beliefs.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, I did mean 1970. That’s what I get for multitasking. I even looked it up. Sorry, two term papers, holy week and a very sciency presentation are a lot on my mind. 1970. Yes. You are correct.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’ve not read the book. If the Sullivan description is even half accurate, it sounds like one of those puff-piece books produced by a corporation. I have not read the book, though, so I don’t have any first-hand knowledge.
Serious histories of the struggle for equality will be written by historians, in time. The insta-histories written by journalists are almost always half baked nonsense. I think we’ll start to see some serious histories by 2025.
Having said that, and cognizant of my own limited perspective, I’ve seen the entire post-Stonewall history unfold before my eyes in my adulthood (I am 67), and I’ve been involved in it for most of that time.
Many, many aspects of the fight laid the groundwork for marriage equality, often long before marriage equality was a goal. Thinking about Sullivan’s comments, Evan Wolfson is important in the fight, but as I am certain that he would be the first to acknowledge, his work was built on a foundation laid by many others over the course of a couple decades, by people whose name most of us would recognize, and many other people whose names most of us would not.
I hope that Sullivan has enough perspective to right-size his own role. He was a voice in the struggle — he’s a journalist, not an activist — but only one among many of his period of influence.
I’m curious that Sullivan did not mention Jonathan Rauch. His 2004 book, Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America is a polemic that broke new theoretical ground in a number of ways, and is, looking back, a virtual outline of the non-legal arguments that have been influential in our court cases.
All in all, Sullivan’s posts (I’m not sure if I’ve caught them all, but I’ve found some) are whine-some. Craig’s comment (“I’m sure the book is tripe, but I can’t help seeing Sully sitting there crying, “but…but…but…I’M Obama’s favorite!“) is funny and apt. If Sullivan had actually done something in the fight, rather than just comment loftily on it, I’d be more impressed with his sniffles.
On a happier note, a further sign of changing times—and the sort of development that’s becoming much more common, often despite (rather than because of) party hacks like Chad Griffin: Lawyer who defended Calif. gay marriage ban plans daughter’s gay wedding. Let’s celebrate those who truly have brought about the extraordinary advances for marriage equality.
By the way, I hope that you intended the last sentence to start a new paragraph, and did not intend it to refer to Charles Cooper’s role in defending Prop 8. If “those who truly have brought about extraordinary advances for marriage equality” include Charles Cooper in your view, well, I have no idea what to say in response.
When a serious history is written (as opposed to the Millerite Authorized Version) credits given will include the “party hacks” who spent the better part of three decades bringing the Democratic Party to “We support marriage equality.” It was not, believe me, an easy road. It took a lot of work by a lot of dedicated men and women. Without that work, Democrats would still be stuck in the mud, like, uh … oh, well.
posted by Jorge on
By the way, I hope that you intended the last sentence to start a new paragraph, and did not intend it to refer to Charles Cooper’s role in defending Prop 8. If “those who truly have brought about extraordinary advances for marriage equality” include Charles Cooper in your view, well, I have no idea what to say in response.
Probably true. I have no memory of what you’ve said to me when I’ve gone on a similar yarn.
Before you get too dismissive over the idea that the conservative right is responsible for the advances toward marriage equality, let me point out that even the liberal commenters on this site are divided over whether the far right controls the Republican party when it comes to gay rights or whether it represents the rank-and-file. There is a much bigger consensus around the idea that the political right will not oppose even gay marriage for long–either the Republican party will shrink to irrelevance or the base itself will consent to legalizing same-sex marriage.
Thus, instead of conservatives “standing athwart history yelling ‘stop'”, they’re stepping to the side. I have long believed that it is that decision that makes the swiftest difference in social change.
But I do acknowledge it’s not a zero-sum game. There has to be a movement to not oppose in the first place, after all. (I imagine otherwise you get a whitewashing of history like the way the story of David and Jonathan reads in the Bible. The history of GLBTs in the world is full of these winks and nods, which would actually have been okay if society had been consistent about it–but it wasn’t.) And of course someone has to persuade the right that what they are opposing is actually a good idea.
Everyone wants to be part of the vanguard. I’ll save my honors for the martyrs.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Before you get too dismissive over the idea that the conservative right is responsible for the advances toward marriage equality …
I’m not dismissive of the role the pro-equality conservatives have played in advancing the cause of marriage equality. Ted Olson, for example. But Charles Cooper? He did as much as a lawyer can do to ensure that Ted Olson would lose the Prop 8 case.
posted by Jorge on
You don’t think planning a gay wedding helps?
You may remember NYS Senator Ruben Diaz Sr., the primary opponent of our own law recognizing same sex marriage.
I remember the story on how his openly lesbian granddaughter crashed one of his anti-gay marriage rallies. Actually it’s a lot less romantic than I thought it’d be as The Village Voice tells it (June 22, 2011, “Diaz Family Values”), but at least his reaction was almost neutral. I’m not linking it so as to hopefully not run afowl of this site’s spam scan as I have a more obscure link below.
There’s also the story of his reaction when the Bronx Community Pride Center (which is no longer with us) moved into a new building that was named after him.
“That fact that a group of gays and lesbians occupy space in the Ruben Diaz Gardens is a testimony to let others know that the Bronx is open to merchants and businesses,” he said. “It’s a safe place and people should invest and continue renting in buildings with good reputations and in buildings that elected officials have been instrumental in bringing to
the community!”
http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2011/12/07/bronx-lgbt-center-moves-ruben-diaz-building?page=full
I actually did not know this until about a week ago. Although reading the statement is also very disconcerting and underwhelming.
Well.
I’ll take underwhelming and disconcerting and put it exactly where it belongs. Hmm, and with that I’ve changed my mind.
An opponent who is able to plan a gay wedding is on balance one of the most effective opponents possible against the gay rights movement, both in general and on any specific matter. That his support will help you win any one battle decisively is precisely what gives him the credibility to remain standing the longest among the opposition. His influence will probably blunt the negative impact of a defeat and extend the positive results of some victories (though not others).
Among people who clearly oppose one or more goals of the gay rights movement while clearly running parallel with some of them, their split, their leadership and the net impact of these characteristics varies. This continuum serves our interests insofar as complexity harms the credibility of extremists, but not much further.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I understand the argument (frequently made by Houdentenor) that men like Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer and Brian Brown help our cause by demonstrating the religious extremism and anti-gay animus driving the anti-equality movement. I think that he’s right, in the sense that Bull Connor and Jim Clark helped the African-American civil rights movement, but the help we get from them is unintentional and a byproduct of their religious extremism and animus.
I’m not about to suggest that they should be held up as examples of conservative support for marriage equality, though, because it doesn’t make any sense.
And I do understand the argument that the cognitive dissonance presented by a man like Cooper, who on the one hand argued before the Supreme Court that marriage should be confined to straights because procreation (not child raising) is the sole legitimate purpose of civil marriage, but on the other is planning his lesbian daughter’s wedding, help our cause by demonstrating the bankruptcy of the anti-equality movement’s legal arguments.
We’ll see more of this as time goes on, but you’ve noticed, as we all have, that Cooper has not changed his views on marriage equality. He has not become Ted Olson, or even Ken Mehlman, who helped develop and implement the anti-marriage amendment strategy but now renounces his role and actively supports equality. The best that can be said for Cooper is that he is yet another example of “marriage is one man and one woman, except in the case of my kid” thinking.
So, no, I’m not about to agree that Cooper should be held up as an example of conservative support for marriage equality. He isn’t.
This is all a tempest in a teapot. Stephen pretty clearly made a formatting error in “including” the last sentence as part of the Cooper paragraph rather than setting it off as a separate, concluding paragraph applicable to the post as a whole. Or at least I hope he did.
If not, then Stephen has created a bar for identifying “those who truly have brought about the extraordinary advances for marriage equality ” that is so low as to be non-existent.
posted by Jorge on
And I do understand the argument that the cognitive dissonance presented by a man like Cooper…. help our cause by demonstrating the bankruptcy of the anti-equality movement’s legal arguments.
You make too much of the rightness of your own position. I’m making the opposite argument. I only agree insofar as it exposes the moral bankruptcy of the extremists’ social arguments.
posted by Jorge on
This is all a tempest in a teapot. Stephen pretty clearly made a formatting error in “including” the last sentence as part of the Cooper paragraph rather than setting it off as a separate, concluding paragraph applicable to the post as a whole. Or at least I hope he did.
No, I agree. This is not a position he takes, let alone one he sets such a low bar on. I just find the idea amusing.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
You make too much of the rightness of your own position. I’m making the opposite argument.
It may not be cognitive dissonance at all, I suppose. It might simply be hypocrisy of the “Its not okay, except for my kid …” variety. There’s more than enough of that going around among social conservatives.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t know whether IGF will treat this as a “hopeful sign” or another example of the shameless gay activist totalitarian mob on the loose, but the Illinois Republican Party ousted six of the seven state committeemen who tried to forced former Charirman Pat Brady out of power as a result of his support for marriage equality.
Brady, who eventually resigned as chairman, was pleased: “There were some people that have moved on that were great, and then there were others that were absolutely destructive and were not good for the party and they’re gone. All in all, it was a good night, (bringing in) a lot of new blood.”
So am I. To my mind, the ouster is a sign that the Republican Party in Illinois is going where the national party needs to go.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
A Seattle Post article, Gay marriage: An insiders’ ugly spat ignores the foot soldiers, captures my sentiments about faux outrage. Thousands upon thousands of gays and lesbians laid the groundwork for marriage equality from the bottom up, all over this country, making change possible and making change happen. If the Alphabet Street crowd wants to fight over who gets the credit for the work that these folks did, let them. The rest of us will quietly continue to work for equality.
posted by Houndentenor on
This never shows up on the national radar but I think the most significant factor in the shift on gay rights has been people finding out from gay friends, relatives and co-workers the dangers of not having legal recognition of their relationships. Most Americans believe anti-gay discrimination is illegal. In 31 states it’s not. It never occurs to them that your partner of 20+ years could be barred from the ICU because they are not “family”. They don’t think about such things. And on top of that you have professional bigots like Ann Coulter claim that gay people can visit anyone in the hospital just like everyone else. Not really and she knows that. The problem is that most Americans don’t think about these issues that much as they don’t confront them personally. It takes knowing someone who faces these concerns to see what a problem it is. Then when they see one of these professional bigots like Ralph Reed or Franklin Graham spout their nonsense it doesn’t correspond to what they know from reality. None of this would have happened if people weren’t out to their family and coworkers. It’s easy to demonize people who are invisible in your life. It’s a lot harder to dehumanize people that we known and like. Most people don’t have a lot of patience for that sort of thing.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree. Polls and studies consistently show that knowing a gay or lesbian family member, friend, neighbor or co-worker is the single most important correlation to pro-equality attitudes.
As Harvey Milk put it in 1978: “Gay brothers and sisters … You must come out. Come out … to your parents … I know that it is hard and will hurt them but think about how they will hurt you in the voting booth! Come out to your relatives … come out to your friends … if indeed they are your friends. Come out to your neighbors … to your fellow workers … to the people who work where you eat and shop … come out only to the people you know, and who know you. Not to anyone else. But once and for all, break down the myths, destroy the lies and distortions. For your sake. For their sake.”
It was true then. It is true now.