This is a partisan season, and will only become more so. I must therefore beg your indulgence while I defend the following assertion: Several recent developments suggest that significant further progress toward marriage equality in America will require that it be approached as a bipartisan issue.
To be sure, more Democrats than Republicans support civil unions, and more Democrats opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment that Republicans used in 2004 and 2006, along with anti-gay state ballot initiatives, to mobilize social conservatives. Encouragingly, there are signs that the Republicans went to that well once too often. But Democrats already held the progressive congressional districts before 2006. To win control, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Illinois) had to recruit more conservative candidates to match more conservative electorates. His success, consequently, did not change the fact that most American politicians oppose civil marriage equality.
In short, advocates of marriage equality have already picked the low-hanging fruit. Like Rep. Emanuel, we have to win over more moderate and conservative voters to gain the margin of victory. But how? As Providence would have it, a Republican stepped forward last week to show us the way.
By now you have surely seen the video from San Diego. On Sept. 19, Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders, a former police chief who is up for re-election in 2008, announced a change of mind. With his wife Rana standing beside him, and struggling with emotion, he said that he would sign a city council resolution petitioning the California Supreme Court to allow marriage equality. He revealed that his daughter Lisa and members of his personal staff were gay.
"The arrival of the resolution - to sign or veto - in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I have decided to lead with my heart ... to do what I think is right, and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is sign this resolution." He continued, "I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community they were less important, less worthy or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage, than anyone else, simply because of their sexual orientation."
Sanders made it clear that his basic values have not changed. "A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years." He then offered a simple yet crucial insight: "I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case."
When a public figure conspicuously switches positions on a controversial issue and prevails, others may be emboldened to take the same step. Many such conversions are needed if civil marriage equality is to carry the day across the country.
Don't get me wrong. If the choice in a given race, at least on gay issues, is between a flawed Democrat and a worse Republican, then the choice in favor of the Democrat is relatively easy. But the whole point is that we are not talking about voters who already embrace gay-affirming positions. Members of Congress generally reflect the views of their constituents, and we are not likely to make much more headway until we change conservative hearts. Even assuming a Democratic sweep in 2008, there will still be many Republican legislators at the state and national levels, and it ill behooves us to write off all their supporters. Between elections, even a fierce partisan like my own congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), reaches across the aisle on issues such as voting representation for D.C. in Congress.
As for those officeholders who say yes to civil unions but no to marriage, it will take more than rhetoric to change them. This is where our dollars, letters, and volunteer efforts come in.
We have our work cut out for us. Time and again, otherwise gay-friendly officials shy away from supporting marriage equality. In California, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger again threatens a veto. In Maryland, Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley backs away from his earlier support. These officials need to hear from us and they need to pay a price for their political cowardice. This requires us to re-examine our own calculations and ask ourselves whether it is truly in our interest to give money to someone just because he is a Democrat when he endorses an anti-gay ballot initiative as former Rep. Harold Ford (D-Tennessee) did last year during his U.S. Senate race. Make that his failed Senate race.
The social context is ever changing. On Sun., Sept. 23, near the end of NBC's Chris Matthews Show, the host congratulated panelist Norah O'Donnell on the birth of her new babies, then turned to Andrew Sullivan and congratulated him on his recent wedding. Matthews mentioned Andrew's husband Aaron, and showed a photo of the happy couple.
It was a simple, gracious and profound moment. We need many more. To translate them into electoral victory, we have to do more of what has worked in Massachusetts: more conversations, more phone calls, more targeted contributions, more voter mobilization.
Until they succeed in changing the prevailing wisdom, leaders like Jerry Sanders will be few. Let's be sure to thank and reward them, whatever their party affiliation.
10 Comments for “A Bipartisan Marriage Fight”
posted by JES on
This is inspiring. Let’s note that as the mayor points out, we, as gays, are deserving of right of marriage but with tha comes the responsibility of it as well. Marriage is not something to be taken lightly. Let’s make sure that as we gain this right that we use it responsibly and that we BETTER the institution by allowing gays to have it, rather than weaken it.
posted by Alice AN on
I will vote for any one who mirrors Ideas that I hold dear, and that includes the idea that all Americans deserve and should have equal citizenship.
I don’t much care whether the individual is Republican or Democrat. There used to be a time when Republicans were the anti-establishment, progressive party that upheld the rights of minorities (altough not the GLBT). Unfortunately, they choose to incorporate unto their platform a return to the 1950’s phylosophy and for this reason alone I cannot vote for one in good conscience.
The irony is that, it will be the Republican party that will purge the San Diego mayor from its ranks and we might find him at a future date running under “I” or worse yet “D”.
I have come to the conclusion that some people are simply, stupid and ignorant and bigoted. Minds will change eventually but I can’t be bothered, because the arguements never register until personal expirience sets in. Does the mayor having a Lesbian daughter make equality more right and injustice less so? Would the Mayor have ever recognized the humanity of GLBT persons where they not his own kin? You don’t have to have a Lesbian daughter to realise Gays are human and deserve to be treated right by their government.
In conclusion, this culture war will be won one person at a time, as more and more people have family, friends or even casual aquintances who are gay and out, they will come to recognise that the boogey man is made of straw. And they will as the Mayor of San Diego has done, change their minds.
Now someone quick, find us a SCOTUS Justice with a Lesbian daughter!
posted by Brian Miller on
Quite a turnaround from your prior positions on marriage, Richard, which have been to avoid marriage discussions on local issues because they might hurt the new Democratic administration.
Speaking as a local in California, I can tell you that the Republican party (including the Log Cabin Republicans) were nowhere to be found when Sanders stepped out on a limb. It was Democrats, Libertarians and independents who rushed to congratulate him — even Log Cabin waited until days later to issue their congrats, after it was “safe.”
The reality is not that it requires a “bipartisan” approach — locked up as that is in partisan hypocrisy — but rather a “common sense” approach.
To the degree that Democrats like yourself, and Republicans like Log Cabin, are unwilling to loudly challenge members of their own parties who go against common sense, we’ll continue to spin our wheels as a community. Many gay people who are neither Republican nor Democrat are becoming increasingly tired of the willingness by the partisan-affiliated to cut “their guy” a break, and until that party loyalty (or “bipartisan” fetish) evaporates, the fight will continue in the courts and will be led by neither Republican nor Democratic gay folks.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I would like it if more Democrats supported gay marriage. I’d like it even more if more Democrats AND Republicans would support the privitization of marriage, i.e., to make all unions civil unions in the eyes of the law and leave marriage for churches, shamans, or the probability tables for all I care.
In the real world, however, in the last few national elections the Republican Party has fag-baited on the issue while the Log Cabinettes have sat there and said nothing. Democrats are shell shocked.
I can understand why some Democratic officeholders have retreated on the issue. For every Jerry Sanders, there are hundreds of Republican fag-baiters in power, including Log Cabinette heroes like David Dreier, Mitch McConnell, Larry Craig, and on and on.
Yup, it’s great to see one Republican mayor of a big city do what he did. There’s always an exception to the rule.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ChazW, avoiding reality at all cost writes: “… the Log Cabinettes have sat there and said nothing.”
Gee, I guess NOT endorsing the GOP’s incumbent Prez for RE-election is doing nothing and just sitting there, eh Chaz?
The natl LCRs jumped the shark in attaching themsleves to radical GayLeft political groups in the last prez elections and allowing leaders of those same groups to establish the LCR agenda. For that supreme error, they were punished by exclusion to GOP events, lost their fundraising base, and have had to suffer the last few years as being tagged more irrelevant than Ripon Society GOPers.
I guess taking on your party’s incumbent prez is just sitting around and doing nothing? Maybe if the GayLeft groups like HRC and others had tossed Slick Willy or his wife under the bus of gay civil rights progress, Chaz’s squawking would have some credibility.
Of course, the GayLeft won’t ever, ever, ever do that… recent memory of the implosion at the LCR is too vivid.
posted by Charles Wilson on
I guess NOT endorsing the GOP’s incumbent Prez for RE-election is doing nothing and just sitting there, eh Chaz?
In fact, that’s exactly what it is. Fact is, the Log Cabinettes have achieved nothing whatsoever. They are, at best, a smokescreen for the Republican Party’s fag-baiting agenda.
But you know what? They’re not even that much, because the Republicans laugh at them. And so does everyone else. They should fold up their tent and go away. The Log Cainettes make about as much sense as the Jewish chapter of the Nazi Party. They get no respect because that’s what they deserve.
posted by ETJB on
At the Federal (and many state) level, the reality is still that a Democratic Party majority is better then a Republican Party majority.
We live in a two-party system, third political parties are not viable alternatives (until we change the electoral process)and thus having the Democrats control the White House and Congress tends to be better then if the Republicans control the White House and Congress.
Despite being around, in one form or another, since the late 1970s, the Log Cabin Republicans have basically had zero impact on their party.
The notable Republicans who support gay rights, were already ‘moderates’ and have little or no say in the direction of the GOP. This is because Reaganites all but cleansed the moderates and liberals from the GOP in the 1980s.
Holding politicans accoutable sounds nice, and is not a bad idea, but it tends to be used by people who want to (a) tell us to vote Republican or (b) tell us to toss our vote away on some third party candidate.
posted by Jaws on
etjb: “At the Federal (and many state) level, the reality is still that a Democratic Party majority is better then a Republican Party majority.”
Uh-oh. North Dallas 40 will soon come in here and RIP YOU APART for saying such a thing. He will of course call you names and distort what you said, then leave you bleeding on the ground as he laugh’s at your liberal stupidness.
He’s coming — just wait, see there in the distance. BA-dum, BA-dum, BA-dum….
posted by Brian Miller on
I guess NOT endorsing the GOP’s incumbent Prez for RE-election is doing nothing and just sitting there, eh Chaz?
Yes, not endorsing anyone is perhaps the ultimate form of just sitting there and doing nothing, actually.
When real struggles, involving GOP people, popped up, LCR have been missing in action.
In California’s marriage struggle, they were nowhere to be found — the only Republicans who were involved were disgusted ex-LCR members who decided to take to the trenches. LCR’s membership were so ashamed of themselves that they took to logging in, anonymously, to gay boards to defend their Quisling status.
Truth be told, gay Republicans and gay Democrats — both of which make a career of their queerness — aren’t all that relevant to the real gay rights struggles happening today. Every battle that’s made significant strides for gay people — such as the Vermont and Massachusetts lawsuits — were opposed by both “sides.” And every meaningless, symbolic, idiotic initiative ala ENDA has been bolstered by them as evidence that their homophobic (and apparently, virulently transphobic) masters still love us.
Gag.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In California’s marriage struggle, they were nowhere to be found — the only Republicans who were involved were disgusted ex-LCR members who decided to take to the trenches. LCR’s membership were so ashamed of themselves that they took to logging in, anonymously, to gay boards to defend their Quisling status.
LOL…..so you’re complaining that people are “anonymous”, even though you know absolutely, without any question, their political affiliation, whether or not they belong to LCR, and whether or not they’ve ever been to “events”.
As for “quisling”, I think that more aptly applies to “libertarians” who oppose the California Constitution and demand an unconstitutional rewrite of a voter-passed proposition by the gerrymandered and unrepresentative California Legislature to get access to something that their intention is to abolish completely.