Proposition 8 passed, revoking marriage rights for gays and lesbians in California and setting back the gay-rights movement throughout the country.
So did similar bans in Florida and Arizona, not to mention an Arkansas ban on adoption or foster parenting by unmarried couples. Supporters of the latter ban-written expressly to thwart "the gay agenda"-apparently believe that it is better for children to languish in state care than to have loving gay parents.
With the pressure of the election behind us, we can step back and talk about long-term strategy. What must we do to convince majorities that our love is just as worthy as theirs?
Some will complain that we shouldn't have to convince them. In an ideal world, that would be true. In the real world, it's useless whining. Let's face it: complaining that we shouldn't have to fight for fundamental rights never helped anyone secure their fundamental rights.
Here are my top five strategic suggestions as we move forward.
1. Tell our stories. A striking feature of the various anti-amendment campaigns was the invisibility of those they were supposed to help: gay people. I'm grateful for straight people who support our rights. But straight people can't directly illustrate the palpable ways in which our families matter to us.
For every time the 'Yes on 8' campaign showed that little girl telling her mom how she learned in school about two princes who got married, I wish 'No on 8' would have shown a little girl asking her mom why Aunt Ellen and Aunt Portia can't get married. Or a little boy asking his two adoptive dads-who sacrifice to make his life better-why they can't get married.
I'm guessing that focus groups showed that images of actual gays turn off swing voters (which, if true, would be further evidence of the stigma we still face). I'm skeptical about focus-groups-focus groups, after all, gave us New Coke.
But whatever was true for the campaign, it's time now for the long view. Over time, people tend to be more pro-gay the more they know actual gay people.
2. Cut the vague talk about "rights" and "discrimination." It's wrong to take away rights, right? Well, sure-but we need to be more specific than that.
Gay-rights opponents cleverly granted the premise that it's wrong to take away rights, and then argued (falsely, but effectively) that marriage equality meant taking away THEIR rights, specifically their parental and religious rights, or that gay adoption interfered with a child's right to a mother and father.
It's not enough, therefore, merely to demand "rights" or to oppose "discrimination." We need to flesh out why these rights matter and why this particular discrimination is harmful and wrong. That requires talking about the moral value of our relationships-and not just talking about it, but showing it (see #1).
3. Use words like "bigot" and "hate" sparingly. There is no doubt that some of our opponents are hateful bigots. (I've got the mail to prove it.) But 5.7 million California voters?
No. Most of those who voted yes are people you'd recognize as your coworkers, your neighbors, your grandma. Misinformed? Absolutely. Shortsighted? Without a doubt. But generally not hateful.
Furthermore, as a strategic matter, labeling widespread religious and parental concerns as "hateful" doesn't typically convert those who harbor them.
4. Don't let opponents hide behind religion. Eighty-three percent of weekly churchgoers voted in favor of Prop. 8, and they contributed a large percentage of the $36 million raised to promote it. Ninety percent of self-identified atheists and agnostics voted against it.
To be sure, there were progressive religious organizations and individuals who strongly opposed the amendment. We should continue to harness their enthusiasm: God, after all, can be invoked by all sides of the political spectrum. But we should also recognize the dangers inherent in accepting beliefs "on faith."
In my view, America is due for a healthy dose of religious skepticism, as well as a vigorous conversation about what religious freedom means and why.
5. Patience, yes; complacency, never. Time is on our side. California marriage-equality opponents drew 61 percent of the vote in 2000 but only 52 percent this year. Voters under 30 heavily opposed Prop. 8.
Meanwhile, ordinary gay and lesbian citizens are motivated like they haven't been in some time. They are peacefully demonstrating outside churches and city halls; they are donating time and money; they are coming out to friends, neighbors, and co-workers.
Ironically, opponents' efforts to "protect children" from learning about gay people has not only catapulted us to the front of the news, it has increased our determination to make our everyday presence known.
We need to do that for our own dignity. But we also need to do it for those children, who deserve an equal chance at "happily ever after" regardless of their sexual orientation. Keep fighting the good fight.
19 Comments for “The Long-Term Strategy”
posted by Ashpenaz on
Let’s start with this: Make lifelong, sexual exclusivity the hallmark of gay relationships. Let’s work to increase the visibility of those in such relationships. Let’s give support to those gays who are waiting until they are in a lifelong, sexually exclusive relationship to have sex.
Let’s go to church and show that we share the same traditional values. Let’s live out our lives in Christian communion and fellowship. We can start with the more accepting mainline churches. Let’s bring the churches over to our side by showing them the depth of our fidelity, loyalty, and stability.
Let’s all work on our own sobriety, loyalty, and responsibility so that we don’t promote negative stereotypes in our own life.
Do all these things, and I bet the rest of the suggestions in this article won’t be necessary.
posted by TS on
Ashpenaz, I can’t go to church because I don’t believe in God. I look up in the sky where he’s supposed to be and I don’t see him. I look around at the work he’s supposed to be doing and all I see is random chaos, arbitrary mixtures of suffering, joy, and insanity. I don’t know a single thing about how you experience the world or what you believe, but you must understand that in my and many others’ experiences of the world, there is no God and church would be a meaningless waste of time.
As for the other things, perhaps you are right to suspect they would be helpful, but you are impractical in two senses: a) you cannot change the thoughts, words, or behaviors of others and b) I doubt it would really work all that well. It’d be enough to tip Cali maybe, but to other people, it doesn’t matter how nice and non-threatening they are- the existence of gay people is a threat to their established order.
posted by Ashpenaz on
OK, but nothing in this article suggests any self-criticism the gay community has to make. Everyone else has to change. I’d really like to see the gay community really take time to discern whether any of its visible behavior is causing any problems. Is there any small percentage of victimization gays bring upon themselves? Would working on a culture of monogamy and sobriety have any positive benefits? I don’t see any writer, anywhere (except me) saying that the Prop. 8 fiasco was due, even in some small way, to the ways gays live their lives and present themselves to the world.
posted by dalea on
Is there any moderation on this site? Ashpenaz continues his campaign of trashing other people thru use of some fantasy he calls ‘tradition’. All the history I have read tells me that there is no ‘tradition’ of monogamy for men, only for women. Throughout Western history, kings and noblemen have had mistresses and concubines. The streets of our cities are lined with women working as prostitutes, which has nothing to do with gay men. This whole ‘monogamy’ thing is simply an hallucination.
Gay people I have urged to check out this site report that they were favorable until they ran into the incredible bile that Ashpenaz and ND spew in every thread. Not cleaning up the comments has a price, which Libertarian gays are paying every day.
posted by Bobby on
I think if Ashpenaz could take a pill that would make him straight, he would take it.
Gay sexuality is the most honest sexuality in the world. Evangelical christians for example, tend to marry young. Why? Because they know they’re not gonna be able to keep their virginity for long. So they use marriage as a sexual outlet. Now there’s even an evangelical preacher telling couples that they can have oral sex, anal sex, toys, anything goes as long as you’re married.
A straight friend tells me about women who get drunk on purpose (or who pretend to be drunk) so they can flirt with guys and have sex with them and then blame it on the alcohol the next day.
Gay sexuality on the other hand, is raw and honest. Who else but a gay man would post a picture of his own ass on craiglist? Can you imagine being straight and asking a woman how big her boobs are? And whether she likes to blow or not? A woman would never leave the door open and wait for a guy naked.
Gay sexuality isn’t the problem. You want monogamy? You’ll find plenty of gays that want that, but don’t expect all of them to give up the pleasures of the flesh.
You need to stop glamorizing the heterosexual lifestyle. I’ve experimented with it myself, and it’s not as nice as you think.
posted by TS on
I defend Ashpenaz. He is badgersome and votes a one-issue ticket, which is annoying. But his idea is not bad. (By the way Ashpenaz, your claim that “I don’t see any writer…” is now officially false because I do think that in a small to medium sized way, the outcome of the election was due to the trashy self-presentations and unmoderate attitudes of certain gay people.) And I don’t think Bobby’s straight pill example is very useful for identifying self-contemptuous gays… I would take it. I don’t hate myself as I am; actually I think I’m pretty cool, thanks. I think that my sexual orientation is a morally neutral phenomenon of life (for my full opinion, please see everything John Corvino has ever written.) I would take it merely out of convenience. I’d prefer an asexual pill, and who knows, after a period of evaluation, I might take another gay one. I don’t think you should demonize Ashpenaz. His single-mindedness is annoying and doesn’t impress me intellectually, but he means no harm.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I’m not actually single-minded–I have wide range of opinions on such things as “Mamma Mia–movie or stage?” and “High Fiber–nature’s magic weight loss cure” none of which seem relevant here. I am single-minded because I am perplexed and haven’t gotten a clear answer. For instance, I read Bobby’s post above with the awe and respect which it is due, but I can’t for the life of me see why someone with that opinion would be out in the street marching for marriage. It’s like a member of PETA marching for the rights of seal hunters. Not only that, this member of PETA is saying, “Hey, seal hunters, I know better than you do what it will take to keep the hunt going. And if you don’t do what I say, then you are self-loathing, closeted seal hunters.”
Those of us who want traditional marriage and/or civil unions based on the same values as marriage would employ a completely different set of tactics than those currently being applied on our behalf. So, I am single-minded in my perplexity–why, if you don’t believe in lifelong, sexual exclusivity as the ideal for relationships, why, oh, why, are you out in the street marching for something that you don’t want? And, with your marching and chanting and stomping, preventing my access to marriage or its equivalent? Why? Why? WHHHYY???
posted by Ashpenaz on
Just thought I’d add this link. For those who still think these tactics are the way to marriage rights.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/11/19/the_insane_rage_of_the_same-sex_marriage_mob?page=2
posted by dalea on
Thank you Bobby. I have long argued that gay men are not more promiscuous than others, we are simply more honest. Monogamy, as defined by Ashpenaz, can only work when there are armies of prostitutes picking up where monogamy breaks down. He keeps dragging up the fantasy pushed by evangelicals, calls it a workable plan and then trashes everyone who does not agree with him. Does anyone here realize how easy it is to pick up a straight married man? I’ve done so hundreds of times. Monogamy is simply a fantasy.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Dalea and Bobby, if those are your opinions, that’s fine. But, please, why are you marching for marriage? Why not stay home? Those of gays who DO believe in monogamy would really rather work it out in our own way. I want to include gays in the fundamental traditions of marriage–you want to undermine the traditions of marriage and make them mean something else. Stop marching for something which you are covertly trying to undermine. Please.
(I’m not trashing you. I’m confronting you. Please consult a dictionary for further help with those words.)
posted by Bobby on
“why are you marching for marriage?”
—Technically I’m not marching, I hate parades. I’d much rather watch TV or see my personal trainer. However, I am supporting gay marriage because I don’t know if someday by some miracle of God I will find a boyfriend, and I don’t know if that boyfriend will be worth marrying, and I don’t know if I’ll want to have children. But whatever happens, I want to have all the legal rights straight people have without the complications of powers of attorney and other second class options.
On the other hand, I don’t see marriage as something sacred like straight people do. In Las Vegas they have drive-thru weddings, so how dare can they accuse us of destroying marriage when they won’t even bother to get off the car to get married by an Elvis impersonator? For millions of secular Americans, marriage is a big joke. They elope, they get married in the most tacky places and in the most tacky ways. You know how Pamela Anderson married Tommy Lee? Naked! In a beach in Mexico. So how dare do they call this a sacred institution?
“-you want to undermine the traditions of marriage”
—Not really, I want to confront the hypocrisy, the special rights married people get vs. single employees, the special tax breaks, etc. You need to see the straight world through my eyes. I once went to a straight strip bar and they where having a bachelor party, 20 strippers sat on some dude who was getting married the next day. Look at the breeders, Ash! Look at how they say one thing and do another.
I just finished reading A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity by Bill O’reilly, he speaks of going to a Club Med in Mexico to meet girls when he was younger. So while my hero condemns horror movies and porn, he still likes to get vagina from time to time.
You need to study the straight world, Ash. You need to learn about these virgin Christian girls that are taking it up the ass to avoid breaking their precious hymens. Now thanks to Bill Clinton, giving blow jobs has become common place in high school and we can’t even trust our female teachers anymore since plenty of them are corrupting boys.
Like Dalea said, we gays are more honest.
posted by dalea on
Actually I did go out, walk around for No on 8, so that makes me a marcher. There are people who are very dear to me who want to marry. I do this for others. And because I have been in the situation where I had all the powers and documents that could be had. They accomplished nothing. No one should be in that situation. No one.
Further, the two major relationships of my life were open ones. And very satisfying. The one time I had clap was when I was in a ‘monogamous’ relationship. The largest GL organization in the world, the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center forbids any presentation of monogamy as a path for gay men. I have seen ‘monogamy’ blow up in enough people’s faces, that I really think the term should be banned when talking about gay men. Ash, have you ever been in the room when a couple learns that one person fell and had sex with someone else. And infected his partner with HIV? I have, and never want to see this again. I favor that gay men be realistic, which means dumping the ‘monogamy’ crap. It is a dangerous concept for gay men, with consequences that can be life threatening. Advocating that gay men be ‘monogamous’ is irresponsible and dangerous. You are playing with people’s lives.
Like Bobby, I urge you to learn more about straight peoples’ lives and marriages. See the nice husband who sneaks away one night a week to pay for a blow job. The wife who turns tricks while the kids are at day care. The couples who pick up strangers at bars. The ideas you put forth bear no resemblance to observed phenomena.
posted by guapoguy on
I?m a latecomer to this particular discussion thread, but I?m a newcomer to gay marriage (2
posted by Pat on
Dalea and Guapoguy, I get your point about honesty when speaking about relationships. Many straight people get married and have no intention of being monogamous, but are willing to keep the illusion. When one in a relationship tries to uphold the illusion of monogamy, while cheating on a spouse, this often leads to the spouse contracting some disease. So between the two options, yes, it’s better to be honest and open than to keep the illusion of monogamy. However, I still maintain that couples who want to marry should be monogamous. That is the ideal that should be attained by both gay and straight couples who wish to marry.
posted by Ashpenaz on
The opinions of Dalea, Bobby, and guapoguy expressed here are perfect examples of why people voted for Prop. 8–they (and most gay activists) want to change the definition of marriage. Most people don’t want to change the definition of marriage; Most gays believe their understanding is more honest and up-to-date and they want to impose their more enlightened definition on those, like me, who base their understanding of marriage on traditional values. I don’t want a more enlightened or “honest” marriage–I want the ideal of lifelong, sexual exclusivity, however poorly I and others might live up to that ideal.
Gays are not going to gain support for marriage if its clear that gays are covertly trying to undermine the traditional meaning of marriage and replace it with something more “honest and enlightened” which includes open relationships, multiple partners, and serial monogamy. That seems so self-evident that I don’t know why gays don’t get it.
The opinions of gays like Bobby, dalea, and guapoguy reinforce all the negative stereotypes about a “gay agenda” which is out to undermine family values. They are the gays Dobson warned us about. And they undermine those of us homosexuals who want to show Dobson that there is a way of being homosexual which is in alignment with the values that Dobson, Warren, and I all cherish.
posted by guapoguy on
I’m rapidly getting the feeling that Ashpenaz not only doesn’t get the idea, but that he (or she, I’m not sure which) never will get it. But perhaps there are others out there in cyberland who will hear and understand.
Perhaps I ramble on too long in my postings (well, ok, there’s no “perhaps” about it). Ashpenaz seems singularly focused upon the issue of sexual fidelity, which he calls a tradition, and that focus misses the point of marriage. I say that sexual fidelity exists (being a living example of it myself), but it is not a tradition among either straights or gays, only a traditional (and idealized) fantasy, and it has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.
Marriage, as I pointed out, is a contractual relationship between two people that is recognized by the state. Sometimes it also is recognized by religions, but it cannot exist if it isn’t recognized by the state. And the state defines that relationship in terms of economics, not in terms of love or fidelity.
By tradition, marriage has always been between men and women (with occasional historical exceptions), and that is the only tradition that proponents of gay marriage want to change.
No minority group has ever achieved any fundamental social change without creating social rancor. Laborers, women, blacks, lesbians and gays, and others…the list can go on. Dominant social groups will never change until they are forced to rethink their opinions, and that always comes through discord. Name one fundamental change favoring a social minority that the social majority has made voluntarily. I can’t think of one.
And yet, once the majority does begin to rethink their prejudicial attitudes, I think that it is the examples of the non-controversial gay people who will make the social change more palatable.
Obviously the gay community is diverse. But to achieve change we need to find our common ground and work together.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Technically, I don’t think that marriage is a tradition. I think that it is something created by God. Consequently, whether or not it “works for me” is irrelevant. I believe that God has created human beings to express their sexuality only within lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships, whether that’s legal or not, whether that’s comfortable or not. I am not trying to show Dobson, Warren, et. al., that I am a “good gay.” I am trying to show them that the same God who has blessed their marriages and calls them to monogamy will also bless my relationship and call me to monogamy. Ultimately, it is God’s decision whether homosexuals can have sex with each other–not the church, not the country, not the gay community. I have no interest in legalizing something which God condemns. But I have reached the conclusion that God does not condemn, but in fact blesses, lifelong, sexually exclusive same-sex couples. Because I think God supports same-sex marriage, I believe the country can support same-sex marriage.
For extra credit on this topic, you might want to see the movie Fireproof and pretend the couple is gay. That would give you a clear picture of what I think marriage is all about.
posted by Bobby on
“Technically, I don’t think that marriage is a tradition. I think that it is something created by God.”
—Then this defeat doesn’t matter. Just find an open minded Christian to marry you and your boyfriend, and you’ll have a marriage God approves.
And by the way, this country has no official religion. So while we can tolerate the president saying “God bless America,” the pledge of allegiance with under God, having God on our currency (not to mention that ugly masonic pyramid on the dollar bill), and a bunch of traditional religiosity, this country is not ruled by the laws of God. When was the last time you saw anyone going to jail for adultery? Or for working on the sabbath? This is a nation that picks and chooses whatever they like from the bible. And when I see evangelicals walking with piercings, tattoos, and dyed hair, I don’t think they’re picking that much at all anymore.
“I have reached the conclusion that God does not condemn, but in fact blesses, lifelong, sexually exclusive same-sex couples.”
—Really? Well, there’s an evangelical leader in Georgia who thinks he can marry 12 year old girls. There are mormon sects that think polygamous marriages are ok. There’s a white supremacists movement called Christian Identity that believes race mixing is a sin. So bringing God into this debate is not exactly wise.
In fact, when I see anti-gay marriage advocates on TV, they rarely talk about God. They frame the debate in terms of tradition, what’s best for children, western culture, and a bunch of other bullshit that is easier to believe than a bunch of bible stuff most people don’t care about anymore.
In fact, how will you argue with homophobic atheists? I saw at least one of them arguing that homosexuality is unnatural.
Americans voted for prop-8 because they where afraid of change. Eventually, they will get used to the idea.
posted by dalea on
God is a superstition. There is no god in the sense you use the term. And most assuredly, ‘god’ is no base for the vicsious disease spreading programs you support.