For the most part I'm with Dale, and am, if anything, more optimistic than he is about 2012. Two extra years gives us, and the voters, breathing room. My biggest disagreement with him is whether a vote in 2010 would be a "calamity."
In my opinion, we get to keep doing this until we get it right. Marriage equality is no longer a mere possibility. It will happen. It's not necessary for anyone to think opponents are bigots to see that they misunderstand us. The seemingly ancient argument about us demanding "special rights" has faded into obscurity. That rhetoric depends on people viewing the status quo -- and our exclusion from it -- as eternal. That's no longer the dominant cultural assumption, and as it eroded, heterosexual voters (and judges) could see that we really are asking for nothing more than exactly the same rights they have and take for granted. They can see the status quo as tilted in their favor, and once you see that, our own inequality really does come into focus.
That means we can lose elections without losing our moral standing. More important, our opponents look smaller and meaner with each increasingly fragile victory. As their numbers fall off, their empty arguments seem more incoherent. The case of Doug Manchester illustrates the point. One of Prop. 8's largest early donors, he opposed our equality because of his "Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church," as he told the NY Times. That's fair enough, except that a couple months after that donation, he and his wife separated and began divorce proceedings, which are now at their most disagreeable stage. Neither divorce nor hypocrisy is alien to human nature, but cases like this help people see the selfishness and convenience of hoarding religious favor for yourself and denying it to others.
The cornucopia of groups supporting same-sex marriage almost assures that it's possible someone not affiliated with our leadership might be able to qualify a repeal initiative. Equality California's very good report, Winning Back Marriage Equality in California lists 78 distinct groups they are working with. That's a testament to the vibrancy and diversity of our cause. But it's also a sign that our self-selected leadership cannot be as monolithic as it sometimes seems to wish.
And that is my concern. Here is how EQCA views the job we have to do in California:
We need to do outreach to every progressive organization in California: to labor unions, to progressive churches (more on that below), to women's groups and civil rights organizations.
Are there really that many progressives out there who need to be convinced on gay equality? The assumption of our leadership continues to be that they need to appeal to the liberal in everyone. That assumption is clearest in their invocation to broaden their base:
At the same time, we need to continue and expand our work on issues of concern to our partners in the broader struggle for social justice. We must also identify and enlist new spokespeople, particularly those who are not "usual suspects"-Republicans, business leaders, leaders from communities of color, "mainstream" clergy, cultural and entertainment stars and others. And we must identify appropriate outlets for them to help make the case.
Am I the only one who detects just a whiff of condescension here to the very people I think are the key targets of any attempt to overturn Prop. 8 at the ballot box? While there are still "partners" in the fight for social justice to be embraced, the movement is just looking for "new spokespeople" among Republicans, business leaders and others, for whom the leaders "must identify appropriate outlets" in order to help them out.
The fact that EQCA does not see Republicans -- and business leaders, for heaven's sake! -- as partners (or even as independent thinkers when it comes to gay marriage) reveals the worst aspects of the Democratic left as it tries to achieve the best aspirations of Democratic philosophy. Two years may not be enough to cure that, but there are enough Republicans, not to mention those ever-suspect "business leaders"who can suck up this kind of condescension for the greater good.
9 Comments for “Breathing Room”
posted by Barry Deutsch on
Frankly, it sounds like you’re parsing their words very finely looking for a reason to be offended. I don’t think there’s anything they could have said that you wouldn’t have managed to detect “a whiff of condescension” in.
posted by BobN on
As a business man, I much more offended by the common assumption that I must be a Republican…
But as long as we’re still trying to flog the partisan points on here, which is worse a whiff from the left (mostly in your imagination) or the stench that comes from the California GOP platform.
Perhaps you should worry less about the chip on your shoulder…
posted by David Link on
BobN, that’s a fair enough point — but do you mean to say that our leadership should ignore the GOP and the 20% of Californian’s registered voters who decline to state any party preference now? I find the GOP platform as offensive as you (maybe even more so), but platforms don’t vote, people do. And it’s among those moderate GOP voters, as well as the DTSs where we need to find the rest of our votes. I don’t think our progressives (and don’t forget, I’m a lifelong Democrat, myself) know how to pull that trick off, and our best best is to maybe work with the GOPers who might understand their voters better than we do.
posted by Androphilia on
Everyone seems to miss the point. The issue is “equal protection under the law.” This is David Boies and Ted Olsen’s argument for taking Prop. 22 and Prop. 8 before SCOTUS. If the federal law permits “different standards” for opposite- and same-sex pair bonding, then we should know that FIRST. We also need leaders to speak more forcefully — not like Obama — but Arnold, who upheld the Court’s Decision, and then urged Proposition 8’s defeat (as did Obama). But most importantly — and your comments reflect this — we need to public education campaign to counter the religious homophobia. California is the largest Roman Catholic populated state, followed second by LDS (Mormons). They won by fear tactics in the San Joaquin Valley, by only a margin of 2% and the Archbishop of San Francisco’s lead (formerly of Salt Lake City — with a scheme well-funded by guess who). EQCA was not only incompetent, Geoff Kors and Laurie took vacations the two-weeks before the election. Anyone who funds that failed organization deserves the loss we incurred. The Valley is the decisive territory, and everyone who is native to California knows it. Plus, it did not help one little bit to have Fascist Mayor of San Francisco threatening the electorate with “whether you like it or not.” Even liberals voted against that threat.
posted by The Gay Species on
Let me be precise: My parents, who live in the Sacramento and Fresno media markets, and my sister, who lives in Carmichael, supported the Court’s Decision, and are closer to my Beloved of 27 years than to me. But being inundated by Mormons going door-to-door, with ads on television of Gavin Newsom threatening them, they voted FOR Prop. 8 to send a message to the fascist. They believe in the rule of law, then they’ll endorse marriage equality, without rhetoric by a clueless mayor who thinks he is emperor. Their love none of us doubt, but threats we all understand. Californians do not like being threatened, but persuaded. Go back to 1978, Proposition 6, that would have fired all gay teachers in California. One person made the difference. Ronald Reagan announced his opposition one week before the referendum was slated to win by a landslide, carrying even San Francisco County. Instead, the Field Opinion Poll notes it has never recorded a larger shift in public opinion in such a short period of time. The landslide was AGAINST Proposition 6, losing even in Orange County. Learn from that experience. Why did EQCA not use Schwarzenegger? Because the did not want to win. They’d be out of a job. So vacation in Spain instead — on our contributions?
posted by BobN on
Why did EQCA not use Schwarzenegger?
Because he swore to fight Prop 8 and then betrayed his promise in order to pander to the nutjob California GOP.
posted by James on
~”The seemingly ancient argument about us demanding “special rights” has faded into obscurity.” ~ David Link
Not in my neighborhood. Granted I live in the midwest. In fact, a conservative swing-state — Missouri. Nonetheless, this ironic cliche about “special rights” invented by those who currently have them, I think, is still often believed by a lot of folks to the right of center. Some want to believe this. For instance the WASPs who like to think of themselves as the new victims of government, political correctness, and the ubiquitous “other” which is destroying “Real America”. And then there are those who are simply misguided, and for which there is still hope.
I’m afraid that because of the sort of tolerance and even acceptance that we now often receive in society that we have begun to take for granted or assume that the old canards, the old barbarisms have gone away. In reality, I believe that here in the U.S. we could be one national crisis and a few elections away from losing many of the rights we’ve gained. Religious conservatives are always looking for scapegoats, and right now we’re the most convenient one. And the hysterical, apocalyptic fervor is the likes which hasn’t been seen in generations. If ever.
Perhaps it is in part because of where I live and what I see, what I hear. It is jarring at times to realize just how prejudiced and hateful many folks still are in regards to (among other things) homosexuals. It’s astounding the sort of conspiracy theories that are still propagated about us. Really, I find that the evil thoughts, beliefs and even actions perpetrated against homosexuals hasn’t gone away, it’s merely gone more underground. A sign of progress, to be sure, but we’re still generations away from the genuine progress of equality and the coveted status of being a non-issue.
~”That means we can lose elections without losing our moral standing.” ~ David Link
I think this depends on how we behave; how we respond to injustices. Certainly we have to oppose the interloping of religious organizations, like the Mormons in Utah who bankrolled Proposition 8. In fact, we should definitely push to have their tax exempt status removed. That’s the price you pay for wading into politics. But I think we need to be much more considerate in our rhetoric. I recall having to explain in local blogs why gays and lesbians in California were “rioting”, protesting churches, shouting obscenities, and even attacking proponents of Prop 8. I still have to explain why “all” gay pride parades are x-rated and why, supposedly, homosexuals are predominately Caucasian and racist… Still trying to figure that last stereotype out but it, too, seems to be among the many dishonest tactics which have been employed since Prop 8 to pit gays & lesbians against the larger Civil Rights movement.
Certainly some of these are merely convenient examples of isolated incidents (or rumored incidents), or perversions of the unusual into the commonplace by people who have irrational fears and hostility toward us (like news of male child molestation by a male is considered a case against homosexuality whilst female child molestation by males has nothing to do with heterosexuality). Still, I’m concerned that as a community we often lose sight of the fact that if you want people to respect you then you must first earn their respect. If you want people to think of you as one of their own then you must draw attention to your similarities, not your differences. I think that too often the more militant among us tend to demand that we be given all the respect and tolerance we think we deserve, while we carry on, defiantly displaying ourselves as differently as possible.
This isn’t about having a lisp or a sense of style in how we dress. I think it’s about how we behave in regards to sex. There is a pervasive coarseness in society towards sex and vulgarity. I think we would be well-served to rise above it. I don’t think we should spend our time trying to tear down monogamy, for instance, but rather spend more time living it. That has to start with us. By us standing up, having a set of values, a conviction of what we believe to be right and wrong and making no apologies about it. By placing more of the blame for things like STD’s and dysfunctional relationships in our community where it belong – on us.
We are often derided, characterized as wanting to dismantle the many noble (and less than noble) institutions of society. They say that we have to do this in order to actually be considered “normal”. I’d like to prove to the haters that they are wrong. There is nothing “abnormal” about us, and outside of bigotry, we don’t have to re-engineer society in order to fully be a part of it.
posted by The Gay Species on
Fellow blogger Michael Petralis have exposed EQCA for is intended LOSS. Let’s try the facts one more time.
Geoff Kors is president of EQCA. Four weeks before the plebiscite, he vacations in Spain (which has marriage equality). Since his sole income is from EQCA, he used our contributions to vacation in Spain while Californians were to vote on Proposition 8. Whatever else one might say about Kors, it seems like a blunderingly stupid move to spearhead the Anti-8 Campaign, and then leave for Spain.
More amazing, How did EQCA lose a 59% approval (according to the Field Opinion Poll) right after the Court’s decision. Yes, 59% of Californians approved the 15 May 09 Supreme Court Decision. That’s a majority. So, in less than six months, Prop 8 won by 2%. How did voter sentiment change so dramatically.
Two obvious reasons: The Pro Prop 8 campaign used San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom’s “whether you like it or not” crap to alienate voters. No one likes fascism. Especially a philandering drunk’s fascism. That ad played in the San Francisco Bay Area market repeatedly. And the ads that EQCA ran were so lame, one must infer it wanted to lose. Why else did it spend capital opening SIX offices it never used? Were those offices a “conduit” for kinky sex?
Most startling, is not only the absence of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s repudiation of Prop. 8, but Barack Obama’s. Now with Obama’s poll numbers having a 20+ lead, I might think Obama’s comments would be persuasive. Did EQCA use either gentleman? No. Who else vacations in SPAIN during the height of a political campaign? Someone who wanted to lose.
Get your head out of the sand.
posted by The Gay Species on
Speaking of “intending to lose,” why did the Human Rights Campaign not give a penny to the Anti-8 campaign? It did not even send its employees into the state (which it does during Pride so they can party). Oh, but it can host an reactionary banquet in New York City? I hope you showed your support.
Yet, Marriage Equality had been established in California, with a 59% electorate approval in June, 2008. But HRC could not give of its treasures to defend it against Mormons? But HRC gave $10,000 to Barney Frank, but not one dime to defend Marriage Equality in California. Not one. Are these organizations in “our” interest or “their self-interest?”
One has to ask a fundamental question: Why? Because Solmonese and Kors would lose their jobs, the cause celebre?