A lot of people are pondering the state of gay marriage in the wake of our loss in Maine. But I think Tuesday's election results should get us all thinking about a more important, and much deeper storyline: the state of anti-gay prejudice. The full results of the off-off-year election show that after literally centuries of predominance, anti-gay prejudice is seeing its final days.
The loss in Maine actually makes that point. While the conventional wisdom characterizes it as a "stinging setback for the national gay rights movement" - and that's from our friends at the NY Times -- that's correct only if you think gay rights equals marriage. Marriage is the only issue we lose any more, so of course it presents a tantalizing story for the mainstream press, who get to sympathize with us while just doing their job reporting the news of our incomprehensible political impotence.
But on Tuesday in barely noticed elections elsewhere in the country, we won voter approval of (1) domestic partnerships in Washington; (2) an anti-discrimination ordinance in Kalamazoo; (3) an openly gay city council president in Detroit; and (4) an openly lesbian mayoral candidate in Houston. That seems to say something about the state of anti-gay prejudice in this country.
The Kalamazoo election was particularly telling and anachronistic; it's something we just don't see much of any more, an attempt to take away simple non-discrimination protection. And nearly 62% of voters chose to keep it in place. That's some evidence of how deeply into the mainstream of this country's politics gay acceptance has moved. Somehow, I'm not thinking Kalamazoo's gay community is feeling a stinging setback.
Marriage is not just an outlier, it is the only outlier. The fringe of the right will complain about any legal protections for lesbians and gay men, but they can't put together a majority on any issue except for full marital equality. An enormous majority of Americans even support repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, though political cowardice on that issue still lingers in Congress -- the same cowardice that got us the policy in the first place.
This chart shows that more than a majority in virtually every state, including the ones with the most anti-gay sentiment, supports employment and housing protection, hate crimes laws and health benefits for homosexuals. The trailing issue in all states is always marriage, with majority-plus support in only six states.
In short, these are hard times for homophobes. That's why gay marriage is such a satisfying issue for the ones who are left. It is the only issue where they can rouse up enough residual bias against gays among otherwise fair-minded people to win an election.
And the importance of that last word cannot be overemphasized. It is direct elections where anti-gay prejudice about marriage can best be exploited. This may be the most toxic consequence of Maine. It is a warning shot to legislatures to avoid exercising their best judgment about fairness for gay citizens. The anti-gay bias that short-circuits rational debate in the electorate at large will make legislative action futile, so don't even bother to try.
As I argued before, I would like nothing better than to have a full discussion among the electorate on the merits (or flaws) of the public policy issue of gay marriage, but neither Maine nor California took advantage of that opportunity; at the least, it was offered by one side, but was of little interest in the other side's strategy. The anti-marriage campaigns were about anything but gay marriage.
If there's any doubt about that, compare the arguments in these campaigns to the arguments the right makes in court when trying to defend exclusionary marriage laws. No responsible lawyer could argue to a court (without worrying about sanctions) that gay marriage will force schools to teach children about homosexuality in the second grade, nor can a lawyer try to scare a court with images of kids reading books like King and King. Lawyers have to focus on the issue before them in their briefs and arguments in court, because courts are forced to assess the rationality of the arguments before them, and have to explain themselves in written opinions. There is no room in court for the political slurs that make up anti-gay marriage electoral campaigns. The best the right can do in court is arguing about procreation, deference to the legislative branch (an argument I wouldn't expect them to make in the future -- at least not with a straight face) and the will of the people. Not a word about second graders.
That enormous distance between the arguments made to courts about gay marriage and the obfuscations used in political campaigns says a great deal. I do not ever expect to have the kind of thoughtful discussion in public that courts are required to have. But, the very fact we can't have a public discussion about gay marriage when gay marriage is the issue might suggest, to reasonable people, that there may be something underlying the anti-marriage forces besides a desire to do what's best for the public weal and what's fair for a minority. Contra Rod Dreher and others, 31 wrongs do not make a right.
Maine was an extremely hard loss. But Washington looks to be a solid victory, and Kalamazoo was a blow-out. The gay rights movement is hardly on the ropes in this country, and our opponents should be taking little comfort from their ability to deny us this one right.
13 Comments for ““This Gay Marriage Thing” — Maggie Gallagher”
posted by John Howard on
You are right that marriage is a completely different issue from gay rights, and indeed it’s the “only issue we lose any more”. That’s even echoed by the Yes on One people:
?What they had to say,? Mutty continued, ?is marriage matters because it?s between a man and a woman. [This campaign] has never been about hating gays, but about preserving marriage and only about preserving marriage, and that?s what we did tonight.?
It’s true lots of ads and arguments against same-sex marriage were more about protecting people’s children from gay indoctrination at schools, and protecting people from being fired for opposing homosexuality, both of which would supposedly happen with gay marriage, but lots were about marriage itself as defined by god, etc, and voters certainly knew the question was only about marriage, not indoctrination, thanks to all the ads for same-sex marriage that made that point over and over. I think voters voted, and got a majority, only on the issue of marriage, not anti-gay hatred. That’s why this is the only gay rights issue that loses every time.
I think you should take a fresh look at the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise and try to get uniform protections and full federal recognition for all the couples in Maine and every other state, by agreeing to give up the demand for marriage’s procreation rights.
posted by Jorge on
This is very well said.
I am still worried about our youth. You can tell me that we’re seeing more GSAs in schools, more gay proms or gay-friendly proms, more youth who just plain accept homosexuality. And I can still find the runaways, homeless, and suicides. I wish someone would tell me who’s responsible for things getting better so I could go support them.
I’m reminded that one of the reasons race relations were pretty bad in the 1970s and 1980s was because of the disappointment and disillusionment African Americans felt because things weren’t getting better quickly enough. So we had a lot of voluntary segregation as whites became more scared of blacks and blacks became more suspcious and more militant. Which race do you think won as a result? Full racial equality means nothing if your children are attending failing schools and you’re living in an unsafe neighborhood. So I hope that doesn’t happen with us.
posted by bdubstater on
This is perhaps the best commentary on gay marriage I’ve read in a long, long time. Your point about marriage being the only issue that the right can satisfy their bigtory with is right on, but even more asstute is your comment on how the lame arguments about second graders would never fly in court. That is why, as much as people complaint about “activist judges,” the judicial branch is so crucial to civil rights because campaigns of fear are easily exposed there.
posted by Jason on
I generally agree with this post, but it is an overstatement to say that marriage is the only thing we lose. We lost adoption/foster care rights in Arkansas by popular vote only 1 year ago. We lost DP in Colorado in 2006, pretty much the same issue that we just won in WA. And of course, we don’t “lose” anti-discrimination protections in states like GA or UT because you can’t repeal what never existed to begin with. That is true of 30 states.
It is generally true that non-marriage ballot initiatives have decreased dramatically and that we have come a long way from the days when anti-discrimination laws would be repealed by huge margins every time they were voted on.
posted by Neil on
Great article, thanks!
But with Andrew Sullivan spitting venom at Obama and the Democrats, there is a cost to these losses. Why he insists on bashing ambivalent Democrats is beyond me. Democrats have helped us make great progress in the last 20 years. To turn on them as Sullivan has is reprehensible.
I’m gay and will never get married. It’s not my thing so I really don’t invest any energy in the gay marriage debate. I live near Kalamazoo and my company offers same-sex benefits. What else do I really need? While marriage rights would be nice for those who want it, they really aren’t in the same category as anti-discrimination and hate crime laws.
Meanwhile, the loss in Michigan a few years ago resulted in a constitutional ban on any benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. We lost ground by indulging some religious and romantic notion of marriage.
“In 2004, Michigan was one of 11 states that faced a so-called Marriage Amendment. At that time, supporters of the amendment, like Gary Glenn of the American Family Association (AFA) of Michigan and Eric Doster a Republican attorney, told Michigan residents that the amendment was only about protecting marriage as an institution for one man and one woman.
Michigan voters believed them, and approved the amendment. The next day, Glenn was demanding that public employers in the state, such as colleges and universities, end their same-sex domestic partner programs. Costly litigation ensued when state Rep. Jack Hoogendyk, who is running for the U.S. Senate against Carl Levin, D-Detroit, asked Republican Attorney General Mike Cox if the city of Kalamazoo could offer those benefits. Cox said ?no,? the amendment barred them.
The court case ended up before the state?s high court and earlier this year it ruled that the amendment did indeed bar public employers from offering same-sex domestic partner benefits.”
http://michiganmessenger.com/6842/florida-residents-should-take-a-lesson-from-michigan-gay-marriage-amendment-is-about-more-than-marriage
posted by Jorge on
Neil, putting a little pressure on Democrats when they are unhelpful is not a bad thing. About the only constituency the Democratic party takes for granted more than the GLBT community is the black community, and not many politicians bother to help them out.
posted by Debrah on
Neil has made some excellent points with regard to the overblown and, in my opinion, deliberate and calculated, idea that “marriage” must be an institution within the grasp of gays….or all is lost.
Many well-meaning, well-educated, and enlightened people still think—even if only privately—that two sets of balls or two fur beds do not translate into a “marriage”.
Why not find your own word and allow those heteros who are in love with the idea of “marriage” to remain safe inside their matched set of shafts and receptacles?
Is the gay technical manual too busy for that?
Anger as a continuing motivation in strategy, as well as the accompanying victimology and its whining about a ?poor oppressed us,? is not very effective for those who need to grow beyond perpetual complaining and yelling and screaming.
Anger is understandable in people who don’t get everything they want–even if it doesn’t really make sense to most well-educated voters—young and old, rich or poor.
But remaining tethered to anger too long is self-defeating.
In the public arena, it distorts and further fuels the perception that all the hoopla is just that—bullsh!t.
And please guys, do everyone a favor and stop using analogies to race.
If someone is black, he can’t jump in and out of the closet. This hyperbolic tendency to piggy-back onto other “minorities” is exasperating and ridiculous.
posted by de Villiers on
I prefer what we have in the UK – civil partnerships. It is not called ‘marriage’ but then most gay people do not want to use the word marriage.
Civil partnerships are open only to same-sex couples, unlike the ‘Pacs’ in France and the higher courts have already held that a reference in a statute to a married couple also means a couple in a civil partnership.
And most of all, civil partnerships are listed under the heading ‘marriages’ in both the Telegraph and Times of London.
posted by John Howard on
Yes, life is much better for same-sex couples in the UK, they have all the rights and protections they need, and uniform recognition by and throughout the entire country, not spotty marriage rights in a few states. It is no coincidence that use of modified stem cell derived gametes is prohibited there, as well as other methods besides joining a man and a woman’s actual gametes. That made it a lot easier to convince the country that the Civil Partnerships would stop there, at least until there has been a thorough debate about using artificial gametes.
posted by John Culhane on
This is a very thoughtful post, esp. to the point that arguments that would be laughed out of court are routinely made in the public square. But it’s not just the “people” that make them; legislatures in conservatives states do the same. As the dismal debate over DOMA comprehensively demonstrated, legislators don’t need reasons for what they do. The clamor of constituents will suffice. My own take on the results in Maine and Washington are on my blog: http://wordinedgewise.org
posted by Kailyn on
Separate is not equal! Whether you believe in the institution of marriage or not, it is something the government affords a section of the population and denies to another. Civil unions will never be enough! I wonder if blacks and inter-racial couples would have been okay with calling their marriage a civil union after they were legally allowed to get married? I would agree that marriage in itself is based in religion; however, Christianity is not the only religion on the planet. The stance that a Christian God decreed that marriage is between a man and a women and it should stay that way is weak and has no place in government decisions. If I were to be married in my place of worship, which I can be, and it was not recognized by the government as a marriage, does that mean that my religious doctrines and practices don’t count and my religion is not recognized by the U.S Government? Are the only opinions on the planet that matter, and that decide law, dictated by Christians? Human rights are not to be handed out in a Pez dispenser: where some people get orange and some get red, and some people don’t get anything because their dispenser is different. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The fight will continue as long as their is a soldier who believes in the fight and who is willing to march, and I implore to all those reading to keep marching.
posted by de Villiers on
As per my post above, and in respectful disagreement with Kailyn, separate can be equal.
Persons of the same gender entering into a partnership or a marriage is not equivalent to marriages of mixed race or religion. Historically, marriage as understood in Western society has not been limited by its own definition to white couples. It has, historically, been limited to two persons of the opposite sex.
When, as perhaps in America, laws prevented persons of the opposite sex from marrying on the grounds of their race, one can properly say that was discrimination on grounds of race. The institution was not inherently discriminatory – as opposed to the provision, criterion or practice that was applied to withhold the granting of a marriage certificate on the grounds of race.
The removal of this artificial provision, criterion or practice did not affect or change in any way the basic elements of the institution of marriage – that being the union, spiritual or temporal, of two members of the opposite sex.
To open up the institution of marriage to members of the opposite sex is to change it. It alters its fundamental ingredients. And here is, perhaps, the source of the opposition from the right (and the conservative left). It is the changing the core of an historic, Western institution.
If to open up marriage to same-sex couples is to change the nature of it, then it would be appropriate to change the word “marriage” to something else entirely if same-sex couples were admitted to it. Rather it would be a secular, legal union in contrast to a marriage as historically defined.
Far better to introduce a separate concept of a legal civil union, open only to same-sex couples that recognises the newness and difference of the institution. The rights conferred, broadly, should be identical to marriage, albeit without some of the unnecessarily common-law presumptions built upon the still unequal relationship between men and women within the institution of marriage.
posted by Term Papers on
Great series. A bit out of my league, but I?m learning stuff each step of the way. Can?t wait to get to it