In Britain, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron endorses marriage equality:
while the Conservatives were once opposed to same-sex marriage and LGBT rights as a whole, the party has in recent years attempt to shrug off its past and reform itself as a party of fiscal conservatism and responsibility while cultivating a more progressive social agenda.
The problem in the U.S., not surprisingly, is religious right social conservatism that has deformed both religion and politics. The goal is to move American conservatism away from where it is today—beholden to the religious right, much as the Democrats, to their detriment, are beholden to public sector unions. So far, no truly transformative path has been proposed, and a singular focus on electing Democrats, no matter how lame, because they’re not as awful as Republicans, isn’t getting us there.
15 Comments for “How to Get There from Here?”
posted by Jorge on
I could not care less about the Democrats being beholden to the unions.
Okay, that’s a bald-faced lie.
posted by Craigster on
The Baptists and other fundamentalist and evangelical sects where pushed out of Britain from the 1600s through the 1700s and fled to America – sweet land of liberty – for them. The U.S. Constitution stopped these true believers from persecuting each other over their beliefs, but left them free to persecute gay people and others who don’t conform to their dogmas.
Much more of the fight to change our culture and politics should be waged in the churches. If Soulforce had the resources of the Human Rights Campaign, we might be further along in gaining equality.
posted by another steve on
If Soulforce had the resources of the Human Rights Campaign, we might be further along in gaining equality.
But how would that serve the Democrats?
posted by Houndentenor on
“If Soulforce had the resources of the Human Rights Campaign, we might be further along in gaining equality.”
Really? I was raised Southern Baptist and still occasionally attend a Baptist Church (but only when I can’t figure out how to get out of it…family and all). There is no budget level for Soulforce that is going to change the SBC’s views of homosexuality or other social issues. I take that back, since there seems to be some movement on the death penalty (at least here in Texas where it turns out dozens of innocent people were on death row).
With all due respect to Craigster, his post epitomizes the basic problem with gays in America. We think that we are going to get what we want through a big national organization. For all the money spent, HRC has accomplished nothing. Why would I assume that with the same budget that Soulforce would do any better (or any other organization).
posted by Don on
I think your argument is poorly served by trying to link “democrats do it, too” regarding unions. Given all the free trade agreements that got ratified because of Democrats (albeit not all of them, and they did kick and scream), Republicans should have passed affirmative action laws for gay people. Sure it is a Republican idea, but it never would have happened if the left hadn’t bucked its own supporters. It’s just not a good equivalency. I think you absolutely made the point well that the American right is more dogmatic and the British right pragmatic. I also believe it is why one country will move forward in a conservative agenda and the other will be mired in a reactionary approach to almost everything.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Houndentenor: With all due respect to Craigster, his post epitomizes the basic problem with gays in America. We think that we are going to get what we want through a big national organization.
That’s true. The simple fact is that no national organization — and certainly no omnibus national organization — is going to accomplish much, and I think that it is a mistake to waste time conjuring up such an organization.
The political and cultural landscape is too varied for a “one size fits all” approach. The political arguments that convince progressives aren’t going to work on libertarians, and the arguments that work on libertarians aren’t going to work on social conservatives. The religious arguments that convince Jews are going to be different from the religious arguments that convince Catholics, and the religious arguments that convince Catholics aren’t going to convince Evangelicals.
Instead, we need to need to keep doing what we have been doing, working piecemeal from as many political, social, cultural and practical perspectives as possible, person by person, group by group.
But what we most need to keep in mind is that the single, most critical factor in determining a straight person’s willingness to support “equal means equal” is whether or not the straight person knows that a family member, a friend or a co-worker is gay or lesbian.
That, not though our organizations, is where we have made our most significant gains with the American public, changing attitudes toward gays and lesbians. We are winning over the American people because significant numbers of gays and lesbians are “out” in their families, their workplaces, their neighborhoods, their churches and their political parties.
At this point, we are clearly winning the battle of hearts and minds. Among the public generally, about half now favor marriage equality. Among younger Americans, a large majority favors marriage equality, and a not insignificant percentage of conservative Christian young people are on our side. In fact, the only demographic where we are far behind is among th3e 65-plus group. That, as someone like me who is at that age can attest from personal experience, is a self-limiting problem.
We are going to win, although it will be a long brawl, two steps forward and one step back. But win we will, and just about everyone outside the far fringe knows it. Even Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist convention, noted, in May, that marriage equality was going to be a fact in the United States before too long.
antoher steve: “If Soulforce had the resources of the Human Rights Campaign, we might be further along in gaining equality. But how would that serve the Democrats?”
This bespeaks tremendous frustration with the political landscape. But there is no leftist plot at work. The Democratic Party doesn’t get support from gays and lesbians because HRC has them hoodwinked. The reason why gays and lesbians in large numbers support Democratic politicians rather than Republican politicians is because Democratic politicians, in general, support “equal means equal” and Republican politicians, in general, oppose it.
The Republican Party has a problem, epitomized by the vote on DADT repeal. Gays and lesbians had done their work, and at the time the vote was taken, polls showed that 75-80% of Americans believed that DADT should be repealed. It was, or should have been, an easy vote for a politician. But the Republicans in Congress voted overwhelmingly against repeal, and a number of the Republican candidates running for President this cycle have promised to reinstate DADT.
Why is that? Most political observers seem to think, as I do, that a majority of Republican primary voters are (as Stephen put it) “religious right social conservatives”, the tail that wags the Republican dog. Wags it, I might add, to the point where Republican politicians cannot vote for “equal means equal” an issue — DADT repeal — when the American public is 75% in favor. Republican politicians, in short, routinely vote to cut off their own noses in the long run.
That is the problem that the Republican Party has to solve. It is similar to the problem the Democratic Party faced in the McGovern period, when anti-war zealots held sway in the Democratic Party primary process.
I don’t have a magic bullet, but you can bet that no national organization is going to solve it, because the problem is both internal and systemic. As far as I am concerned, the only way to resolve it is to work at it — do what those of us in the Democratic Party have done over the last thirty years and start working at local, county and state levels.
I don’t know if that will work or not — it may be that the war will be over before a battle is won — but you can bet that neither HRC, nor Soulforce, or nor any other national organization will be able to do it for you.
posted by BobN on
Despite GOP opposition — and it is GOP opposition, not just opposition from some subgroup of “social conservatives” — we have come from criminal pariahs to SSM and civil unions in the blue states and this close to federal recognition in the span of four decades.
Who did that?
“no matter how lame” indeed.
I’m pretty sure that gay conservatives in Britain didn’t get the Conservative Party to change by saying that Labour was “lame” about gay rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
The big change, and in a very short time, is that in 2004 GOP candidates wanted to talk about gay marriage at every opportunity. In 2011 it seems that the GOP presidential candidates mostly want to avoid talking about gays whenever possible, including very anti-gay Bachmann. That’s a huge change and it shows that they are looking at the same numbers as everyone else. Those positions might get them the nomination but it’s a big turn off in the general election. That’s the math that British conservatives did some time ago. The Tories also have some strongly anti-gay elements in their party but the leadership of the party realized that for the British people the issue is settled. The GOP will eventually do the same math.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The big change, and in a very short time, is that in 2004 GOP candidates wanted to talk about gay marriage at every opportunity. In 2011 it seems that the GOP presidential candidates mostly want to avoid talking about gays whenever possible, including very anti-gay Bachmann. That’s a huge change and it shows that they are looking at the same numbers as everyone else.
Let’s see how that works at the “Values Voter” summit, when the Republican candidates have to address the hard-core fringe.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
BobN: Despite GOP opposition — and it is GOP opposition, not just opposition from some subgroup of “social conservatives” — we have come from criminal pariahs to SSM and civil unions in the blue states and this close to federal recognition in the span of four decades.
I think it is important to remember that in the pre-Stonewall era, there was little difference between the parties.
The Democratic Party has come over little by slowly, but only because (1) gays and lesbians did a lot of hard work within the party, and (2) the social conservatives largely abandoned the party during the “culture wars” over busing and abortion. At present, the Democratic Party is, in general, a reliable ally, but we continue to need to work at it.
Admittedly, the Republican Party has gone the other direction, particularly in the last decade. Social conservatives (there is little difference in this respect between the religious right and the Tea Party) now control the party primary system, and the “religious right social conservatives” are the most organized ground-level faction within the Republican Party. The party will change if and only if gays and lesbians within the party get their act together and start outworking the social conservatives.
The thing that is so striking about the current situation — in sharp contrast to the situation in the UK — is that Republican politicians are so locked into the system that they cannot vote for “equal means equal” even when a “supermajority” of the public favors “equal means equal”, as was the case with DADT. To my mind, that suggests that the problem within the Republican Party is systemic. The hard core social conservatives are not going to change — 25% of the American public will oppose any and all movement toward “equal means equal” for the next couple of decades, no matter what. The only question is whether these folks will continue to control the Republican Party.
posted by Houndentenor on
The hard core social conservatives are not going to change — 25% of the American public will oppose any and all movement toward “equal means equal” for the next couple of decades, no matter what. The only question is whether these folks will continue to control the Republican Party.
To be fair, not only do they control the agenda of the GOP, but Democrats are mostly scared to death of that (roughly) 25%. A supermajority of Americans also support ENDA, so why isn’t passing that a no-brainer. (Most Americans already think its illegal to discriminate against gay people.) Even when Democrats had a majority in both houses we just barely repealed DADT. Why does a minority wield so much power in American politics? Why is everyone so afraid of them? Because they show up and vote and Republicans know they can’t win elections without them and Democrats know those issues will be used against them in upcoming elections.
posted by daftpunkydavid on
you wanna get there? lose the rick santorums and the michelle bachmanns of your party.
posted by Lymis on
I agree with the broad brush of the main point – but not that the solution is for LGBT people to abandon the Democrats in favor of the Republicans. We simply are not a big enough voting bloc to sway the party from it’s base to court us.
Gay rights have never really been about gay action – because of our numbers, they’ve always been about gay allies. If the GOP shatters or it the GOP changes, it won’t be because of gay people putting pressure from outside, or even from within. It will be straight people who no longer want to be associated with homophobia as a number one priority.
There may be a point where party affiliation will become immaterial with regards gay rights, because all the parties agree and take those rights as given. That time is not now. The Republicans need to lose, and lose hard, for several elections in a row before they are going to reconsider any of their policies. It serves us all to help make that happen.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. The UK has a different electoral system in some respects. It is a two-party system, but tends to have stronger party discipline, more equitable status for other parties, a political climate that places value on compromise.
1a. For example the Liberal Democrats helped the Tories get the Parliamentary majority they needed. It has not been a easy union, I known party members in both camps who grumble about it, but it has forced both parties to find more centrist ground, which has pushed the Tories to be supportive of gay rights issues.
1b. BBC is a a great, widely used news and information resource. It covers political issues with a great deal amount of depth, professionalism, fairness and honesty. It is also well funded, through taxation (it also is responsible for entertaining stuff like Dr. Who). The nearest thing we have in the US is PBS/NPR. Its generally underfunded, not taken seriously as a major press outlet and, like the rest of the media, more and more time is wasted on life-style, celebrities, mind-numbing ‘infotainment’.
1c. Homophobia still exists in the UK. Kids are probably still being bullied for “acting” gay. Etc. However, not as much credibility or (hard or soft) power seems to be given to people in UK politics who want to spread racism, sexism, homophobia, etc in order to get money and power. In the U.S. (for the sort of reasons I mentioned), you can still mine some of the most vicious homophobia (or lots of other BS) and be taken seriously as a candidate.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
One of the (many) electoral law issues is the fact that (a) primary voters in the Democratic Party and the Republican Party oftentimes are not the sort of people who are willing to find centrist-common ground, compromise. So, a majority of Americans (nationally) may indeed support ‘gay rights bill x’ but the real challenge is a majority of primary voters (in the two parties) and a majority of voters in a given State, legislative or Congressional district.
National organizations can be very helpful and I do not think that the Human Rights Campaign has been useless and I do not think it is really entitled to all the criticism (or praise) it gets. However, it it is generally seen as very difficult (if not impossible) to be supportive of gay rights and win too many GOP primaries or be supportive of gay rights and win too many general elections (as a Democrat or Republican) in certain districts or States.
I suspect that this is especially harder to do in more rural-based States or districts. So, it may not be a national versus local issue (both sides have merit and limitations), but it may be a rural (or small town) versus urban issue.
So, it might be helpful if LGBTA groups were willing to spend (more) time and resources (1) encouraging candidates in these tough districts, where they could very well be the first openly gay candidate and they may even have to run outside of the two major parties. (2) encouraging gay people to be openly gay and responsible members of the community in their small town or rural community.
Because beyond the obvious harassment/violence fears (real or imaginary) about being openly gay in certain parts of the country (much less being openly gay and a candidate), their are some real world economic realities at work.
If you believe that coming out in your small town or rural community will make it harder — especially in the tough economy — to earn a living/keep your job and be able to afford nice things, like food, water, shelter, transportation, health care…it might just impact your decision not to come out…which in turns makes it harder to really deal with homophobia in certain States or districts.