Two prominent articles today - one from the
NY Times and one in Politico
- get right to the core of the problem that minorities face in a
democracy. In the NY Times, Lou Cannon offers an interesting view
of how Perry v. Schwarzenegger could play out in the
gubernatorial race in California. At Politico, Maggie Haberman
reports on how the national GOP is avoiding gay marriage as it
focuses on the economy as its primary theme. In trying to attract
independent voters, gay marriage and other social issues might be a
distraction. Larry Sabato, from the University of Virginia sums it
up: ""I don't think that moderates and independents get very
excited about this."
What neither article discusses - or even mentions - is the
question of whether gay marriage is a good thing or a bad thing;
whether the constitution's guarantee of equal treatment of the law
should apply to same-sex couples or not; whether heterosexual
marriage will be affected by same-sex marriage; or any other of
those nit-picky little issues that gays keep harping on.
For writers whose focus is politics, that's not too surprising.
But that is exactly what the equal protection clause exists to
address. In a universe of issues that affect people generally, it
is easy for a majority (and in the case of heterosexuals a majority
of unprecedented size) to not have much interest in how the law
treats a very tiny minority. The economy affects every one of us
irrespective of sexual orientation, and that is certainly what this
upcoming election is about. That's how politics must work.
But it is not so easy - it is, in fact, virtually impossible --
for the minority to set aside its interest in its own rights until
a better time comes along. America is at the stage where moderate
and independent voters hold the political balance of power for gay
rights. They have the luxury (their own rights not being affected
one way or the other) to focus on bigger issues. Or bigger issues
to them.
But for lesbians and gay men, the lack of equality we face in
the law, and specifically the lack of legal recognition for our
marriages, is a very big deal. We have fought for our role in
society, and have taken it even as some continue to oppose even our
simple, open and proud existence as fellow Americans. We are
different from the majority in one thing, sexual orientation, but
as varied as everyone in everything else. We have not been given
anything, but have had to argue and convince and cajole every step
of the way, armed with nothing but the facts and justice and pride
and the promises in the Constitution. And we have had
successes.
The Constitution guarantees that we have every available
opportunity to make our case to the public, and to our elected
representatives. But it also recognizes that for a minority - and
specifically for a minority that many people simply refuse to
accept as having any moral worth - the purely political burden may
be unfair. The majority may have other things, what they view as
bigger things, on their minds, and may not "get very excited" about
the fight for equal treatment. If they feel they have nothing to
lose, and nothing tangible to gain from a debate over the rights of
the minority, their wishes (which, to democratically elected
politicians, are a command) will predominate. If a discussion of
gay marriage won't benefit a majority of people politically, then
politicians won't bring it up.
That is itself evidence of our progress, of course. During
George W. Bush's presidency, the discussion of gay marriage was,
indeed, politically profitable, but the profit was for those
seeking to keep marriage a restricted club. Today that calculation
is a wash. A marriage will be valuable in some states and some
districts, but as the Politico article notes, there are places
where the benefit will accrue to politicians who oppose same-sex
marriage, and there are places where it will accrue to our
supporters.
But I hope heterosexuals can read these two articles and perhaps
see what it feels like to be a political chit as part of your
existence as an individual citizen. To politicians, and to
political writers, our rights are a commodity, have a value that
can be discussed in the abstract and with a sharp eye for the
market. This is certainly not slavery, but it does make you
understand what it's like to be bought and sold.
