The Up Side of Apathy

When it comes to same-sex marriage, it turns out that many Americans just don't care.

About 1,000 adults were asked as part of a new Associated Press/IPSOS poll about how George W. Bush is handling the country, how they might vote in the November Congressional elections, and what they thought about some top issues.

Including gay marriage.

Now a couple years ago-say, after the Massachusetts marriage debates-anti-gay marriage sentiment reached an all-time high, as much as 63 percent. People were furious and they were fighting.

But in this most recent poll, what percentage thought gay marriage was extremely important?

Only 22 percent, or about one in five.

Thirty-six percent said that gay marriage wasn't an important issue at all and 11 percent called it only "slightly important." Fifteen percent thought it was "moderately important"; 5 percent called it "very important." One percent of respondents weren't sure.

In fact, those polled adults thought that gay marriage was the least important issue they were asked about, coming after eight others including the economy, the situation in Iraq, health care and gas prices.

These adults weren't all Northeastern liberals, either, or secular city Dems. Most of them described themselves as conservative or moderate; slightly more respondents came from the South than from other areas of the United States; more of them were from the suburbs or rural areas than from cities; the large majority identified as Christian.

So. We have these 1,000 likely voters who are overwhelmingly white, mostly Christian, mostly conservative to moderate, and they're asked about same-sex marriage and THEY DON'T CARE.

They care more about social security than they do about gay marriage. They care more about terrorism. Actually, they care more about how much it costs to fill up their SUV than they do about whether someone in the next town or next state-or heck, next door-wants to marry someone of the same sex.

They're not for it. They're not against it. They just don't understand why it's an issue.

And this, my friends, is a good thing.

Really.

Conservative leaders (read: Karl Rove) have been spinning media webs for years, trying to insure that gay marriage becomes a wedge issue, like abortion. They want equal marriage to stand for everything that's wrong with America in the eyes of Mr. Mainstreet; they want it to be shorthand for everything America fears. If gays get marriage, they tell us, then no one will have marriage, because marriage will be meaningless.

These leaders hoped that Americans would be so afraid of instability caused by gays and lesbians that they would vote with conservative Republicans on every issue, no matter how misguided, in the belief that a vote for a Republican was a vote against gays, and a vote against gays was a vote against moral depravity. For a little while, it worked.

For a little while, liberals and moderate Republicans feared that gay marriage might be the issue that kept neo-conservative Republicans in the White House and in Congress for years to come.

But Americans have seen marriage in Massachusetts and they've seen civil unions in Vermont, and there are still straight people getting married and there are married straight people doing things that married straight people do.

Americans have come to realize that opening rights up to one group doesn't mean taking rights away from another.

All this might explain why, in Illinois, anti-gay activists recently stopped pushing for a referendum suggesting that the state's gay marriage ban be written into the state constitution. They were losing. So they gave up.

And in Virginia, Va4Marriage is struggling to raise money to support the passage of a same-sex marriage ban. Much of the funds they've raised so far-a measly $155,000-come from a single donor who doesn't live in the state.

A populace that doesn't care that much about an issue isn't going to fight against it.

Of course, a lot of this apathy must be because gay marriage has quietly receded from the headlines. New York turned its back on civil unions, as did California. Those defeats hurt, even though I'm betting they are temporary.

But apathy on this issue is OK for now. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is heading toward repeal. Let's take that major victory when it comes as a sign that the country really is turning around on gay rights. Let's take it as a herald for the eventual victory of marriage equality.

Because we will get same-sex marriage. And the best thing that could happen when that day comes is for America to hear the news, shrug, and just not care.

McGreevey’s Tangled Web of Deceit

Newly published promotional excerpts from former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey's autobio detail how he "forced himself to take on girlfriends" while having anonymous gay encounters of the seedier kind. It's all very sad, but McGreevey's choices (including his two marriages) were to a large extent fueled by his relentless political ambition.

You can only wonder how many other closeted gay men still choose to make these sorts of "compromises" each and every day.

More. Golan Cipel gives his side of the story in the Daily News:

"I wasn't his lover," Cipel, 37, said. "I didn't have sex with him. I never heard anything from him saying that he loved me. The only things that happened were sexual harassments. And unwanted sexual advances and assaults." ...

In his book, McGreevey writes: "I took Golan by the hand and led him upstairs to my bed. We undressed and he kissed me. It was the first time in my life that a kiss meant what it was supposed to mean. ... I pulled him to the bed and we made love like I'd always dreamed: a boastful, passionate, whispering, masculine kind of love."

So, who is telling the truth? (Or, alternatively, why should anyone care?)

Fighting Back.

The Commonwealth Coalition of Virginia, organized to oppose the anti-same-sex-marriage/plus state constitutional amendment on the ballot this November, has released its first video ad (web-only, for the time being). Rick Sincere has posted it (via YouTube) on his blog.

Looks like a strong, professional effort that rightly makes the point that an assault against the civil liberties of one group can spill over to others (watch out, unmarried heteros!).

Log Cabin vs. Club for Growth: The Wrong Fight

Gay political lobbies should stand by the incumbents who stand by them (that is, us). So without doubt Log Cabin was right to vigorously support Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island in his successful but bruising GOP primary battle against Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey.

On the other hand, Chafee's opposition to pro-investment tax cuts is a point on which fiscal conservatives can reasonably take issue, so it's not surprising that the Club for Growth lobby backed Laffey. And, while the campaign was brutal, I'm not sure what's accomplished when Log Cabin, in a post-election release, called the Club for Growth's attacks on Chafee "a vicious effort," thereby poisoning the waters further between the two.

Club for Growth is not an anti-gay group, although (and alas) many candidates who most strongly support letting people keep more of their own money are often conservative on social issues. But for those of us who would like to see more candidates with libertarian/limited government views on both social and fiscal matters, leaving the door open for LCR and CFG to work together on future races would seem like a good idea. Here's hoping.

More. GayPatriotWest reaches a very similar conclusion, uring that "When Log Cabin's new leader takes office, he (or she) needs to reach out to mainstream Republican groups like the Club for Growth."

Wrong Turn.

Ryan Sager's new book, The Elephant in the Room, persuasively argues that:

as the nation's population and electoral map shift South and West, the current Republican Party increasingly favors southern values (religion, morality, and tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, and privacy). The result? The party is in danger of losing crucial ground in the interior West - specifically in "leave-me-alone" states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana.

Wake up, Republicans!

We Don’t Want Your Kind Around Here.

Another interesting report of bigots against business. In this case, two gay partners are trying to run their successful barbecue establishment in the struggling town of Rockaway Beach, Mo., where the mayor and the president of the Chamber of Commerce seem intent on driving them out.

The article is from the Jewish Daily Forward (one of the partners being Jewish), and recalls how prejudice against the "other" - especially when they happen to be more successful than some native locals - is a recurring motif among those who don't cotton to capitalism, whether on the left or right.

Brangelina’s Marriage Boycott

AP is reporting that Brad Pitt "says he won't be marrying Angelina Jolie until the restrictions on who can marry whom are dropped. 'Angie and I will consider tying the knot when everyone else in the country who wants to be married is legally able,' the 42-year-old actor reveals in Esquire magazine's October issue, on newsstands Sept. 19."

We IGF types have been warning social conservatives that excluding gay couples risks doing to marriage what excluding women did to the once-great men's clubs of mid-century-namely, condemning it to cultural obsolescence. If marriage is going to be defined as "that form of family which excludes homosexuals," more and more equality-minded heterosexuals are going to leave marriage behind. On several occasions when I've given talks at colleges, students have stood up and announced they won't marry until gays can.

Many conservatives seem to believe that by stopping same-sex marriage they can prevent marriage, and the culture, from changing. Brad Pitt says they're wrong. The social risks of gay marriage get debated incessantly; the risks of not having gay married, alas, get ignored.

Paging Dr. Freud?

Some Democrats are making hay over reports that Karl Rove had a gay stepfather, now deceased, accusing Rove of hypocrisy. I agree with those who are appalled by Rove's promotion of the anti-gay federal marriage amendment and otherwise carrying water for the religious right to get them to pull the GOP lever. But if the guy he called "dad" abandoned Rove's mom to lead the gay life in Palm Springs, and his mom then committed suicide, wouldn't you expect that might make him more hostile toward gays, not less?

Textbook Tussle.

Governor Schwarzenegger has vetoed SB 1437, a bill that would have prevented any "adverse reflection" on gays in California curriculum, saying it provides no protections that don't already exist under California law. Since school textbooks aren't exactly brimming over with anti-gay venom, it's unclear to me why this bill mattered except as an exercise in political correctness (and easy symbolism to shore up gay votes for Democrats).

Here at IGF, contributing author David Link opposed the bill (the final measure was watered down from the original, and thus of even less significance). But we were not all of one mind, and Paul Varnell wrote favorably about it, arguing that the mandate for inclusion (in the original, not the weaker version that Arnold vetoed) would help bring gay history out of the textbook closet.

Conservatives Who Understand that Constitutions Protect Liberty.

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, is a conservative judge who has been on conservatives' short list for the U.S. Supreme Court. So it's worth noting his op-ed in the Washington Post that's critical not only of the proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment, but also of state constitutional bans on gay marriage. In Hands Off Constitutions: This Isn't the Way to Ban Same-Sex Marriage, Judge Wilkinson writes:

The Framers meant our Constitution to establish a structure of government and to provide individuals certain inalienable rights against the state. They certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does. ...

I do not argue that same-sex marriage is a good or desirable phenomenon, only that constitutional bans on same-sex unions carry terrible costs. ...

It is sad that the state of James Madison and John Marshall [Virginia] will in all likelihood forsake their example of limited constitutionalism this fall. Their message is as clear today as it was at the founding: Leave constitutions alone.

Behold, a principled conservative!

More. Something must be in the water down in old Virginny. Here's another anti-amendment column by another Republican judge, Raymond A. Warren. He writes:

More troubling is the effect the amendment might have on private arrangements such as domestic partnership health benefits now widely offered by major employers in Virginia. ... It would be a rational legal conclusion that such programs create either a "partnership" or a "legal status" that Virginia's courts could not recognize. ... Even private contracts cannot violate the Commonwealth's public policy and it is not inconceivable that the courts could read the new amendment broadly enough to create a public policy against such contracts. . . .

Worse, the everyday documents many unmarried couples (including non-gay couples) use to protect their legal and financial interests would be called into question by the proposal's broad language. ...

All this would leave Virginia at a distinct disadvantage in the global economy.

And he's right. Some conservatives care about liberty, legal equality, and prosperity (and yes, they are linked). Others, especially social conservatives, are not only bigoted but are as economically illerate as their leftwing counterparts.