Though much will be made of it, the federal Marriage Protection
Amendment (MPA) is unlikely to be the most important story on the
marriage fight this year. To be sure, that constitutional atrocity
must be defeated. But for most of us who are defending gay
families, the fight is being fought at the state level. Given the
wide range of situations from state to state, the question
increasingly is how we can maintain a well-coordinated national
movement with a minimum of fragmentation and internecine
sniping.
• Ill-conceived lawsuits. One source
of internal friction is irresponsible litigators-couples who are
determined to gain their equal rights now, who are governed more by
their hearts than their heads, and who press ill-advised court
cases while refusing to work constructively with gay legal
strategists. Such cases risk setting us back by creating bad
precedents, as well as putting wind in the sails of a federal
amendment by trying to force the policies of gay-welcoming states
on less-welcoming ones.
Being in love, I sympathize with those who are unwilling to wait
for a more conducive political climate. Unfortunately, wanting
equality now does not make it so, any more than demanding my
two-minute egg instantaneously will make it cook any faster. But
while we remind our compatriots that our struggle is a long-term
one, we must deal with the reality that some gay people will ignore
us and go charging off making messes that the rest of us will have
to deal with.
• Cutting slack, or being doormats? A
second source of friction is disagreement over how much slack to
cut politicians who are relatively gay friendly but oppose equal
marriage rights. The call
by some New York gays to stop giving money to Hillary Clinton is an
example of this.
In races where the alternative choices are even worse, this
question becomes somewhat moot, since most of us would agree that,
pragmatically, we prefer the least objectionable candidate. Like
President Bush dealing with the Saudis or the United Arab Emirates,
we have to face the fact that imperfect alliances are necessary in
a messy world. This, however, does not require us to be doormats.
As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a
demand."
• Defining the cause. A third source
of friction lies in how we define our cause. Some argue that since
the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars federal recognition of
same-sex marriages, and since more states offer civil unions, the
likelihood of greater interstate portability for civil unions makes
that the better way to go. Others argue that, since many states are
moving to prohibit any protections for gay couples, and since we
can never get what we want if we don't even ask for it, it makes
more sense to go for full civil marriage-at least in the few states
where that appears achievable in the next several years.
Appeals for unity are often just another way of
telling people to keep their dissenting views to themselves.
|
As we argue over civil unions, domestic partnerships and civil
marriage, it is worth remembering that our enemies want us to get
nothing. But calls for unity do not resolve our differences.
Appeals for unity are often just another way of telling people to
keep their dissenting views to themselves. If I am convinced that
my strategy will work and yours will backfire, it makes no sense
for me to shut up and march off a cliff with you to show my
solidarity. These disagreements are inevitable. The gay rights
movement cannot expect to be any less contentious than earlier
civil rights movements were.
Political reality in most states leaves us little choice but to
embrace, at least for the time being, solutions that fall short of
equality. But the defense strategies and pragmatic solutions of the
present do not preclude longer-term efforts toward full equality.
Indeed, the messages we convey in our initiative campaigns, and the
legal commitments that gay couples are able to embrace in many
states, can help move our society toward greater acceptance of gay
families.
What is at issue here is not a mere label. The goal toward which
gay people will inevitably push is civil equality, call it what you
will. And equality at the state level does not confer equality at
the interstate or federal level. As long as the 1,138 federal
rights and responsibilities of marriage- including immigration
rights-continue to be denied to all gay couples in the country,
there will always be someone pushing to end this continuing injury.
So whatever strategy is adopted in a given state, it will not be
the final word on the subject.
Our statewide battles amount to a series of separate experiments
from which all of us can learn. Rather than view our internal
disputes over goals and strategies negatively, we can profit by
regarding one another as laborers in different parts of the
vineyard. Through all of our struggles ahead, the guiding force
will not be mere abstractions but real couples seeking to redress
particular inequities.
In the end, our nationwide success may depend on our ability to
stand in one another's shoes. Our greatest risk may not be of a
political or legal failure, but a failure of imagination. So while
the passions that drive our activism are indispensable, on occasion
we need to restrain them long enough to listen to one another. It
is essential that we keep our networks in good working order.
The other side certainly does.