Keeping Our Hope Alive
I read a letter this morning from Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders who was an attorney in both the Vermont and Massachusetts marriage cases, and Marty Rouse, the campaign director of MassEquality, a coalition dedicated to upholding the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision upholding gay marriage.
It gave me some insight and some hope. Here’s an excerpt:
NATIONAL Democrats and pundits make a mistake if they walk away from the presidential election results deciding that the issue of marriage equality is radioactive. Yes, the ballot initiatives in 11 states banning same-sex marriage won decisively, even in Oregon. And many of the initiatives are particularly punitive, perhaps prohibiting even private industry from providing health benefits or bereavement leave.
But these lopsided tallies should be viewed alongside the election results in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont. Yes, these are blue states. But they, too, have been embroiled in the conversation about marriage equality, a conversation that has become more nuanced as voters have seen the reality of gay families. [...]
The quest for marriage equality certainly won’t go away. But the more balanced, informed lesson for Democrats or anyone who cares about issues of equality might be more education, not less; more conversation, not less; and a dialog that stresses the value and importance of equality in this country.
You can read the entire letter if you wish by selecting the "Continue reading" link at the end of this entry.
It’s clear to me that there is a big disconnect where the gay population in this country is concerned. We just don’t communicate ourselves well, and in large measure, it’s because we just don’t understand each other.
We have to get beyond we’re queer, we’re here, get used to it!. That is going to meet with resistance and I can understand why. No one wants any issue in their face as if it’s end of discussion. We in the gay community must realize that we are not only fighting to have equal marriage rights, but also fighting generations of bigoted attitudes towards us. I don’t know about you, but I’m called a “faggot” more than I’d like to be. It’s all part of the same problem. Calling someone a name devalues them and puts them into a class. Then, we come along and want to be married, just like normal everyday people. We have to understand that this is threatening to people.
I don’t often agree with Senator Dianne Feinstein, but I think she hit the nail on the head when she talked about gay marriage as being “too much, too fast, too soon.”
But, as historian George Chauncey put it, “One of the reasons marriage has survived as an institution is because it has constantly changed and adapted to changing social realities and moral values. I think all 11 of these (state) referenda initiatives to ban gay marriage passed because there still hasn’t been enough time for discussion and for people to understand the reality of lesbian and gay lives and why gay and lesbian couples need the protection that marriage, and only marriage, confers.”
He’s right. But as Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in her editorial The Homophobic Party:
That is, of course, unless the intolerance of the gay-marriage lobby chases would-be supporters away. When they frame all opponents to same-sex marriage as bigots and haters, they show themselves to be intolerant of those whose deeply held religious convictions tell them same-sex marriage is wrong.
In 2000, I voted against Proposition 22 because I believe in the benefits of marriage, for gays and straights. But the reaction to this election chills me and makes me wonder if it makes more sense for advocates to push for civil union legislation now, and marriage later, when the public is ready.
It doesn’t help when advocates demonize those who hesitate to change laws that have existed for a long time and that shape American families. It doesn’t help when they blame Bush voters for sentiments also shared by Kerry voters. It doesn’t help because it shows America that same-sex marriage advocates, who complain about being demonized, are happy to demonize GOP voters when it suits their purposes.
All true. But one thing that gets lost here is that the people who want a U.S. Constitutional amendment against gay marriage, also do not want to allow civil unions. At first, civil unions were thought to be a compromise. After the election and the passing of state constitutional amendments banning marriage for gay couples in 11 states, suddenly the demands changed. This was brought home to me last night on the Jim Lehrer program.
Margaret Warner had as guests Shannon Royce, executive director of the Marriage Amendment Project, a coalition of groups pushing for state and federal marriage protection amendments; and Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
From the program transcript:
MARGARET WARNER: Well, finally, let me ask you about the federal amendment, because President Bush, who promoted this idea to start with, has said... has made it pretty clear -- at least it seems that way -- that he thinks marriage should be preserved for just a man and a woman, but he would be in favor of civil unions. Would a federal constitutional amendment that specifically said that, could that be a possible compromise position here?
SHANNON ROYCE: I think any amendment that would say that specifically would be opposed by the pro-family representatives who I work for. The amendment as it’s currently drafted says marriage is between a man and a woman but leaves the civil union/domestic partnership benefits questions, if you will, to the state legislatures. And that’s where we believe those questions should be settled, in the state legislatures by elected officials of the people.
MARGARET WARNER: But, so why are you saying that an amendment that said that specifically, that said “but the matter of civil unions will be reserved for state legislatures...”
SHANNON ROYCE: The current amendment says that. It leaves it specifically to... it doesn’t use the term civil unions.
MARGARET WARNER: No, it doesn’t.
SHANNON ROYCE: It talks about benefits of marriage being left to state legislatures.
MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Foreman, could that be a compromise that the gay community could live with?
MATT FOREMAN: We can’t compromise about being full citizens under American law. If that compromise took effect, I can’t leave my Social Security benefits to my partner. I still will get screwed in federal estate taxes. I mean, all of the big-ticket items that take care of families in this country come from the federal government. So maybe if they want to put on the table, oh, a federal marriage amendment but we’ll create a federal civil union law that gives us equal civil rights and responsibilities, hey, we could talk about that.
Matt is absolutely correct. Leaving it to the states to allow or disallow civil unions is no compromise at all. The “big-ticket items” are all at the federal level and do more than any state benefit for gay couples; social security, federal estate taxes, 401(k) retirement, and many others are not governed by state laws.
I would be willing to live with the term civil union if:
a) the state afforded exactly the same rights to that civil union as heterosexual marriages
b) the federal government created a separate category called civil union and afforded exactly the same rights to that civil union as heterosexual marriages
That is separate, but hopefully equal. Every single time a law is passed or amended at the federal level for marriage, a like-law would have to be passed or amended for the federal civil union.
Does this make sense? From a logical point of view, not really. It is still creating a different and separate class of citizens. It would be very expensive to implement a totally different set of laws that do exactly the same thing for the separate group of people.
From a practical point of view, maybe it’s the best we can hope for.
While this all seems like it might work because we won’t be using the word “marriage”, our opponents will never go for it. Expect them to label it, “marriage by just another name.” The bottom line is, they do not want us to have any social recognition what so ever. But we can hope that reasonable people will win the day. We can hope.
If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Gay marriage is not to blame
By Mary Bonauto and Marty Rouse, November 9, 2004
NATIONAL Democrats and pundits make a mistake if they walk away from the presidential election results deciding that the issue of marriage equality is radioactive. Yes, the ballot initiatives in 11 states banning same-sex marriage won decisively, even in Oregon. And many of the initiatives are particularly punitive, perhaps prohibiting even private industry from providing health benefits or bereavement leave.
But these lopsided tallies should be viewed alongside the election results in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont. Yes, these are blue states. But they, too, have been embroiled in the conversation about marriage equality, a conversation that has become more nuanced as voters have seen the reality of gay families.
In the immediate aftermath of enacting civil unions, an antigay campaign called “Take Back Vermont” swept the state. Barns were covered in hand-painted murals. A high school gay/straight alliance group was threatened. And in the 2000 elections, it worked, sending 17 pro-civil union incumbents back home. But Democrats didn’t bury their heads in the sand. Instead, they worked to recruit strong candidates. And on Tuesday, 17 legislative seats were picked up, all of them supporting civil unions, with three of them openly gay.
To the south, in East Haven, Conn., the antigay Family Institute of Connecticut focused on running a candidate to oust Representative Mike Lawlor, the Assembly’s strongest supporter of marriage equality. His well-funded opponent had one message -- he opposed same-sex marriage. The result? Lawlor won by a 5-to-1 margin. Additionally, two vitriolic antigay incumbents were defeated, proving that voters had lost patience with a message of discrimination.
In Massachusetts, Senator Marian Walsh won reelection despite being targeted for opposing a constitutional amendment to deny marriage rights. In another marriage-dominated race, Representative Kathy Teahan easily beat back a challenge by former representative Ned Kirby, who is best remembered for his constant antigay attacks. But what might have worked in the ’80s got soundly rejected in this century. In short, all 50 pro-equality incumbents won reelection, and of the eight open seats, six were won by those who oppose a discriminatory constitutional amendment.
While it is true that those backing the amendment also won reelection in the general election, they were returned by much smaller margins than those supporting marriage equality. In Massachusetts, it’s fair to say that with a few exceptions, local elections rightly hinged on local issues.
Why the difference here? Because voters have had the opportunity to live beside their newly married gay neighbors, and by and large, they have come to realize that marriage equality does not threaten them. And those who have gay family members or friends have come to appreciate how profound it is to be treated fairly and equally under the law.
It’s entirely too simplistic to pin Tuesday’s national results on the fight for marriage equality. Even President Bush, obviously concerned about the moderate middle, came out in support of civil unions in the final days. Most significant, 62 percent of Americans left the polls favoring some sort of relationship recognition, from marriage to civil unions to domestic partnership. Many split their vote -- voting for Bush but also favoring some recognition. Most of them came to that conclusion without the benefit of a deep and real dialogue on marriage. One could argue that they came to that decision in the midst of an onslaught of antigay rhetoric.
What we did learn from this election is that if voters have the opportunity to really explore the issue, they move toward marriage equality, not away from it. At a minimum, once they see how ending marriage discrimination affects their family, friends, and neighbors, they don’t turn their backs on candidates or incumbents on this single issue.
Did the voters cite “moral values” as they left their polling places? Yes, but abortion and guns were cited more often than marriage, and it appears that those voters were equally troubled by the Viagra ads that play during “Everyone Loves Raymond.” Cable television and its programming also took a big hit. Is it any surprise, then, that simplifying the results to marriage makes it easier if you happen to be an industry lobbyist in Washington or work with a right-wing institution?
The quest for marriage equality certainly won’t go away. But the more balanced, informed lesson for Democrats or anyone who cares about issues of equality might be more education, not less; more conversation, not less; and a dialogue that stresses the value and importance of equality in this country.
Leave a comment