I believe that one of the (various) reasons gay activists are losing the battle to promote acceptance of gay marriage is that they fail to understand the opposition to this significant social change. Too many contend that all who oppose gay marriage do so out of bigotry. They ignore that many who oppose gay marriage are not necessarily anti-gay.
Bruce noted recently how Matt Foreman, Executive Director of NGLTF (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), defined state referenda on same-sex marriage as “bordering on immoral.” The Human Rights Campaign blamed “divisive politics” for the overwhelming passage earlier this month of a Texas constitutional amendment precluding state recognition of same-sex marriages — and domestic partnerships as well.
Echoing HRC’s rhetoric, Log Cabin’s outgoing Political Director Chris Barron called the Texas referendum “politics at its worst. Folks are tired of this divisive politics.” Yeah, Americans (including 76% of Lone Star State voters) were so tired of such divisive politics that they repeatedly vote in favor of referenda precluding same-sex marraige.
Such comments, which Log Cabin highlighted in its November 17 “Inclusion Wins” e-mail, shows that this group, like other gay groups, has excluded itself from what Michelle Malkin has called the “reality-based community.” While I agree with Log Cabin in opposing such referenda, I do not support their rhetoric of opposition.
They need to understand that far from being “tired” of such politics, many Americans embrace such initiatives. They are not yet ready to support such significant social change. Only when advocates of gay marriage understand why an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose their ideas can they develop a strategy to change people’s minds.
In the real world, many decent, open-minded Americans have serious concerns about gay marriage. They vote in large numbers in favor of proposals defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman even as they work with and befriend openly gay people and welcome us into their homes. Gay activists who fail to understand opposition to gay marriage are living in some kind of alternative reality where wishes make things so.
If such activists were serious about promoting gay marriage, they would first try to understand the opposition to their proposed social change and then put forward a strategy to convince those who have not yet been swayed of its wisdom.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: In the original version of this post, there was a terrible error in the headline. Now corrected. BIG OOPS.
MICHELLE MALKIN????
clap, clap, I think my frustration would be that it appears to be an all or nothing stategy also. As a straight, married male I will admit to wavering on this issue. Sometimes, the arguments make sense and sometimes I scratch my head. Example, CT just passed same sex unions, and it seemed to me that the gay community screamed the loudest against this obvious political compromise. To me, it seems better to take two steps forward, then two steps forward. Isn’t a fairer system better than an obvious unfair system? After all the greatest threat to marriage is not same sex, but the state that is today (btw married for 21 yrs.)
Dan, I find the title of this post confusing.
Currently, it reads “In Opposing Gay Marriage, Gay Groups Need a Reality-based Approach”.
Don’t you really mean: “In Opposing Those Who Oppose Gay Marriage, Gay Groups Need a Reality-based Approach”?
Or, to simplify with elimination of the double negative: “In Promoting Gay Marriage, Gay Groups Need a Reality-based Approach”?
Calarato, you caught it and I missed it. Bruce e-mailed me with a headsup about my folly. Now corrected! Big oops.
#1
MICHAEL MOORE???? DAN RATHER???? THE NEW YORK TIMES????
Bruce is correct, it’s not the politically expedient thing to do, to go for full-blown recognized marriage. It is however, the right thing to do, which is sometimes much more important than the easy thing to do.
“Domestic partnerships”, as a quasi-form of marriage, would do much more to destabilize an already troubled institution than having “gay marriage”, would. It could easily become more popular with all Americans as a less serious commitment than a full marriage and all its attendant responsibilities. It also does not usually address such things children. In short, it’s for single people who want to shack up for awhile without making a full-blown commitment to a family.
So no, it is not acceptable as an “intermediate” step, because its not intermediate, its permanent. And it’s a lessoning of the institution. We cannot say that we want recognition of our relationships and commitments to each other are of such high value that they are worthy of being called marriages and at the same time say “Well, OK, its not really a marriage.” It cheapens the worth of that commitment and relationship, both in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. If we are willing to accept domestic partnerships as a compromise, it says that we don’t really value marriage enough to deserve it in the first place.
In this I am a proud member of the “non-reality-based community”. I will take that over being member of the politically expedient community any day. You see, it’s about morals. Principles. Right and Wrong. Old fashioned conservative words, not used much anymore by people calling themselves conservatives. Unless its to claim a false sense of piety in order to claim a false moral high ground.
When gay and lesbian people stand before their neighbors and claim that they are married, – a family, it’s not primarily a political claim. It’s a moral statement of truth. If its not then whats it worth anyway? That statement of truth is what must be recognized. It’s much more important in the long run. Domestic partnerships are in most places not worth the paper they are printed on, because their moral authority is not recognized even if their legal authority is. Not to mention that even the legal authority is a mess of conflicting definitions from state to state and city to city. And all of which are meaningless in a real sense because they do not include federal recognition. And what chance to you think there is of this Congress creating federal recognition of domestic partnerships any time soon? If DOMA was created under Democrats, its not going to be repealed by Republicans.
And just a note about Americans and prejudice. Americans may not be bigots when it comes to gay and lesbian people, but they certainly are prejudiced. The problem is that they think that they have valid reasons for being prejudiced. These same claims of moral purity were also made by those who favored segregation. Few Americans were willing to think of themselves as prejudiced toward black Americans. And even fewer thought that was a bad or immoral idea. But prejudiced is exactly what they were. Thats why the status quo of segregation was acceptable. There is no getting around that uncomfortable and unpleasant fact. Either then, or now.
Amen, Gryph. I absolutely agree.
Patrick by the “reality-based community,” I simply meant those who understand the most Americans do not support gay marriage — and that they are not tired of such initiatives. Living in the real world means understanding such people not demonizing them.
#6
What?
none of whom are paid mouthpieces of a corrupt administration.
this is a sad site, and you’re the saddest one here
#8 — So, I’m guessing people who think that Republicans would be happy to exterminate gay people are not part of the reality-based community.
So no, it is not acceptable as an “intermediate” step, because its not intermediate, its permanent. And it’s a lessoning of the institution. We cannot say that we want recognition of our relationships and commitments to each other are of such high value that they are worthy of being called marriages and at the same time say “Well, OK, its not really a marriage.” It cheapens the worth of that commitment and relationship, both in our own eyes and in the eyes of others. If we are willing to accept domestic partnerships as a compromise, it says that we don’t really value marriage enough to deserve it in the first place.
ABOVE COMMENT WRITTEN BY PATRICK IS EXACTLY CORRECT! America ( mainly white waspy men) have used the same excuse for decades. When women wanted the right to vote: “If women vote it will be the downfall of American traditions and values”
If blacks and whites marry: It will be the downfall of American traditions and values”
If Gays and Lesbians Marry: It will be the downfall of American traditions and values”
Same excuse – different kind of bigotry – period!
Oops. Sorry Dan, mixed you up with Bruce. I do know you are the sensible one. 😉 I agree with you about not demonizing our opponents. But I still think that sadly, prejudice is part of the equasion. But do note I’m not saying “bigotry”. I’m not characterizing the majority of our opponents or those that simply disagree with us as wearing white sheets over their heads or being Nazi’s.
Even though there are some few of course, that qualify. As I recall, the pro- Anti-gay ammendment folks in Texas recently were greatly ashamed at a political demonstration to be on the same side of the arguement as the Klu Klux Klan, who also came out to support the anit-gay ammendment.
I noted, not long ago, that the Massachusetts Legislature was moving to decriminalize bestiality. The item got me to thinking, what is the philosophical basis for outlawing bestiality? The bumper-stick says you can’t legislate morality, yet, there would seem to be no more pure example of legislating morality than this.
Which raises another set of questions. Does society, through its elected representatives, have the right to determine the shape of its social institutions and define moral behavior? In order to support court-mandated same-sex marriage, you have to answer this question ‘No.’ However, how can you then justify laws against bestiality and other private behaviors that are not harmful, merely offensive?
I don’t support same-sex marriage. But, if I did, at this point in time, I would cut my losses and pursue initiatives that are likely to go places. (I think it is highly likely same-sex marriage will be abolished in Massachusetts, for instance). Unfortunately, the push for same-sex marriage has resulted in a gross over-reaction that has seriously jeopardizes efforts – which I support – that would allow gay domestic partners to receive benefits in discrete areas that most reasonable people would support, such as hospital visitation rights, etc. And, of course, there are other priorities, such as anti-discrimination statutes, gays in the military, etc. where success is likely in the short to medium turn.
Patrick does a terrific job of making the conservative case for gay marriage in post #6. Nice to see ND30 agree.
Too bad GP and GPW find this position is not in their immediate interests.
The post brings up a good point. The easist (relative term) way to change people’s minds is to start from where they are at and move forward. Calling those who oppose gay marriage bigots, racists, etc is not changing anyone’s mind. But it is a sure-fire way to make them dig in their heels though.
I previously lived next door to a gay couple. My dad was not actively against gays per se but pretty strong against gay marriage. My mom has always been a closet liberal but won’t admit it.
During the time I lived there, I became very close to them. Since I have no family in the city where I live, they became my surrogate family. Naturally, I talked about them all the time. When my parents came for a visits the boys would have always volunteer to host a dinner.
Over time, my dad began to view them as any other couple. Later when he and I were talking about the TX amendment, he told me it wasn’t fair that the guys couldnt legalize what was a marriage in everything but name and rights.
Another convert is made.
Well said, cbi in #17. A reality-based approach to gay marriage would, as you put it, start from where people are and move forward and eschew name-calling. Because they would dig in their heels if we called them names.
I think some advocates of gay marriage aren’t living in a “reality-based” universe as they refuse to acknowledge the non-hateful objections to gay marriage. If people truly want gay marriage, they need to understand those objections and address them.
Otherwise, their venting against proponents of bans on gay marriage accomplishes nothing except to offer them an opportunity to blow off some steam — and badmouth their fellow citizens.
Can you please list for me the “non-hateful objections ” to civil marriage for gays…Thanks SFBamBam
Okay, for starters, heterosexual, lifelong, monogamous marriage is a uniquely valuable social institution because it not only creates the best environment for raising children, but also models the best arrangement for the long-term strength,health, and stability of society as a whole. (And, in my opinion, it is because heterosexuals have so degraded the institution through quickie divorces, open marriages, and such, that marriage is in the perilous state that it is.) Therefore, heterosexual, monogamous, lifelong marriages are entitled to unique status because of the unique benefit they provide society.
Secondly, no argument can be made in support of the case that sex (what some people call gender) is irrelevant to marriage that does not also apply to numbers and biological relationships. Hence, as gay marriage is argued for on the basis of access to status and societal benefits, polygamous and incestuous relationships can not be excluded.
Finally, re-read my comment #14, which raises the question of whether or not society has the right to define its own social institutions.
And just to clarify, when I refer to the “perilous state” of marriage, what I mean is the fact that marriage is no longer seen as a lifelong commitment, but more like a pinata filled with social benefits.
Seems even women in power have forgotten the struggle fought for 12 long, labored yrs to obtain the right to vote. What was the excuse MEN used to keep women from voting..? Oh yea…”If women vote, it will UNDERMINE THE TRADITIONS AND VALUES OF AMERICAN SOCIETY” – sound familiar?? Is that not the same argument used for the fight against Inter-Racial Marriage? …and now Gay Marriage…..America / Amerika = Land of Liberty and justice for ALL Heterosexuals….Land of Hypocracy is more like it. I myself don’t want to marry anyone – but I will fight til my dying breath to obtain it for younger gay people, and gays not born yet!
Land of Hypocracy is more like it.
And people who can’t spell.
V the K…you still have not shown how everything that you apply to straight relationships does not also apply to gay ones.
Having a lifelong, monogamous “marriage” is not unique or limited to straight people. Being a good parent is not solely defined by your gender. Having both a mom & dad might be considered the best situation, but it is not the only one.
And of course an argument can be made excluding polygamous, incestuous and bestial relationships from the debate since we are only talking about committed relationships between only two people regardless of gender.
Gay people are not asking for a radical re-interpretation of the institution, only that we be allowed to participate in it as well. For the greater good of our loved ones, our families and yes for society at large as well.
And just to clarify, I think that you are right that the ease of getting a divorce contributes to the high mortality rate of current straight relationships, but I think that the real problem lies with the lack of maturity of those getting married, coupled with their general ignorance and misunderstanding of what it takes to have a healthy, happy & long-lasting relationship.
That wasn’t the question, Bam Bam. You asked for reasons to oppose gay marriage not rooted in hatred or bigotry and I gave them.
Also, I never said that gay couples would not benefit from marriage, nor that society would not benefit … only that the benefits of monogamous heterosexual marriages are valuable to society in a unique way that same-sex marriages would not.
And you make my point for me when you insist that gender is irrelevent to the definition of marriage, but the number 2 is absolutely critical. That is illogical. You say your goal is to extend benefits to and honor lifelong commitments between two people of the same sex, but you want to deny those social benefits to arrangements of 3, 4, 5, and however many whose relationships may be just as committed and meaningful.
Frankly, Bam Bam, your bigotry against Muslims and other cultures in which polygamy is long-established and accepted practice, is very intolerant.
Here’s something you and I disagree on, V.
The number 2 is indeed critical – for perfectly logical reasons – you simply cannot have an EXCLUSIVE relationship, making ONE special person your top priority above all, AND have them do it back to you (making it equal and mutual, rather than a 1-way exploitation), without ending up with 2 as your final number of people in the relationship.
For a relationship of 3, 4, etc. people to be “primary” is a contradiction in terms, and you know it. If you have 2 or 3 others as your primary relationship focus, by definition you have NO ONE as your primary relationship focus. To speak of “plural” or “group” marriages is logically absurd….unless you mean polygamy where 1 person (or 1 gender) dominates, which is an unequal (exploitative) situation where one person gets the benefit of being 2, 3 or 4 others’ “primary” partner, without making them his/her primary partner in return.
So, the 2-way structure of marriage is truly crucial to the institution. On the other hand: the race, birth, politics, precise age, precise childbearing abilities (or lack thereof), AND PRECISE GENDER of the 2 parties to the marriage is NOT truly crucial to the institution. We have tweaked the latter things many times over the centuries, and we doubtless will again.
Over human history, polygamy has been far, far more common among all human cultures that same-sex unions. And there are already polyamorists arguing for recognition of their relationships on the same basis (access to benefits, equality) that same-sex marriage advocates use. Not to mention Muslims, which is whole ‘nother can o’ worms.
But it gets back to the same point. When you reject out of hand the possibility that 3 or more people can share a meaningful, committed relationship, you are doing exactly what many accuse same-sex marriage opponents of doing.
I don’t know from polyamory, and I have no interest in it personally. But it is logical that once marriage is all about equalizing social benefits to people regardless of what arrangement fulfills their needs and desires, you have a Hell of a problem making arbitrary decisions about who has access to it and who doesn’t.
“Muslims [traditional polygamy]….”
With them, you’re talking about a structure where a man basically owns a bunch of women (as chattel). He’s their primary commitment, but, none of them are his primary commitment. No mutuality.
It’s hugely unequal, and we in the West have long settled our rejection of it.
“When you reject out of hand the possibility that 3 or more people can share a meaningful, committed relationship, you are doing exactly what many accuse same-sex marriage opponents of doing.”
Seems like sophistry.
I don’t reject out of hand that SOME 3 people could form a relationship which seems subjectively meaningful and committed to them.
I do reject out of hand that 3 people could form a mutually primary type of relationship (note “mutually primary”, a different standard than your “meaningful and committed”) because such a thing is a contradiction in terms, as you know.
As I’ve already explained, the very definition or meaning of “mutually primary” could only exclude a third person. End of argument.
Unless, V, you want to start sounding like one of those Leftists to whom words are only playthings to be bent, with no real definition or meaning? 😉
“once marriage is all about equalizing social benefits…you have a Hell of a problem making arbitrary decisions about who has access to it and who doesn’t.”
Society has always made such decisions. It will again.
Miscegenation laws, anyone? Age restrictions, anyone?
Tweaking the criteria of WHICH TWO people can be married – saying “They have to be 16”, or “They have to be 18”, or “They have to be the same race”, or “They have to be the same gender”, or “They don’t have to be the same race / gender”, or “They have to be the same noble rank”, or “They don’t have to be the same noble rank”….is something we’ve done throughout history. And is a far less radical than, say, breaking up the essential 2-person “Mutually primary” structure of marriage, by adding 3rd and 4th persons.
That’s all I’m going to explain. If you refuse to see it, I certainly can’t make you.
But that’s the trap, isn’t it? The legal basis for allowing same-sex marriage isn’t to legitimize commitment. You don’t need a permission slip from the government to legitimize a committed relationship with another person or persons. Every legal argument for same-sex marriage is based on access to social benefits. That was the SCOMAS’s reasoning in rejecting that civil unions could be separate but equal.
My own opinion is that the only practical solution is to get government out of the marriage business entirely. Civil unions for everybody, regardless of gender, number, relationship. (Adults only, of course). Marriages would become strictly church-based institutions. My church only marries men and women, while MCC marries same sex couples, and Ahmed’s mosque marries one guy and four chicks.
But, of course, no one listens to Ee-yore.
This is for Marilyn Musgrave, the CO. Congress woman who is a NO#1 supporter of writing discrimination into OUR Constitution.
Marilyn Musgrave forgets that 50yrs ago – she would not be running for anything but a mop to do the floor. It was 85yrs ago that women got the RIGHT to VOTE..ONLY after a LONG, Grueling 12yr battle with men to get that right. What was the excuse men used back then to prevent women from voting…? Ahh yes….”If Women get the Right to Vote, it would destroy American Traditions and Values” Then we go to the 1960’s and Inter-racial Marriage. What was the excuse law makers tried to use? Ahh yea….If Blacks Marry Whites, it would destroy American Traditions and Values”……Now 2005 – the excuse to Prevent Gay Marriage…”If Gays and Lesbians Marry it would destroy American Traditions and Values” — sound familiar? Same ol’ story – same ol’ Bigotry!!!!
Um, actually, Rex, Musgrave’s own state of Colorado had given women full voting rights in 1893… 27 years before the nineteenth amendment was ratified. Molly Brown ran for Congress from Colorado in 1909 and 1914. So, not only is your point completely irrelevent to the discussion of same-sex marriage, it is also historically inaccurate.
Maybe you should come to an argument bringing reason and facts, instead of bumper sticker slogans and an ignorance of history.
Hey V the K – One state does NOT EQUAL voting rights for women make….! You’ve been served! You may now go back to your self-loathing and Ass kissing of the same people who want to destroy you!
#33 — Actually, 33 states had given women voting rights prior to 1920, but I was refuting your specific point that Musgrave would have been unable to vote or run for office prior to then. As for the rest of your bumper-sticker arguments, can you back up any of that “people who want to destroy you” chatter with any quotes or citations of actual conservatives advocating the actual extermination of LGBT people? I know Fred Phelps wants to kill all gays, but he’s a registered Democrat. I know Islamist terrorists want to kill all gays, but they’re the people the left is trying to help win in Iraq. So, let’s see if you’re getting your information from actual facts, or if it’s just what the voices in your head are telling you when you slip on your meds.