A Strategy to Defeat CA Initiative* on Marriage
For the past few weeks, I have been letting my e-mail accumulate, saving most of the bulk mailings that cluttered my box as they might have some blog-worthy tid-bit. As I read through them this afternoon, I kept coming across stuff from various gay sources about the likely fall ballot proposition to amend our state’s constitution to define marriage as it has long been defined (as the union of one man and one woman) as well as releases on the California Supreme Court’s decision redefining that institution to include same-sex unions.
Before that decision, I thought the initiative had a 50-50 chance of passing. With the decision, I think the odds have increased for those who favor amending the constitution. And if the gay groups who sent out those e-mails have anything to do with the “No” campaign, the odds with increase even further.
Take a gander at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force’s (NGLTF) April 24 press release. It calls the petition drive a “mean-spirited attack.” If they think it’s mean-spirited, they have little understanding of their opposition on this issue. Yeah, there are some mean-spirited voices in the anti-gay marriage crowd, notably Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, but his group failed to gather enough signatures for a proposal which would have overturned the state’s domestic partnership program as well as limited marriage to different-sex couples.
Advocates of gay marriage must not forget that while the state may recognize gay marriage during the course of the campaign, they’re the ones pushing to change the way American jurisdictions, indeed world political institutions, have defined marriage for as long as they have recognized the institution. As I wrote before, the burden is on those proposing the change.
They need to recognize that most Californians who oppose gay marriage don’t do so out of bigotry or hatred but because they see insitution as the union of two individuals of different genders. Those who organize the campaign to defeat this proposition won’t get much mileage if they campaign against social conservatives. That may win them accolades in San Francisco, West Hollywood, San Diego’s Hillcrest neighborhood and on university campuses, but it won’t win them votes in cities like Fresno and Bakersfield and the suburbs of Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego.
In short, without using the language of the left, which seems to be the only dialect in which the gay organizations can speak, they need to make the case why gay marriage is a good thing. And not just for gay people. I know I’m repeating myself when I say this, but it’s a point which bears repetition, Jonathan Rauch’s Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America is a good place to learn how to make that case.
They need to find a way to reduce the best parts of that book into 30-second television spots. Indeed, NGLTF, the very group whose recent release focused on lashing out as those gathering signatures in the Golden State, ran ads in 2005 in the Lone Star State doing just that, defending the idea of gay marriage on “essentially conservative grounds.”
Ads such as these which focus on the commitments gay couples are making should replace those attacking gay marriage opponents in particular and Republicans in general. Terms like “commitment” and “monogamy” should replace “rights” and “equality.” Instead of using that latter abstraction, use a line like this one from one of the Texas ads: a mother of a gay child says, “My children want the same thing their father and I wanted . . . . I hope they’re together forever.“
I like that idea, using straight parents of gay children to make the pitch to defeat this amendment.
Remember, the goal here is not to earn cheers from politically correct crowds in the state’s most liberal enclaves, but to change minds in the state’s most conservative ones.
*I changed the title of the post when an astute reader informed me that for something to be a referendum, the state legislature must refer it to the people.
26 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
There is a saying that it is easier to change minds with honey over vinegar. In other words, highlighting the positives works better than the negatives.
NGLTF is stuck in it’s own world of the gay left. But even if every one of them came out against the proposition to change the CA constitution, it wouldn’t matter. So they need to broaden their scope, and as Dan says, not explain what is wrong with the marriage amendment crowd. But rather highlight the reasons why Gay marriage is good for society.
The courts have already shoved something down the throats of CA that the majority doesn’t want. Rather than infuriate them further. Why now appeal to peoples better side and get people to be pro Gay marriage. Of course a certain segment of society will do anything to protect the definition of marriage. Those are beyond reach, but there are many good people who may be persuaded that a constitutional amendment is too drastic a measure.
Comment by Leah — May 19, 2008 @ 10:44 pm - May 19, 2008
Educate, not Excoriate! ….Yeesh.
Calling ban supporters “evil” and “wicked” isn’t going to help one-bit. The key will be convincing the moderates that it’s not going to harm them, and it’s the right thing to do by setting a good example. Maybe cut-back a little on the Drag Wedding and the leather jocks straps for a change?
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 19, 2008 @ 11:04 pm - May 19, 2008
Allowing gay marriage represents a civil rights victory. It’s that simple.
Comment by Christopher (Chino, California) — May 19, 2008 @ 11:20 pm - May 19, 2008
When I looked at the NGLTF website, the first words I saw were “right wing groups - blah blah blah”. I read no further.
I certainly favor allowing same-sex marriages - but by democratic means. A panel of judges who can confer rights not in the constitution can certainly take them away just as easily.
There are numerous good conservative reasons for gay marriage; reasons that make sense when explained rationally. It’s too bad our self-appointed mouthpieces can’t see that.
The left wing approach is soooo predictable (Obama telling seniors that McCain will take away their Social Security).
I heard an ad opposing California Prop. 98 on the radio this afternoon - paid for by the AARP and several government unions (detailing all the horrible things that evil landlords were going to do to us). That helped my make the decision to vote for 98.
Comment by Robert — May 19, 2008 @ 11:40 pm - May 19, 2008
Same thing with the HRC’s latest e-mail on the subject. But I did find something funny further down:
Abstinence-only is “homophobic”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 20, 2008 @ 12:55 am - May 20, 2008
#6
You’re absolutely right. We should nurture kids and teach them to screw everything that moves and in some cases, used to move. To be perfectly honest, I find the whole barebacking porn genre even more homophobic than that. And guess who’s selling it? If liberals weren’t so damned hypocritical, they’d call it blood money.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 20, 2008 @ 3:45 am - May 20, 2008
First, I have no idea what “A-O” means other than the shorthand for “from alpha to omega” which implies “the full spectrum.” But that hardly seems likely.
I am particularly struck by the “bilge” that is tacitly implied in the use of the word “presumption” in this statement:
Wasn’t it Oregon or Washington where the fellow died from intentionally backing himself up to a horse and having his organs relocated to somewhere near his ears? Is it OK to have a little caveat in the safe sex section of the course about how deep various body orifices can be plumbed?
Honestly, this type of discussion is the reason homosexual marriage is such a rip-snorting success among repressed, up-tight, standard issue heterosexuals. Being one of them, I continually wonder if anything can be perverse.
Thank you chandler in hollywood for making Dan’s point so clearly.
You are now free to stimulate yourself with nipple clips and a power drill. Don’t forget the chains, the pan of water and the fully charged car battery.
Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2008 @ 10:11 am - May 20, 2008
TGC:
As someone who has been perceived as a liberal, I do call the profits made by bareback porn blood money, so not all liberals are as sanguine about the genre as you indicate.
But I think you enter into an inutile binary when you associate the abandonment of abstinence only cirrucula with promoting sex anywhere, anytime, anyhow. There is a fertile middle ground between the two positions.
What needs to be taught is how to engage in sexual relations in safe, responsible ways where informed consent between partners is regarded as an indispensible element. Will there still be people who engage in reckless sexual behavior? Yes. But I have also known people in my family who had lung cancer and smoked as well as others who despite having diabetes, indulged in sweets almost every day. I sometimes wished there was a law to prevent them from doing so, but humans have free will, so the best I could do was educate, cajole, and occasionaly get angry and then hope for a change in behavior.
Heliotrope:
I do not think that the kinky behavior engaged in by gay people has any bearing on the issue of same-sex marriage. I know plenty of heterosexuals who engage in kink and such behaviors have no bearing on their right to marry.
People who focus on kinky behavior are not looking at the salient issues and allowing themselves to be distracted by issues tangential to the question at hand.
As for the possibility of perversity: I think plenty of opportunities for the perverse remain at large.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 20, 2008 @ 11:07 am - May 20, 2008
Heliotrope, I got a good laugh out of your post!
Chandler, yes I think we have a right to teach the ‘ideal’. Here’s a crazy thought for you, ideally, it would be best for society if sex was practiced only within the confines of marriage.
Two things changed that, Freud, who decided that all human misery comes from not enough sex. And the pill, which liberated sex from procreation.
What Dan is trying to do is to have gays live up to that ideal - sex is sacred and has it’s place in marriage. You would rather stay the petulant child and demand that not only are you entitled your unfettered sex, but that such sex should be rewarded by the rights of marriage. As all of us who have been married for many years can tell you - the rewards are great, but so are the responsibilities.
If society discards all of it’s ideals - we might as well be pigs in a sty, something that may appeal to you - but not to most of us.
Comment by Leah — May 20, 2008 @ 11:45 am - May 20, 2008
I guess the people who didn’t think blacks and whites should be able to marry weren’t bigots either?
Comment by Houndentenor — May 20, 2008 @ 12:14 pm - May 20, 2008
I agree 100 percent with you, Dan GPW, that a positive campaign against the initiative amendment would be most effective. As you noted, there are a lot of positive arguments that can be made. One, of course, is that same-sex couples who want to make commitments, are not out to destroy the institution of marriage but to join it and strengthen it.
[My point exactly.
Except I was add the word, "most" between "that" and "same-sex" above. --Dan]
(I have the opportunity each year to spend time in a variety of states and have personally witnessed the constitutional amendment efforts in Nebraska in 2000, Ohio and elsewhere in 2004 and Kansas in 2005. It has been my experience that a majority of those who circulate petitions and sign petitions and vote “yes” for the amendments to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc., are good, decent people who have sincerely-held objections to — or reservations about — same sex marriage. It has also been my experience that most of those who initiate these efforts to amend state constitutions are, indeed, evil people so full of hate that no argument whatsoever can convince them they might be wrong.)
[Well said. And it's important that opponents of the CA initiative understand that. Part of the point of m my post. --Dan]
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 20, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - May 20, 2008
There are always those who are so threatened by equal rights. When the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage in 2003. The towns & cities were given a few months until May 17, 2004 when gay marriage would go into effect. Of course Romney & his cronies tried everything to stop it but failed. Even after gay marriages were performed they tried to get an amendment on to the ballot until June 14th, 2007 when it was finally defeated in the State House. For those who are still uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Comment by Charlotte — May 20, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - May 20, 2008
That’s how they make their money. Look no further.
That assumes a State marriage license (compelling third parties / institutions to treat your particular form of relationship a certain way) is a civil right.
In my belief system, a State license for *anything* - be it fishing, driving, a monopoly on India imports, straight marriage or gay marriage - is always and inherently a privilege, not a right.
Same here!
OK, what I came to ask: So what does the new CA initiative say? Would it preserve the CA’s pre-existing (before last week’s decision) civil union law?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 20, 2008 @ 1:58 pm - May 20, 2008
My understanding is that the initiative is the exact same wording as Prop. 22 from the year 2000.
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Which means it has no effect on the Domestic Partner ruling. Especially now that the CA supreme court said that they are two different things. Since the court agreed that DP gave gaves the same rights and responsibilities as Marriage - only difference being the word marriage.
Comment by Leah — May 20, 2008 @ 3:47 pm - May 20, 2008
You clearly misread my meaning.
Gay marriage is in the hands of the majority of the the population which is heterosexual. If gays are going to woo the heterosexuals into expanding marriage to include homosexuals, I humbly suggest that kinky gay behavior is not the ideal battle plan.
Perhaps the California Supreme Court will prevail and perhaps every other state supreme court will be in awe of California and follow suit and perhaps the Supreme Court of the United States will decide that what is good for the 50 states is good for United States and gay marriage will bypass the majority heterosexual population that remains unconvinced.
Color me skeptical. (And so far as the public reaction to sexual bravado and adventure is concerned, take that up with Spitzer, Willie Clinton, and toe-tapping Senators in public bathroom stalls.)
Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - May 20, 2008
Heliotrope:
Please forgive my misunderstanding. I agree that kinksters are not the best agents to make the case for same-sex marriage.
As for the wishes of the majority. the founders had the wisdom to create a constitutional republic that protects the liberties of minorities and not a pure democracy where majoritarianism is a threat.
Comment by Brian in Brooklyn — May 20, 2008 @ 5:38 pm - May 20, 2008
Brian, I have taught Federalist paper #10 for many decades. The “tyranny of faction” was one of Mr. Madison’s greatest warnings. Our Republic is not obliged to even consider the minority view. However, we embraced the useful habit of paying attention to a wide spectrum of opinion.
That said, we are clearly a country where a majority carries the vote. If gays can make a compelling argument for homosexual marriage, our tradition of respecting the minority view and the heterosexual majority will make it happen.
Sadly, poor Mr. Madison and Federalist #10 have fallen to the level of sloganeering by activists who have little, if any, understanding of the conundrum of majority rule.
Comment by heliotrope — May 20, 2008 @ 6:28 pm - May 20, 2008
#11: “I guess the people who didn’t think blacks and whites should be able to marry weren’t bigots either?”
What in God’s name is that awful banging and screeching?! Does anyone else hear that?! It sounds like an 18-wheeler plowing through a glass warehouse filled with vampire bats.
Oh, there. It stopped, thank God. What the hell was that?
Comment by Sean A — May 20, 2008 @ 9:37 pm - May 20, 2008
Excellent post! Why is it that everything has to be down to a 30-second sound bite? And, why can not the gay left get it that there are some people that are changing their minds on same-sex marriage? Proponents need to win PEOPLE over. Not depend on courts to change the minds of the people. All that this does is create an unessecary backlash that the gay and lesbian community does not need. And, the California state supreme court should stay its decision so that the voters decide in November. Allowing the decision to go on and the voters vote to overturn the court’s decision makes what the court did the cruelist decision of all. Wins us over one by one those that advocate same-sex marriage!
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — May 21, 2008 @ 1:22 am - May 21, 2008
Honestly, how did mankind survive so many millenia without liberals to tell them, in school, how to have sex? It is a wonder that there are any human beings to teach sex-ed to!
I’m pretty sure theyre called nipple clamps. And to think I learned that without the help of the public school system! (and no, its not from personal experience …not that there’s anything wrong with that)
Comment by American Elephant — May 21, 2008 @ 7:33 am - May 21, 2008
AE, thanks for setting me straight on the nipple “clamps.” All I know is what I read in the ER reports or hear from Larry the Cable Guy. I hate to be caught not knowing the nomenclature. It makes me look unsophisticated. Perhaps I need to visit a fetish shop and chat with pro. I will do it right after I finish my correspondence course on do-it-yourself vasectomy using everyday kitchen tools. I am also interested in home liposuction using a standard Hoover vacuum sweeper and a length of garden hose. But that is for another time.
Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2008 @ 8:13 am - May 21, 2008
GPW,
I have been very impressed with your concern for the institution of marriage as I read your various posts on the issue. While I lean towards supporting gay marriage for many of the same reasons you do, I really am neither for nor against it yet, because, though I hope it would, I honestly can’t be certain that the effect on the institution would be positive.
I certainly understand the arguments that allowing same sex couples to marry would strengthen the institution, and I am hopeful that same-sex marriage would also have a positive effect on the “gay community”, but I simply don’t know if either would really be the case.
The hope is that marriage would “civilize” the gay community (and yes, I am specifically talking about gay men here more than lesbians) the same way it civilizes heterosexual men by encouraging them to settle down with one woman. But would it? It seems to me the gay community rather likes its promiscuity, thank you very much, and I am inclined to doubt they are ready to give it up. I know a great many gay men, and very few of them are in long term relationships. Moreover, the “civilizing” effect works in heterosexual relationships, because women, who are much more inclined to monogamy than men, are the ones who exert the “civilizing” influence in the first place. And they also happen to be the figure that is missing from the gay marriage equation.
Much of the gay community also has a very different view of marriage than the rest of society, specifically the tendency towards and acceptance of “open” marriages to a far, far greater degree than the rest of society. I don’t see any evidence that these attitudes are going to change, and what is the effect on the institution if they dont?
Also, the gay community has always been able to point to the inability to marry whenever the issue of promiscuity comes up. What if marriage doesnt have a “civilizing” affect on the gay community? What happens if they remain just as promiscuous as before — or if society throws a big gay wedding and nobody shows up? With the excuse of “they cant get married” gone, what influence does it have on societal attitudes towards marriage if, finally granted the opportunity to marry, gays opt not to and instead keep partying it up and sleeping around as much as ever?
I’ve gotten the impression, reading your posts, that you would try to consider these questions objectively, so, i am very interested in your thoughts. And anyone else who wants to address them objectively.
And I’m sorry they are somewhat disjointed, like I said, I simply don’t know the answers, and I’m still working through the questions myself. it doesnt help that there is very little real objectivity coming from either side. But if there is one thing I have learned from Barack Obama, it is that “hope” is not a good foundation for sound policy.
Comment by American Elephant — May 21, 2008 @ 9:01 am - May 21, 2008
American Elephant,
I have restrained myself from introducing the stink bombs that bother me most. I am not anxious to engage in the firing back. However, I will scratch the surface. The best research shows that the population of true homosexuals is slightly under the 2.5 per cent level. Additionally, there is a small number who cross into the practices of homosexuality. The total number or the two groups being something under four per cent of the population. Research by the APA also shows that physical abuse among lesbian couples it extremely high and way out of sync with the numbers for physical abuse among all couples in general.
Frankly, our society has turned a blind eye to many of the psychological concerns that arise specifically from within the gay world and the psychological concerns that come along with many who cross into the gay world. (There is an interesting study on girls in the professional level of tennis and the lure of the lesbian world.) I suspect that political correctness has had a great to do with this.
The argument for gay marriage seems to be heavy with the concept of “equality.” But how gays express and practice their sexuality is certainly not “equal” among themselves.
The countercharge that heterosexuals have their fair share of problems is not germane for the simplest of reasons. The overwhelming power of the majority is being asked change the definition of one of its basic institutions. For a gay to argue that our worst and your worst are no different is not much of a justification, nor is it salient logic.
Clearly, I realize that the statistics I have given can be countered by special interest studies that have been concocted to dispute them. That is to be expected. But the medical school research and the foundation work by noted researchers is very consistent.
Comment by heliotrope — May 21, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - May 21, 2008
Heliotrope,
I don’t know if lesbian relationships are more abusive or not. I grant that its possible, but I guess I’m not quite getting your point. It sounds as if you’re suggesting gays have more mental problems than the average person?
If so, I’d have to disagree, and point out that I didn’t have any intention of implying that in my post.
I am talking not about psychological problems, but a combination of natural male tendencies and libertine attitudes that have become prominent in the gay community because of the combination of those natural male tendencies and having been forced underground by society for so long.
But regardless of how, the fact remains that the gay community has far different attitudes about monogamy and promiscuity than mainstream society and far more liberal attitudes about marriage.
My point is that while its possible gay marriage could have a civilizing effect on gays which I think would be good for society and good for gays, its also possible that if gays are allowed to marry and the gay community doesn’t change its attitudes about promiscuity or its overall behavior, that that could have a very negative effect on the institution of marriage.
Comment by American Elephant — May 23, 2008 @ 8:30 am - May 23, 2008
Courts imposing gay marriage is going to do to society what the courts have done to society with abortion rulings.
If gay people think this is a victory, they’re sadly mistaken.
These are political/social matters that the voters should decide on in their legislatures.
Comment by Vince P — May 23, 2008 @ 9:59 pm - May 23, 2008
[...] Related: A Strategy to Defeat CA Initiative* on Marriage [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » On Blogging & Debating the California Marriage Amendment — June 5, 2008 @ 5:45 pm - June 5, 2008