To Make the Case for Gay Marriage, Protests are Counterproductive, Persuasion is What’s Necessary
While I disagree (strongly) with Dale Carpenter’s suggestion that juvenile gay activists should move their protests from Mormon Churches to marriage license bureaus, he makes an excellent point about the protests:
Here’s my advice to righteously furious gay-marriage supporters: Stop the focus on the Mormon Church. Stop it now. We just lost a ballot fight in which we were falsely but effectively portrayed as attacking religion. So now some of us attack a religion? People were warned that churches would lose their tax-exempt status, which was untrue. So now we have (frivolous) calls for the Mormon Church to lose its tax-exempt status? It’s rather selective indignation, anyway, since lots of demographic groups gave us Prop 8 in different ways — some with money and others with votes. I understand the frustration, but this particular expression of it is wrong and counter-productive.
I think that any protest would be counterproductive. Instead, we should see a housecleaning at gay organizations and the selection of new leaders who refuse to demonize social conservatives, but seek instead to persuade them.
Once these new leaders take office, they will say something like this:
Look, Proposition 8 won because we failed to make the case why gay marriage is good for society. We understand the very valid concerns some people have about gay marriage; they believe the institution as an exclusive union between individuals of different genders. It is out task to convince them why it’s time to expand the longstanding definition of marriage to include same-sex as well as different-sex couples.
Let me repeat, they’re the ones pushing a social change. They need make the case for gay marriage, if that’s what they really want. They can’t keep blaming others for their failures. I mean, this is not the first time voters have passed an initiative amending their state’s constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in every state, every state, which has considered such an initiative (narrowly drawn) have passed them.
They need a different strategy, a better narrative.
For as long as I’ve been blogging about gay marriage, I’ve been saying we need make an affirmative case for gay marriage. I doubt most heads of gay organizations have paid much attention because, well, because of my partisan leanings.
Now that they’ve lost in California, maybe they should pay more attention to gay conservatives. At least we have associated with social conservatives opposed of same-sex marriage. We speak their language. And it’s they we need to convince, through gentle suasion not angry protests.
35 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I don’t care what you’re issue du jour is. If you block traffic and impede me from getting home after a day at work, guess who I’m gonna be pissed at? Hint: It won’t be the Mormons.
Makes me long for the days when I had an ambulance siren, air horn and brush bumper to “encourage” protestors to get out of the way.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 9, 2008 @ 5:24 am - November 9, 2008
The problem is, the Alinsky left does not have any other model for achieving its goals except for protesting and demonizing their opponents.
Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 6:57 am - November 9, 2008
An affirmative case for gay marriage:
The USA is the land of the free and the home of the brave. What has made this nation prosper is that it gives us the right to live and thrive. No nation in the history of humanity had ever been based on the simple human principle that freedom, not control is the key to a prosperous society. By building on this core value and accepting the personal and private choices of our fellow citizens we strengthen ourselves. By respecting the freedom of our fellow Americans, we respect our own.
Comment by robert verdi — November 9, 2008 @ 6:57 am - November 9, 2008
Sounds nice, Robert, until you think about it. The issue here is not freedom, since teh gheys are still free to form any kind of relationship they want with another person or persons as long as they are adult and consenting. That last clause is a restriction on freedom, but it is a restriction that is made to reflect a widely-held societal belief about what is in the best interests of body politic.
And that is where the marriage issue lies, not in whether people have the freedom to form relationships, but what level of state sanction those relationships will receive, and whether society has the right to police its own institutions and label those relationships as “marriages,” or whether to reserve that term for one particular type of legal arrangement.
Freedom is not the issue. The issue is who in society has the right to define social institutions.
Comment by V the K — November 9, 2008 @ 7:51 am - November 9, 2008
Ok, here’s a crazy-coo coo idea; why don’t gay conservative leaders just take the reins from gay-lefty leaders and show them how it’s done. Call up Mormon, Catholic and other Conservative Christian leaders and ask for a meeting to talk about “healing the divide” or whatever it is they say between gays and the religious community. A “series of dialogues” or whatever they call it when two diametrically opposed groups try to work things out. The sort of action that is never going to come from the left.
Of course that would require knowing who the gay-conservative leaders are… Bill Sammon and who? the bloggers at GP?
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 7:52 am - November 9, 2008
Your filter hates me GPW!
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 7:54 am - November 9, 2008
v the k,
I have thought about it and yes I am very skeptical of telling 52% that guess what, your opinion is worthless. Overruling the majority will on issues can have a corrosive affect on society as a whole. Hence make the case that protecting the freedom of others protects all of our freedoms.
Comment by robert verdi — November 9, 2008 @ 8:14 am - November 9, 2008
Oh, I freaking love this photo where a protestor is writing what appears to say, “KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY LIFE”. Doesnt that just sum it all up. “Give me your money! and shut the f**k up!”
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 8:15 am - November 9, 2008
oooh, my new favorite: a little sign that says, “I am a victim of H8“.
Get rid of the last two words and it reminds me of Wednedsay Addams in Addams Family Values when they are learning life saving at summer camp. The chipper blonde rich girl volunteers, “I’ll be the victim!’ and Wednseday says, “All your life”.
I hadn’t really seen any footage or photos from the protests until now. Its even more embarrassing than I thought. The only thing worse than a bucnh of liberals protesting? A bunch of attention-starved aspiring actor liberals protesting.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 8:41 am - November 9, 2008
Check out “The Times of Harvey Milk”, It documented very clearly the protests that erupted in the wake of the lenient verdict on Dan White for his vicious murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. Protests directed for the right reasons can have a powerful impact. Protests are necessary as a public way for groups to point out the injustices of our society…..look at how protests of the 50s and 60s worked.
Comment by Kevin — November 9, 2008 @ 9:45 am - November 9, 2008
It’s getting pretty ugly:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17645/
As long as so-called gay activist organizations are manned by far-left loonies who live in far-left loony ghettos and associate with nobody but other far-left loonies, they will accomplish nothing, because they have no idea why somebody might not agree to their agenda. Replace them with people from small towns in the midwest, and they may actually accomplish something.
Comment by rightwingprof — November 9, 2008 @ 10:08 am - November 9, 2008
Carpenter’s saying the Yes on 8 charges were “false” is excessive politesse and smacks of pandering to his audience. The charges were true… as we’re seeing now. There is indeed an immature, numerous, vocal and destructive segment of the gay community that wants to attack religion and revoke the Mormon Church’s tax-exempt status. Wants to. Really.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 10:42 am - November 9, 2008
#11: There were no calls to revoke their tax-exempt status until Prop 8 failed.
Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2008 @ 10:44 am - November 9, 2008
Oops, I mean passed. Sorry.
Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2008 @ 10:44 am - November 9, 2008
Once more, Kevin jumps the shark. Civilized, dignified protests help. Riots and/or vicious, ‘attacking’ type of protests do not. The White Night riots did not help the gay cause, any more than the LA Watts riots helped the black cause, any more than attacking religion is helping the gay cause right now.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 10:53 am - November 9, 2008
Translation: The “Yes on 8″ people were right. The impulse to revoke tax-exempt status is/was indeed lurking just below the surface of an an immature, numerous, vocal and destructive segment of the gay community.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 10:54 am - November 9, 2008
You see Attmay, a person is gonna do what they’re gonna do. If they do some bad action “after”, it was already in their heart to do it “before”, and the before/after distinction that they’re offering as an excuse is just that – A piss-poor excuse.
The Yes on 8 people had understood a certain vocal segment of the gay community correctly. Their error would be in thinking it applies to all gays, or even to all gay marriage supporters.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 10:57 am - November 9, 2008
“We speak their language.”
That’s what bothers me the most. Some, not you GPW and not everyone, on here speak the language of those who will NEVER accept us period, never mind marriage.
Comment by a different Dave — November 9, 2008 @ 11:24 am - November 9, 2008
Another way to put it my point at #11 – 15- 16. A person causes their own actions, no matter what. The devil doesn’t make them do it. Those ‘awful’ Mormons don’t make them do it. If Prop 8 had lost, these same people would simply be showing their ongoing hatred of religion in other ways: for example, by attempting protests and lawsuits on churches (Mormons) that don’t want a gay-married employee.
“By their fruits ye shall know them” – in times good and bad. We have got to get beyond these anti-religious gays, and the hate they carry around inside them, if we want to achieve national majority support for gay marriage.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 9, 2008 @ 11:29 am - November 9, 2008
adDave,
One thing I like about these comments is that we don’t all agree lockstep in the comments of this site, but, for the most part, we’re civil.
Even those who you feel ‘won’t ever accept [us]‘ are here, sand they’ve a better shot at coming to some accomidation, as long as we remain a forum and not an echo chamber.
Comment by The_Livewire — November 9, 2008 @ 1:02 pm - November 9, 2008
Prop 8 passed by 52%. Obama won by 52%. I think the people who voted for Obama were mislead by deceptive ads. I’m a victim of “hope” and “change”. I think there should be demonstrations in the street to invalidate the election results.
Comment by OutliciousTV — November 9, 2008 @ 1:03 pm - November 9, 2008
I’ve countered each of the standard arguments against gay marriage in my blog post here: http://insomnimusing.blogspot.com/2008/11/as-promised-my-rant-against-gay.html
I would appreciate any comment or feedback. Thank you.
Comment by Rachel S — November 9, 2008 @ 1:34 pm - November 9, 2008
And how do you (you meaning gay conservatives) plan on reaching these social conservatives to “persuade” them that their opposition to gay marriage is wrong? The bible thumpers will never let you into their churches. The blowhards like Bill O’Reilly and Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh will never give you a soapbox from which to “persuade”. Blogs are great, because you have total editorial control, but they don’t have anywhere near the reach of TV, churches, and radio. The Christian Taliban in the Springs would probably rather see you exiled to Timbuktu than listen to you.
So, pray tell… how do you “convince” enough of your conservative ilk to change their minds in significant numbers? Or are you advocating a slowly-but-surely approach? Viral marketing? How long are you prepared to wait? 10, 20, 50, 100 years?
Comment by jonesey12 — November 9, 2008 @ 6:46 pm - November 9, 2008
Jonesy,
Your charicature of conservatives is ignorant and childish. Grow up.
You persuade people by listening to their concerns and responding with reasoned arguments, not by throwing hissy fits.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 9:11 pm - November 9, 2008
And by the way, the gay-left’s pathetic, miserable failure of an approach has resulted in what exactly? 30 states that have banned gay marriage in law, many of which have passed constitutional amendments that will require persuading FAR more people to overturn. You talk about waiting 10,20, 50 years? Before gay activists tried their totalitarian tactics gay marriage had very close to majority support in most areas and would have only taken a while longer to persuade majorities.
Thanks to the immature, spoiled-rotten, ignorant, dictatorial left trying to force their will on everyone else, it will now require persuading super-majorities.
Way to go! Yes, by all means, lets continue following THAT failed strategy! perhaps by 2012 you can make sure there are constitutional amendments banning gay marriage permanently in ALL 50 states!
And yet you cant wait to sit down to tea with Ahmadinejad!
The stupidity is staggering.
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 9:21 pm - November 9, 2008
sigh. filtered. what, is the word gay prohibited by the filter too?
Comment by American Elephant — November 9, 2008 @ 9:22 pm - November 9, 2008
Notice how jonesey only believes that positive change comes about by pushing things through the media.
Probably because he knows the lifestyle of irresponsibility, promiscuity, and continuous cries of victimization he and his fellow liberal gays lead needs a full-time PR and marketing staff to make it in any way palatable.
We are bringing about change, jonesey, by showing people that being gay does not make you an idiot. Unfortunately, gays like you who are convinced that it does are not helping that message in the least.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2008 @ 10:12 pm - November 9, 2008
#25: “And yet you cant wait to sit down to tea with Ahmadinejad!”
Excellent point, AE. The gay left supports a candidate who adamantly favors sitting down to chat with the leader of a theocracy that routinely hangs gays in the public square for being gay, but they have absolutely no interest in the idea of either meeting with their opposition or trying to understand the legitimate basis for the opposition to what they want. It’s just easier to demonize their opposition and universally label any objection to their agenda as hatred.
Comment by Sean A — November 9, 2008 @ 10:42 pm - November 9, 2008
“We speak their language.â€
That’s what bothers me the most. Some, not you GPW and not everyone, on here speak the language of those who will NEVER accept us period, never mind marriage.
But we don’t need acceptance. We just need to be let alone to live the way we want, within reason. And if we want folks to let us live the way we want to live, then we’re gonna have to extend the same courtesy. And that means we have to find a way to respect our opponents religion and their values as something valid and important – even if, and especially if, we don’t agree with them.
Marriage is a sacrament as holy as the Eucharist or ordination for the Catholics (and some Episcopals), and sacred to pretty much everybody. And almost all holy books record that as between man and woman – sometimes many women, but always cross-gender. And that’s a fact – however unpleasant we may find it. We cannot ignore, and certainly cannot ridicule, that fact if we want these people to accept people of the same gender having access to civil marriage.
We will have to compromise to get our way. A large part of that compromise will involve respecting people’s religions, and probably returning the term marriage to the religious side of the street and accepting that civil marriage is called something else.
Domestic partnerships – while separate and therefore inherently unequal – are going to be a necessary starting place. Kind of like training wheels. We continue to show ourselves as responsible adults willingly entering into binding partnerships, tackling the problems and making them work and a lot more people will be willing to let us give marriage a try. Especially when the domestic partnerships, or civil unions or whatever less clunky term we end up finding are marriage in everything but the name.
Comment by Rob — November 10, 2008 @ 2:06 am - November 10, 2008
Bravo on the post Rob. You sum up a lot of the challenges in a way I agree with.
Comment by The Livewire — November 10, 2008 @ 10:09 am - November 10, 2008
I disagree. That proposition was a margin of error race. Our opponents ran a negative campaign. We did not.
In a margin of error race, a few attacks ads can make a big difference. We ran ZERO.
In other states we need to be more persuasiveness, yea. For that ballot initiative, we needed just a few negative ads and we would’ve flipped the margin in our favor.
Comment by Erik — November 10, 2008 @ 3:39 pm - November 10, 2008
LOL. 52% victory = “margin of error” 53% victory = “landslide blowout”
Comment by American Elephant — November 11, 2008 @ 12:56 am - November 11, 2008
[...] out some other posts I penned, er, pixeled on the protests here (wondering what they accomplish), here (favoring persuasion not protest), here (faulting protesters) and here (calling protesters sore [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Stop the Protests. Begin the Introspection. — November 12, 2008 @ 1:18 pm - November 12, 2008
Until you have your rights taken away from you, until you are unable to provide your parter – the person you love and want to build a life with – with medical insurance (and other benefits) because they are of the same sex, it is all too easy for any of you to judge what should or should not be done by the gay rights movement. What harm does a peaceful protest do? All we are doing is creating awareness for our cause – coming together as a community. Yes, you are always going to have a couple lunatics that go way overboard and make things look bad, but those few do not represent the majority.
I have raised a lot of awareness to friends, coworkers, and others, but any attempt to speak to anyone who has their strong religious beliefs – those who basically condemn us as horrible humans “that will end the world” as some radical religious conservatives have said – are reluctant to even have a construction discussion. They don’t want to hear anything. They call us immoral, horrible human beings, and you might be amazed at how many of these people there really are. So, you think a protest at a Mormon church is any worse than this?
As for the sanctity of marriage, as long as anyone can just take a trip to Vegas or Reno, or their local courthouse and get married, without barely knowing each other, you cannot call marriage sacredly religious. I do agree that is traditionally where marriage has begun, and I see great differences in religious and civil marriage cerimonies, but when it comes to the rights being granted, it all comes down to equality, and regardless of religion, our Constitution was designed in part to protect the minority from the majority, which is where we are at now. Just about every civil rights case and advancement of those rights has been decided by the courts. That is why the creaters of our Constitution called for three branches of government, for the “checks and balances” that are necessary, in part, to keep the citizens that are full of fear, hate, and intolerance from oppressing the minority.
Prop 8 supporters built their campaign on lies, fear, and deception, and unfortunatly too many voters in CA believed it. That was enough to put it over the top. I truly believe every yes vote was out of fear, hatred, or intolerance, because anyone’s religion or morality does not belong in my private life, nor does it give anyone the right to take a fundamental right like marriage from me.
Within CA, Prop 8 should be overturned based on Article 1, Section 7 of the State Constitution. I would expect the ruling (once it finally makes it through the courts) to be identical to that of the May 2008 ruling, holding that the Prop 22 and 1977 Legislative bans on gay marriage violated the constitution.
On a Federal level, I would argue the Fourteenth Amendment, including it’s Equal Protection Clause, guarantees equal protection under the law. Unfortunately, our US Supreme Court has so far refused to hear the DOMA case, which greatly restricts rights, even for those same sex couples who have been able to marry – medical insurance laws for instance.
Comment by Kevin — November 13, 2008 @ 3:21 am - November 13, 2008
In the name of Allah most beneficent, the ever merciful.
Very nice Kevin. But how exactly does some people standing in front of a Mormon temple chanting “mormon scum” and holding up ignorant signs full of hate speech directed at that religion help gay marriage? How does that convince them that queer folk are not the wicked children of Sodom that they think the bible says we are?
You remember that story right? Two strangers go into the house of the prophet Lut. They are literally angels handsome and strong. The people of sodom were wealthy, decadent, but known for their lack of charity, for mistreating the old, weak, sick, and children. Upon seeing those two strangers some of the gay/bi members of that community surrounded Lut’s house and cried for those men to be sent out. The shouted epithets. Said that Lut was not in fact so righteous. Affirmed their distaste for women (not just Lut’s daughters but by analogy all women) They even tried to tear down Lut’s house to get at them.
The gay friendly moral of the story is that inhospitality to and mistreatment of strangers, those who are few, or weak in body is wrong. That the true sodomy is just that type of taking advantage (gay rape being just an illustration thereof).
Sir, If that is the true Moral of the story of the Sodom and Gemoora (or as Muslims like me call it the story of the people of Lut). Then you and any other queer so protesting in front of Mormon temples, mosque, churches, or syogogues… You are committing sodomy in the trueest and gay friendly sense of the word. Not by being with your loving partner. No. But by not rising above the fray and instead seeking to persecute the people who like Lut, are some of the nicest you would ever meet.
I personally find more acceptance of who I am (as a transwoman) at the local mosque, than I do as a Muslim at the local LGBT community center. That says allot.
As sallam ul lakium.
Comment by Aisha — November 15, 2008 @ 4:46 am - November 15, 2008