Coming Around to My Strategy on Gay Marriage
For as long as I have been blogging about gay marriage, I have said we need change the strategy. Instead of demonizing social conservatives, gay marriage advocates should try to understand their opposition to same-sex marriage and, at the same time, do a better of making an affirmative case for gay marriage. I have also said we should avoid going through the courts as that leads to a backlash at the ballot box.
If you have a moment, just view my posts in our category Gay Marriage and you’ll see how readily and regularly I have made this point.
As long ago as March 2005 (shortly after we moved away from blogspot and established categories), I said we need to
do as Jonathan Rauch has done in the first chapter of his book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America and talk about what marriage is for. But, we also need to understand why, in the wake of growing tolerance for gay and lesbian citizens and growing support for civil unions, over 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage.
Well, now, in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8, it seems, leading advocates of gay marriage, including Andrew Sullivan, are making nearly the same argument as I’ve been making.
To be sure, Jonathan Rauch has been making a similar argument for some time, but in his must-read post on the Independent Gay Forum, he finally recognizes the futility of the mindless approach of “pushing lawsuits through the courts without adequately preparing the public:”
The gay marriage issue is not going to be decided over the heads of the American people, and no amount of comparing it to Brown vs. Board of Education or any other dubiously relevant precedent will change that. Too many gay heads are too strategically locked into a litigation-based mindset that has become counterproductive. Too many people forget that Martin Luther King was a persuader, not a litigator, and that the real breakthroughs came through Congress, not courts.
Even Sullivan now seems to oppose the litigation strategy. Note the last line of this passage from a recent post:
And we need patience and relentlessness in explaining our lives. And how human they are. It’s not fair; we should have it all already. But we don’t. And in a democracy, that means persuasion, not fiat.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I go one further than him. We need show we understand what marriage means and explain why we want that institution to define our relationships.
Let us hope that more leading advocates of gay marriage come around to this way of thinking and realize we need focus on persuasion.
It’s what I’ve been saying for nearly four years as a blogger. I’ve actually been saying longer than that, but lack an electronic record of conversations with friends and acquaintances.
It’s nice to see others make the same argument you’ve been making. Let’s hope that they’re the first of many.
39 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well, GPW, apparently Nancy Pelosi disagrees with you. It’s not that the message from opponents of Prop. 8 was divisive and failed to promote the virtues of same-sex marriage. The problem was that supporters of Prop. 8 were just too stupid to know what they were doing when they voted for it.
“In a wide-ranging interview with The Chronicle, Pelosi said she believes some voters might not have fully understood the initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure was approved 52 to 48 percent. ‘Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was,’ the San Francisco Democrat said. ‘I don’t know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state.’” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/11/08/MNE0140996.DTL
Comment by Sean A — November 9, 2008 @ 11:01 pm - November 9, 2008
Gay Protesters snatch cross from parishioner, stomp on it in front of church. Classy.
Comment by V the K — November 10, 2008 @ 11:25 am - November 10, 2008
I believe Pelosi’s got it at least half backwards. She wonders whether those who voted ‘Yes’ knew what they were doing, but I wonder about the ‘No’ votes. Had 8 been worded and presented as a referendum on same-sex marriage rather than as an amendment to the state constitution, I would bet ‘No’ would have received an even wider margin over ‘Yes’ than did ‘Yes’ over ‘No’ in the present case.
Comment by Ignatius — November 10, 2008 @ 11:45 am - November 10, 2008
Agreed. If Jerry Brown hadn’t deliberately rewritten the ballot question and left it as ‘Limit on marriage”, I remain convinced that there would have been an additional 4 to 5 percent of voters in favor of Proposition 8.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2008 @ 11:59 am - November 10, 2008
Michael Petrelis is waking up to the fact that HRC hasn’t done anything productive for the Gay community – certainly not with this issue.
http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/hrcs-lead-role-in-killing-ca-gay.html
btw, having temper tantrums, blaming other parts of society – Blacks, religious people, really doesn’t make you any friends. 8 had a chance of failing, but with the attacks we’ve seen these last few days – it will take a lot longer to change minds.
I can only hope that the 18,000 couples who got married this summer will be an example to the general population. But they will fade into obscurity – the news, the TV cameras, the gay agenda folks will trumpet the angry protesters in the streets.
The ones actually doing the leg work will be ignored. Sure they will have an effect on their neighbors. But since they were hidden from view during this whole campaign – they will not be seen by the population at large.
Comment by Leah — November 10, 2008 @ 12:38 pm - November 10, 2008
Thank you. Seems everyone I know is up in arms about the passage of Prop 8 when they should be pamphleteering and winning hearts and minds.
I voted for Prop 8 because I don’t believe in judicial fiat determining sweeping social reforms and I’m fairly certain the matter will come before voters again, and this time the people of the Great State of California will legalize gay marriage.
But if proponents of gay marriage continue in their current track, it will be an uphill battle, not a slam-dunk.
Comment by Ronnie Gipper — November 10, 2008 @ 1:12 pm - November 10, 2008
Leah, Petrelis has been doing a good job pointing out the flaws in the “No,” campaign, but this isn’t his first time doing so. He’s been calling them out for some time now.
Comment by Dan (AKA GPW) — November 10, 2008 @ 1:23 pm - November 10, 2008
Let me point out that litigation victories in Mass. and Conn. secured same-sex marriage and those have not/will not be lost. The difference with California is that the state constitution cannot be changed by a popular vote in one year’s time. Here in Mass. we had a 4 year struggle to preserve marriage equality, and we won, both because we had time to disprove the doomsday predictions, and because our legislature acts as a gate-keeper to ballot initiatives. A representative democracy is inherently better at preserving minority rights than direct democracy. In a referendum, each person need vote only in their own self-interest. With a legislative vote, each legislator is charged with representing not just the majority opinion of his/her district, but with representing ALL the people when the rights of some don’t conflict with the rights of others. Yes, we need to change hearts and minds. But court battles, legislative battles, and referenda provide a vehicle to begin that conversation. In California, given that marriage equality legislation pass the legislature twice, and only Prop 22 kept it from becoming law, you can’t fault anyone for attempting to strike Prop 22 in the courts. It was certainly a good guess that Prop 8 would fail. The only other solution would have been an initiative campaign to repeal Prop 22. Arguably a better approach, but requiring far more resources and organization.
Comment by Debra — November 10, 2008 @ 2:42 pm - November 10, 2008
….meanwhile, gay activists have filed at least 3 lawsuits attempting to overturn the results of the election, l-e-z-b-y-t-e-r-i-a-n extraordinairre Melissa Etheridge is calling on CA homos to not pay their taxes. And the thuggery against the Mormon Church and Catholic Church has expanded to Saddleback, where one Barack Milhouse Obama voiced his opposition to gay marriage.
Also read a piece about white protestors in Abercrombie shirts and flip flops calling black people “n**gers* and daring them to come to West Hollywood. Yeah, lets see a brawl between W Hollywood and Compton. Anyone want to place bets on how that one would come out?
Intolerance, hate, racism, religious bigotry, and totalitarian thuggery ,,, thats the gay left!
And why? Because CA took the word “marriage” away from gays and left them with virtually all the same legal benefits in civil unions that have existed for years and still continue to exist in that state.
Proof that this has been about State approval of gays, and not marriage, all along.
Comment by American Elephant — November 10, 2008 @ 3:26 pm - November 10, 2008
filtered.
Comment by American Elephant — November 10, 2008 @ 3:26 pm - November 10, 2008
I agree in principal, but not on Prop 8 in California. We could have flipped the race with a more offensive, negative strategy.
It seems everyone wants to blame the Mormons now. What’s unbelievable is that nobody had the foresight to do it before November 4th in an offensive ad campaign. You know, when it could’ve made a difference at the polls?! Now it’s just crying over spilled milk.
Look, It’s the oldest political tactic. You go after your opponents strength and make it a weakness. The Yes on 8 folks had a lot of fundraising from Utah, specifically Mormons. But nobody likes the Mormons. LOL
So what do you do? First, you play on the stereotype and make them seem cultish. Easy. Second, you bring out all their dirty laundry, specifically targeting their previous opposition to civil rights towards the black community. Third, (and most importantly) you cast them as outsiders who are carpetbagging their way into state politics. In short, you make the amendment about THEIR SUPPORT for it.
Stay out of our state. No on Eight.
And it rhymes too!
See how easy that would’ve been? An aggressive, offensive strategy would have moved a few points in our direction. That’s all we needed to win.
Comment by Erik — November 10, 2008 @ 4:09 pm - November 10, 2008
Erik,
You think a culture war with Mormons could have gotten prop 8 passed? 25% of San Francisco voted for prop 8, you think that number would have gone with anti-mormon hatred?
Comment by robert verdi — November 10, 2008 @ 4:23 pm - November 10, 2008
It seems everyone wants to blame the Mormons now. What’s unbelievable is that nobody had the foresight to do it before November 4th in an offensive ad campaign.
They did.
And, quite apparently, it backfired. Not nearly as badly as the wave of antireligious bigotry and hate that gays like Erik are pushing of late, though. Attacking ladies carrying crosses; boy, that’s really going to win hearts and minds.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - November 10, 2008
Erik,
I love Mormons! I’d much rather hang out with Mormons than gay-leftists any day. They’re far better people for the most part.
And interesting how you seem to think this was a close election that only needed “a few points” to win.
How is it that Obamas 43% victory is a “blowout” and “not even close” but the 42% victory for proposition 8 is a close election that only needed a few points to win?
Comment by American Elephant — November 10, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - November 10, 2008
@ American Elephant -
Regarding civil unions and marriage: They’re not as compatible as you may think. Marriage establishes a legal kinship whereas CUs do not. CUs do not allow a couple to file a joint tax return. There are many benefits to marriage that CUs do not confer.
I’ve long believed it was an argument over semantics, and thought “What’s the big deal? They have civil unions.” It wasn’t until I heard a member of the Log Cabin Republicans speak on Medved’s show that I began to look into it. I started researching the differences between marriage and civil unions after Prop 8 passed.
I firmly believe that had the No on Prop 8 crowd educated the voters on the difference between civil union and marriage, Prop 8 would have been defeated. I’m certain that many people who voted for Prop 8 thought the entire debate was over the label “marriage”, not any actual benefits or rights.
Comment by Ronnie Gipper — November 10, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - November 10, 2008
How is it that Obamas 43% victory is a “blowout†and “not even close†but the 42% victory for proposition 8 is a close election that only needed a few points to win?
One is the outcome Erik wanted. The other is not.
Comment by V the K — November 10, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - November 10, 2008
Finishing the rhyme:
Stay out of our state. No on Eight. California gays are full of hate.
Comment by V the K — November 10, 2008 @ 6:06 pm - November 10, 2008
#8:
Human Rights Campaign. The gay activists’ answer to Duke football.
Comment by Attmay — November 10, 2008 @ 7:23 pm - November 10, 2008
#8 Debra,
I seem to recall that one of Romney’s issues was that the legislation was -required- to vote on about revesing the court’s urspation of power, but they refused to do their jobs. Is that correct?
Comment by The_Livewire — November 10, 2008 @ 8:08 pm - November 10, 2008
No. I’m talking about a sophisticated ad campaign. Something subtle, but devestating. A good example would be the DSCC’s ad this cycle that had two old men debating whether Liddy Dole was 91 or 93. It hit her on the main focus, which was her ties to President Bush, but was also a wink and nod at her age too.
It was a very effective negative ad. That’s the type of attack ad we needed. “No on 8″ ran no attack ads.
Because we had a double digit lead during the summer. We lost it when “Yes” went on offense and “No” reverted to defense. If Obama had similarly blown his (national) lead, there would be equally harsh recriminations.
You don’t want to be a defensive campaign. You win when you’re on offense. When our opponents spread lies that we seek to teach kindergartens about sex and will send preachers off to prison, what are we supposed to do? Beg them not to?!
No. If you’re gonna wrestle a pig, you have to get down in the mud.
Who here can show me an example of where the “No on 8″ campaign actually threw an offensive punch? Cause I didn’t see any example of that. It was a completely passive campaign.
Comment by Erik — November 10, 2008 @ 8:28 pm - November 10, 2008
But let me make clear where I break with many on the gay left. I don’t blame the voters. I don’t blame any church. I don’t even blame the “Yes on 8″ campaign. Their positions are wrong, but they have a right to argue them. They even have a right to play dirty.
Who I do blame are the folks who ran our campaign. It was ineffectual. It was defensive. It was passive. It was weak. They ran a failed campaign. It’s as simple as that.
It’s time to hire new talent to get the job done.
Comment by Erik — November 10, 2008 @ 9:23 pm - November 10, 2008
We’ve certainly got to stop this current wave of idiocy before we do irreparable damage to our public good name. Calling people bigots isn’t going to bring them over to our side, neither is proving we’re out to destroy religion. Sure, that may feel good, but acting like drunken football hooligans is just going to make people less likely to take us seriously.
Instead of protesting – let’s shack up. Find that guy/gal whom you love and want to spend a large chunk of your life with, settle down, and start tackling the headaches married life brings. They’re saying we can’t marry, so let’s show them we can by being some of the best couples out there. Challenge people’s preconceptions by showing gays (and especially gay men) in serious, solid, responsible relationships. Sure, some of us will make bad choices, some of us will fail despite putting our backs into it, but people admire perseverance and fighting the good fight. The more straight guys and gals who want us to find a good guy or gal, the more straight guys and gals who’ll back us when we seek to legally codify those relationships.
Comment by Rob — November 10, 2008 @ 10:56 pm - November 10, 2008
Schwarzenegger is hoping the California Supreme Court will throw out Prop 8.
So why didn’t he campaign against it when he could have made a difference?
Comment by Erik — November 10, 2008 @ 11:08 pm - November 10, 2008
An aggressive, offensive strategy would have moved a few points in our direction.
#11: Erik, you need to get out more. Demonizing the Mormons (or Catholics, or whatever) and playing on “stereotypes” is immoral and counter-productive. The current protests at churches is doing little more than confirming biases many people hold.
If we wind up in a stereotype war, some pictures of a gay pride parade or the Folsom Street
OrgyFair will lose the war.Comment by SoCalRobert — November 10, 2008 @ 11:51 pm - November 10, 2008
Ronnie Gipper,
I understand the differences between the two, and I dont actually believe it was about semantics in that sense. I don’t think 99% of the protesters give a rats ass about marriage to tell you the truth. I think to them it was and is about validation. And their antics this week, like they have the entire campaign, only convince me of that even more.
Comment by American Elephant — November 11, 2008 @ 12:38 am - November 11, 2008
Ronnie Gipper, if your sole reason for wanting your relationship to be called “marriage” is the tax benefits, why not begin the (much easier) task of convincing lawmakers to change the tax laws so that all the tax benefits of “marriage” apply equally to “civil unions.” Promise them your vote, sweeten the pot with a few political contributions; they’re not that hard to buy. (But beware, the Democrat Congress promises to let the Bush tax cuts expire, which, as I understand it, will bring back the “marriage penalty.”)
If, on the other hand, the success of your commitment is contingent upon its being called “marriage”…well, keep on fighting.
Comment by Polly — November 11, 2008 @ 12:48 am - November 11, 2008
Undermining your nation at war for political gain is immoral. Vote fraud is illegal. Al Franken stealing the election from Norm Coleman is immoral.
When have liberals ever let morality come between them and what they want? They are Alinskycrats. The end justifies ANY means.
Comment by American Elephant — November 11, 2008 @ 12:48 am - November 11, 2008
I’ll drink a non-alcoholic, non-caffeinated beverage to that!
As to the pathetic gay claim that heterosexuals have already f-ed up marriage, why make such a fuss about not having access to it? Except, as AE pointed out, if it’s not really about marriage at all.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 11, 2008 @ 1:13 am - November 11, 2008
Before?
See, here’s what I’m talking about right here.
Straights talk about spending the rest of their lives with someone. Gays talk about spending a large chunk of their life with someone (what does that mean? 5 years is a large chunk.)
Even when they are paying their very best lip service to it, most gays simply aren’t serious about upholding the institution.
Comment by American Elephant — November 11, 2008 @ 1:19 am - November 11, 2008
Part of the problem is that marriage, itself, is broken. Otherwise, why the high divorce rate? Why all the prenups? Why is there a special family court? Why do half the cases on Judge Judy have “and that ratfink called Child Protective Services on me”?
Marriage, under law, is a bundle of a whole bunch of stuff that has accumulated over centuries — and nobody knows exactly what’s in the bundle anymore. Deathbed visitations? Intestate disposition of property? Freedom from testifying against the spouse? Liability for spouse’s debts? Liability for spouse’s torts? Child support obligations, regardless of actual parentage? Joint tax returns? “Married filing single” tax returns?
Government recognition of the marital bond is so complex that unsnarling its ramifications takes up a substantial part of our judicial system. And the California Supreme Court was going to add a whole extra dollop of confusion on top.
How about we start with the basics? What does the law say about marriage? Should this be a matter of law (as opposed to contract or custom)? Is it appropriate for all people, or just those of a certain status (e.g. children, non-working spouses, monogamous, gay)? Should the law be changed (I would think, myself, that “single” and “married filing separate” should have the same tax rates)?
I would suspect that favoring a serious, deliberate approach to revamping marriage law might gain more support than most people suspect, and it wouldn’t surprise me to find that the more conservative side of the aisle was even more compassionate than the left — Sarah Palin’s first act as governor was to support gay rights, and even the much vilified Dick Cheney has a gay daughter who he loves dearly.
Consensus building, and working toward common ground, might take longer than judicial fiat — but what has Roe v. Wade settled? What has Brown v. Board of Education done to fix the real problems of segregation? By moving ahead of the culture, the judiciary created a backlash, then a reaction against the backlash, then a movement against the reaction against the backlash…..until the posturing overcomes the facts.
The facts are that there really aren’t that many homophobes, and there are reasons to oppose a “gay marriage mandate” beyond homophobia. And there are a lot of people who voted for Prop 8 who are sympathetic to their neighbors’ wanting a better life — no matter how those neighbors are paired up. But there’s a lot of people unwilling to buy a pig in a poke from government, and even fewer who will passively take it if told that they have no choice.
So reach out to your neighbors, define the issues, narrow the differences, build the consensus.
Comment by cthulhu — November 11, 2008 @ 2:11 am - November 11, 2008
[...] It is becoming more and more apparent that there is a segment of people living in America who want to force their lifestyles on others. We can safely call these people “moralizers” and see them for what they are: subversive and intolerant. If unchecked, they will provoke a sizeable backlash amongst those of us who subscribe to a “live and let live” philosophy. Exhibits A, C and alternative perspective B. [...]
Pingback by Patriot Games Radio - BlogTalkRadio Podcasts Social Media Internet Radio » Blog Archive » We Americans are a live and let live people - Until someone pushes us… — November 11, 2008 @ 9:42 am - November 11, 2008
before?
Yes, before. Gays have been improving their public rep almost daily – especially among those under 30. In CA, the under-30′s opposed Prop 8 almost 3:1, and it’s a lot easier for a gay guy in his twenties to have straight friends than it was 10 years ago. That’s the groundswell of public support that will eventually win this thing – because they see us as real people who’re just attracted to the same gender, not some damned freak show. The danger is we upset that trend and cause real problems down the pike.
See, here’s what I’m talking about right here.
Straights talk about spending the rest of their lives with someone. Gays talk about spending a large chunk of their life with someone (what does that mean? 5 years is a large chunk.)
Even when they are paying their very best lip service to it, most gays simply aren’t serious about upholding the institution.
Baby steps, man – baby steps. Right now, a sizable chunk of the gay community does not view a relationship as anything more than sex on tap. Our relationship skills are retarded – we get started figuring them out later, and many of us are still making idiot mistakes into our late 20′s, 30′s and 40′s. By the time many gay guys figure out they would be quite happy in a long-term relationship, they’re no longer young, no longer pretty and have next to no idea how to go about making any kind of connection with somebody other than through sex, let alone how to keep a relationship going once the sex fades. And it will.
Now, again, that is changing as young gay guys are increasingly holding “straight” relationship values from the beginning, but you’re right – far too many of us have absolutely no idea how to make something less permanent than marriage work, and certainly as a community little idea in how to help other men and women keep their relationships going. That is something we’ve got to get better at – and the only way to get better at keeping a relationship going is to try one.
Comment by Rob — November 11, 2008 @ 10:20 am - November 11, 2008
Polly -
I was confused in reading your response. Specifically, “If, on the other hand, the success of your commitment is contingent upon its being called “marriageâ€â€¦well, keep on fighting.”
And like a lightning bolt it struck me; it occured to me why I was confused, and I had a good laugh.
I’m not gay and I am married.
To me, my marriage means much more than legal benefits, much more than a document issued by the state recognizing it as such. Tax benefits — who cares?
My point is I went into the election thinking it was a matter of semantics. I’ve since caught wise that there are legal advantages to the status of “married” versus the status of “domestic partner” or “civil union”. There may even be social advantages, if the Log Cabin Reps are to be believed.
There is reason enough for gay couples to demand equal protection, and I believe the pitch can be made to the electorate to effect the desired change. I’m astonished that hasn’t happened.
The gays and lesbians I know who are going to these protests are reasonable, intelligent people. The hatred — and singling out of Mormons — is bizarre.
Comment by Ronnie Gipper — November 11, 2008 @ 12:49 pm - November 11, 2008
Rob,
I agree, but gays should show they can get serious about marriage BEFORE asking to change the institution, not after.
Comment by American Elephant — November 11, 2008 @ 9:09 pm - November 11, 2008
Rob,
I agree, but gays should show they can get serious about marriage BEFORE asking to change the institution, not after.
A reasonable request.
Comment by Rob — November 11, 2008 @ 10:15 pm - November 11, 2008
More and more of us are WAKING UP, America. No taxation without equality; simple math.
Now the feds will need to repeal DOMA and DADT, grant us FULL equal rights (including marriage), and begin to start viewing our families – OUR FAMILIES – as the tax-paying contributing members of society we are…..well…..we USED to be!
Because if our HOMES, our FAMILIES, our very BELOVED are not acknowledged and valued as other families are legally, whatever we do outside of that home will never be acknowledged and valued legally, such as adopting children, working without discrimination, or serving openly in the military.
FAMILY FIRST. What is more important than FAMILY?
We owe the IRS absolutely NOTHING until equal. NOTHING. Get it?
This is NOT a test.
This is NOT a debate.
This is NOT a vote.
This is definitely NOT a popularity contest.
This IS justice – GAY TAX PROTEST.
Comment by John Bisceglia — November 14, 2008 @ 3:30 am - November 14, 2008
John, are you familiar at all with American history? The line is “No taxation without representation.”
Sad to see how you are perverting that great line with a line which reeks of socialism.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 14, 2008 @ 4:40 am - November 14, 2008
Then, John, if you were being consistent, you would oppose our current income tax structure because, since it charges people in the higher brackets more, it is “unequal”.
Do you support, then, a uniform flat tax regardless of income, since it is “equal”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2008 @ 10:32 pm - November 14, 2008
Andrew Sullivan’s banner waving for gay Marriage is going to back lash on him, and all gay people, in the worst sort of way.
Like the barebacking controversy of the 1990′s with Sullivan waving the banner of sexual responsibility while seeking partners to be irresponsible with (never mind for now the pathology of needing unprotected anal sex so badly that one would risk life for it), Andrew’s marriage cause will backfire when it is revealed that the most primary commitment of Marriage is not something serious in his own relationship (Ditto for Dan Savage, the other ticking time bomb).
In fact, those who know Andrew and his relationship know it is “all about Andrew” and his School Boy need to be accepted by conventional institutions (“Where else would I go?”)…and hardly about love and commitment at all.
In the not to distant future, we fully expect Sullivan to be expounding the virtues of Divorce.
Comment by evets — November 16, 2008 @ 5:46 pm - November 16, 2008