In the comments section to my first post from the “Equality Summit,” another participant chimed in, offering thoughts which help define the difference between the left and right in American today.
Addressing my observation about the absence of Republicans at the event, Stephen R. Stapleton wrote:
I don’t think we plan much outreach to conservatives. They aren’t very receptive to the outreach and I think those resources will return more if used to focus more moderate voters. I think resources put into reaching out to the religious and minority communities would return considerably more.
Note, his bias against conservatives, assuming we won’t be receptive to outreach. Has he even tried? He was not even aware of Republicans Against 8, saying, “I don’t think there was any Republican leadership active in the fight on Prop 8.”
Most (but, alas, not all) conservatives are a limited government lot. If gay activists could tweak their message, framing this as an issue of freedom rather than dwelling on equality, they would certainly get more conservatives on board. They would sway still others by doing as Catherine Thienmann did in pointing out that advocates of gay marriage understand and upload the obligations of the institution, including monogamy.
In short, they needed present unifying message based on ideas, the political idea here being freedom, the social, responsibility.
Too many on the left, however, would rather appeal to interest groups, as if the gay movement were part of some vast coalition of the oppressed. Minority groups thus become their allies, while conservatives their adversaries.
Since Ronald Reagan, however, the conservative movement has been one of ideas, crafting an inclusive, unifying message. (Republicans fail, when they lose sight of that message and resort to pandering as they did in 1992 and 2006.) By contrast, the modern left is a collection of interest groups, with the Democratic Party (as an example) pandering to each and every minority.
To reach to conservatives, gay marriage advocates need not pander, but instead make a strong case for gay marriage, making clear that state recognition of same-sex unions will not prevent private institutions for setting their own standards while defending the values undergirding this ancient institution.
The idea is not to pander, but to advocate. To promote an idea, in this case, the benefits of extending the privileges of marriage to same-sex couples.
Had conservatives been included in this weekend’s conclave, participants might better understand this strategy.
I said before that gay marriage is socially conservative. It goes without saying that the same expectations of heterosexual couples would be expected of gay ones. But the current talking points from the most public activists are poorly thought out.
The privileges of marriage will benefit same-sex couples because it will provide a healthy emotional and sexual outlet that is sorely lacking in the gay community, and a far preferable alternative to a life of clubbing and countless one-night stands. For gay couples with children, it provides the stability of a married, two-parent household for those children.
Attmay:
I would never argue that marriage rights would, just as you say benefit the gay community but, I wonder if the gay community is as ready for it as they say? Just off the top of my head I can tally at least 50% of gay couples that I know…who call themselves married… that cheat in the name of “open relationship”. Young gay couples call themselves “married” or “partners” after two or three dates. The gay people (I used to know) change boyfriends like some people change socks. Where am I going with this? No sure…except I don’t think our community is really ready for marriage in the conservative sense…we’re ready for gay divorce though and there would be a lot of it. Eventually we’ll grow up enough for marriage but does everyone really think we’re there yet?
i think stephen is trying to make a point about the realities and constraints of working on a political campaign, specifically limitations on resources, money and manpower. since the goal of a political campaign is to win, it is imperative to use those resources in a way that yields the greatest number of votes. social conservatives, generally, are not movable on gay marriage, so i agree on his point that it doesnt make a lot of sense to spend resources reaching out to them, especially when those resources can be used to target moderate and independent voters, or even libertarian republicans, who can be persuaded to support same sex marriage.
additionally, i dont think that the “limited government” argument would appeal to social conservatives, who tend to check their governing principles at the door when it comes to hot-button cultural issues like gay marriage.
bottom line, i dont think that a “republican” model is any better than a “democratic” one for the purposes of legalizing gay marriage. time for a totally new playbook.
The privileges of marriage will benefit same-sex couples because it will provide a healthy emotional and sexual outlet that is sorely lacking in the gay community, and a far preferable alternative to a life of clubbing and countless one-night stands.
A change in the law ‘will provide a healthy emotional and sexual outlet…sorely lacking in the gay community’? A person’s healthy relationship and sexuality aren’t determined by law but by individual choices. I agree that a monogamous relationship is ‘preferable to a life of clubbing…’, but seeking an external, legal solution to address the external symptoms of an inner need makes no sense. Gay marriage is about status, not love.
#1: “It goes without saying that the same expectations of heterosexual couples would be expected of gay ones.”
Attmay, that is absolutely, categorically, factually, statistically, and anecdotally FALSE. Heterosexual married couples certainly cheat on each other, but the societal condemnation of such behavior is one of the few lingering threads holding the institution together. There’s a word for it: ADULTERY. It is broadly accepted in our society as morally WRONG, even among people with no religious beliefs to speak of. In contrast, the same behavior in the gay community is denominated an OPEN RELATIONSHIP. Gay men do not have “adulterous affairs.” There is no stigma attached to “committed” gay couples engaging in sex with other men outside the relationship, either with or without the other partner’s knowledge. Group sex, triple-partner relationships, etc. is all a matter of personal choice. In fact, the only stigma connected with that kind of behavior is the condemnation of those who would dare to judge such conduct immoral. To be anything less than celebratory of every permutation of sexual expression in the gay community is considered heretical and the worst crime of all: judgmental.
Your simple-minded delusion that all of this free-wheeling conduct would be tempered if only the law were changed is patently absurd. So is your implicit assertion that all the sleaze would suddenly disappear if only the Courts would create “a healthy emotional and sexual outlet” for these men. Do you really think that SUPPORTS the case for same-sex marriage? That’s a great argument, Attmay–gay men are so completely incapable of engaging in healthy behavior on their own that the solution is to re-define the foundational institution of our civilization to better resemble whatever whimsical sexual escapade gay men are currently engaged in? Yeah, Attmay. That’s a bulletproof argument–I can’t imagine why you weren’t featured in the No. on Prop. 8 ads.
And one last thing, Attmay. You have been slathering this blog for months with comments that marginalize and demonize heterosexuality with arguments that literally give me Orwellian chills. No one on this blog is more contemptuous of heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage than YOU. (In fact, I thought you had sworn off the term “straight” for good in favor of “ungay,” for example?) Consequently, your assertion that “it goes without saying” that the same expectations would be applied to same-sex marriages as to heterosexual marriages is both breathtaking and laughable. For God’s sake, Attmay, wasn’t it just yesterday that you were shrieking, “What have heterosexuals ever done for our society???!!!!” or some other crazy bs like that? And what about that frightening stuff you were ranting about yesterday? Genderless or asexual reproduction or something equally nutty like that? And today you think you’re going to lecture all of us about stable, healthy relationships? Just get outta here, freak.
I give up. The filter has become impenetrable.
Bingo, Ignatius. Instead of attacking the problem, which is that the gay community supports, encourages, and pushes promiscuity, gay liberals try to sidestep this by claiming that marriage will make gays behave.
The ironic and unintentional contradiction comes when these selfsame people try to point out misbehavior by married heterosexuals.
I think that homosexuals should use the same tactics as the NRA and Ducks Unlimited, etc. Many people find hunting disgusting. Hunters, however, have protected their right to hunt even though they are a minority in a world which finds them disgusting. Most people don’t understand how someone could find pleasure shooting a barbed arrow through a deer’s lung, tracking it until it dies, cutting it open, and leaving behind a gut pile. Hunters, however, don’t care that other people find them disgusting, and, in fact, work to show that their inborn instinct to hunt is part of the natural order. By analyzing the ways hunters protect their rights, homosexuals could learn a conservative and more effective way of approaching the search for rights.
The flip side of that argument, though, Ashpenaz, is that hunters have given up on two things: one, to hunt wherever they choose, two, to hunt whatever they want, and three, for the government to subsidize their behavior.
To put that in the gay perspective, you don’t get to marry whatever you want, wherever you want, and the government is under no obligation to subsidize or recognize your behavior as something useful.
Nobody can marry whoever they want. Hunters, though, do have support from the government, if not direct subsidy, with the Game, Fish, and Parks. When hunters present themselves as contributing to the common good through conservation, the government backs them up by protecting the places they hunt. And hunters do this while under constant attack from groups like PETA. If homosexuals treated the Mormons the way hunters treat PETA, that is, by completely disregarding them as irrelevant, homosexuals would probably move past them faster.
Also, working with hunters to protect the right to do things which others think are disgusting has this advantage: hunters can be really hot. I know I had piles of Field and Stream under MY bed.
#2: How does one determine the collective readiness of a group of people for a right or privilege to be granted to them? How was it determined that women were “ready” for the right to vote? How was it determined that blacks were “ready” for Jim Crow laws to be repealed? Rights are not granted on the basis of how responsible individuals are. There is no test to determine fitness for marriage. And your anecdotes about your friends prove nothing. That’s hardly a big enough sample to determine the collective “fitness” of same-sex couples to marry. It seems to be towards the gay male community, and not lesbians, where these accusations (not without merit, sadly) occur.
#5: I am a “freak”? Seriously? You are the one who would gladly sell us and our RIGHTS down the river. Not me. You are the one who lumps gays who practice “open relationships” (which I, for the record, disapprove of strongly and consider it nothing more than adultery with consent) with the rest of us. Not me. Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow gays that you would gladly vote against their rights, and with them your own? If so, you have played into the hands of our enemies. I asked a valid question about what benefits heterosexuality has provided to our culture other than procreation. I also proposed that if a same-sex couple could not have a child that biologically belonged to both of them, and wanted one, perhaps someday a scientific breakthrough could do so. This will probably not occur for centuries; certainly not in my lifetime. It may never happen. Love ’em or hate ’em, the heteros are going to be around for awhile. But unlike you, I don’t go around insulting people. I’m not leaving.
#8: How do hunters protect rights they presumably already have protected by the Second Amendment? What, specifically does the NRA do to that end?
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. What hunters do, and what gays don’t, is demonstrate that hunting contributes to the overall good. Hunters contribute to conservation. As one commercial goes, “If you want to save the wilderness, hunt in it.” Even though many find hunting disgusting, it is hard to argue with the large amount of forests and wetlands which have been conserved by hunters.
Gays need to show what positive good gay marriage will contribute to society. So far, they haven’t shown that society as a whole would benefit by allowing gays to marry. Gays need to move the argument from civil rights to the common good. I’m not convinced they can argue for marriage on the basis of the common good and maintain the self-defeating post-Stonewall tactics of rallies, parades, protests, and subversive behavior.
#11: “Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow gays that you would gladly vote against their rights, and with them your own?”
This, from the guy who has such a low opinion of gays that he can’t expect them to engage in healthy behavior in the absence of an Act of Congress.
“I asked a valid question about what benefits heterosexuality has provided to our culture other than procreation.”
That’s your problem. You think it’s a valid question.
“Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the heteros are going to be around for awhile.”
Why would you concede that, Attmay? Apparently, they have nothing to offer society other than procreation. Hopefully you’ll get your wish and scientific “advances” will establish a way for humans to replicate themselves regardless of gender so that society will no longer have to put up with those hateful “ungays” and their tiresome, provincial ways.
seanA–you are missing attmay’s point. he was not opining on the morals of gays or how their relationships should be. he’s saying that that isn’t the point. did women need to prove they were informed enough to be given the right to vote? what about blacks? do straight people need to prove that their relationships are beneficial enough to society to be given the right to marry?
seriously, sean, i’m not trying to be mean, but try pausing for a bit and actually thinking about some of these issues.