The Gay Marriage Debate
and the Needed Overhaul of the Gay Leadership
and the Needed Overhaul of the Gay Leadership
Last night, before the Iowa Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage was handed down, I scribbled a few notes outlining the things I wanted to blog on today. But, this medium being what it is, the news often gets in the way of the topics we might otherwise wish to address.
One thing which I did wish to consider, however, becomes particularly timely in the wake of the reaction of gay activists to the Hawkeye State decision. I had intended to write on the need for an overhaul of the leadership of the gay movement, replacing those with left-wing backgrounds with those who can appeal to more socially conservative citizens, those who still harbor a degree of animosity toward and/or ignorance of gay people.
They need to find people who can do what Mary Cheney did when she appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, provide an image of a normal gay American to those who do not readily have access to such imagery.
The Des Moines Register article includes this reaction from Richard Socarides, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights, to the decision:
I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest state in the mainstream of American thought . . . Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ˜As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’
So, is he saying that the decision of a court shows where the citizens of the state stand?
That same article cited a February 2008 poll which found that “62 percent of Iowans said they believed marriage should be only between a man and a woman.”
I might have greater understanding for tactic of using the courts to mandate state recognition of same-sex marriage if those pushing it had a parallel program to persuade the people of the merits of such an expansion of this ancient institution.
The problem remains that the leadership of the various gay organizations have few ideas about and little interest in appealing to most Americans. Instead of talking about marriage in the terms that most people use to debate the institution, they content themselves with making legal arguments to small groups of judges.
But, while they make progress with certain courts, they keep experiencing a backlash with the voters. When in 2006, after state courts in New York and Washington State refused to mandate state recognition of same-sex marriage, the percentage of citizens voting to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman declined. Two years previously, after Massachusetts mandated such recognition, state referenda passed across the country, usually by comfortable margins even in such “blue” states as Michigan and Oregon.
In short, when courts stay out of gay marriage, citizens do not warm to the appeal of social conservatives to amend state constitutions. When courts get involved, the social conservative appeal grows.
Unfortunately, the leadership of the various gay organizations seem more preoccupied with appealing to a handful of judges rather than with convincing the American people of the merits of their cause.
And that’s one reason we need a complete overhaul of the gay leadership, drawing people not from the world of left-wing activism, but attracting those able and willing to reach out to those turned off by that ideology, those remain who hostile to or ignorant of gay people.
27 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
“…replacing those with left-wing backgrounds with those who can appeal to more…”?
??
Not gay here, but the ONLY way to do that is being AGAINST marriage.
If you deviate one MILLIMETER from the socially conservative citizen’s point of view… you are lefty, PERIOD.
A socially conservative citizen’s point of view is BLACK or WHITE with no shades of gray.
You obviously know that but are feigning ignorance by omission.
This is a CIVIL RIGHTS issue.
Comment by David — April 3, 2009 @ 3:21 pm - April 3, 2009
After your rants about wanting the legislatures to approve gay marriage, I could have called this one!
I think you’re missing a basic principle here. Our founders wrote the judicial branch of the government into existence because they knew the majority could make tyrannical and incorrect decisions which would result in the loss of rights for minorities.
Let me ask you this. What if the state of California tomorrow voted with a majority consensus that the sky was green? How about if Alabama voted the sky was red? How about North Dakota voted it was brown? According to your view, they would all be correct, even though they are all completely wrong.
I think you should accept that majority rule doesn’t need to be the way gay marriage comes about. Judicial means are just as valid. What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right.
Comment by Tim — April 3, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - April 3, 2009
Wow, such intolerance, David. Seems like you’re ascribing the political viewpoint of the leadership of the various social conservative organizations to their rank-and-file. Painting with pretty broad brush, now, aren’t we?
And having actually talked to a number of these people, I’m talking from experience, so seems what you’re calling my ignorance is really your own. For it shows how you define social conservatives by their worst stereotypes in the gay media.
It would be like me pretending that since so few advocates of gay marriage can articulate an understanding of the meaning of the institution that those gay people who seek to get married share their ignorance (an accusation actually leveled against me).
Give me a break, Tim, okay? Have you even read my posts on gay marriage? And go read the Federalist Papers on separation of powers before mouthing off about what the framers intended. And your silly hypotheticals are totally off point.
Now, I agree that what is popular is not always right. And if we were talking about preventing gay people from getting married as opposed to mandating that the state recognize their unions, then I might agree with you.
Please see this post to understand my ideas on gay marriage and rights. If this were a personal freedom issue, I would certainly sympathize with the court’s decision, but it’s not.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 3, 2009 @ 3:52 pm - April 3, 2009
“Wow, such intolerance, David.”
No intolerance what’s so ever GPW… it’s just my humble observance over the decades that social conservatives think mostly binary, yes/no right/wrong, good/evil.
Just as I’ve notice that liberal people seem to be more open minded to different ideas.
This is plain and simply a matter of CIVIL RIGHTS verses FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Sorry if that offends you.
Btw, being born in the ‘50 means I’m probably more prejudice toward gay people than I should be, but I’ve worked with gays and never had any problems… they are hard, polite workers.
If they want to get marred… good for them and good luck.
Comment by David — April 3, 2009 @ 4:21 pm - April 3, 2009
#1 – So David, if it was within my rights to try to seduce a straight man like you, would you deny me my civil rights?
Think about it long and hard (no pun intended), because if you answer “yes,” that you would deny me my civil rights, then your argument is moot.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2009 @ 4:31 pm - April 3, 2009
I had change proxy because you won’t allow me to comment GWP.
Why?
Anywah, my final point…
“Wow, such intolerance, David. ”
Correct me if I’m wrong GPW… but isn’t it the fundamentalist Christian doctrinal believers that are the main opponents to gay marriage?
This is plain and simply about CIVIL RIGHTS verses the RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS.
Of course you know that.
Comment by David — April 3, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - April 3, 2009
So why don’t you work with other gay conservatives and moderates and start your own groups. I don’t see how you are going to remove the leadership of existing gay rights groups, but considering the ineffectiveness of the existing groups, I don’t see how it could hurt to have a new organization out there working on our issues. If the exit polling is correct about 1 in 4 gay people vote Republican in presidential elections. Get moving. It might help and it certainly can’t hurt.
Comment by Houndentenor — April 3, 2009 @ 4:43 pm - April 3, 2009
Would love to that, Houndentenor, & am aware of some gay Republicans in DC doing just that. As I learn more of their project, I’ll support it where I can.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 3, 2009 @ 4:46 pm - April 3, 2009
If 62 percent of Iowans are against same-sex marriage how surprising would it be for them to band together to do what is necessary to legally change the constitution in order to make a same-sex marriage ban legal? Isn’t that what happened in California?
I find myself torn with these kinds of court decisions.
On the one hand I believe that same-sex couples should have the right to marry, but on the other hand I wonder how effective it is to use the courts to accomplish this goal (in the long term).
If a law banning same-sex marriage is in fact unconstitutional, yes it should be repealed. BUT what have we (the LGBT community) gained if in the process of winning the court battles we cause our opponents to become even more galvanized and more resolved to stop us?
While I find it offensive that such bans exist, it would seem our cause would be better served if we spent more effort convincing our opponents (and those on the fence) of the benefits of gay marriage, not just to LGBTs, but to society.
Having recently looked at the FBI’s hate crimes statistics it has become increasingly clear to me that the legalization of same-sex marriage is not the solution to all of our problems.
If the statistics are accurate, it appears that states that offer more rights to same-sex couples actually have a higher incidence of hate crimes against LGBT persons than the states with little to no protections (like mine).
Having the courts grant us rights we deserve doesn’t seem to be translating into an increase in public support.
Comment by Emily — April 3, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - April 3, 2009
This isn’t about Gay people having a right. It is about forcing society to sanction gay conduct and deem it normal.
It is not normal. It is abnormal. Nothing will change gay activity into something normal.
Let the games begin.
Comment by gus — April 3, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - April 3, 2009
^^ yes, gpw, have fun convincing people like gus that you should be allowed to marry a same-sex partner.
learn the role of the courts and stfu.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 3, 2009 @ 5:31 pm - April 3, 2009
#9 – Take your own advice, booby boy.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2009 @ 5:35 pm - April 3, 2009
A little problem with your analysis. First, at this point almost everybody knows gay and lesbian people who are out. I live in the middle of Ohio in a relatively small town and there are a large number of gay and lesbian folks around and out.
Second, Mary Chaney is a spoiled brat she showed no one anything. Except that she is about as selfish a human being as there is. Her money gets her what she wants. She is not going to lift a fingure to help anyone else get there too.
Comment by lawguy — April 3, 2009 @ 5:54 pm - April 3, 2009
Um, David, first of all, this is not a civil rights issue.
Second, your need to see this in a Manichean manner as “CIVIL RIGHTS verses the RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS” blinds you from seeing it as it is and from understanding my ideas.
When did I use the terms religious fundamentalists or Christian doctrinal believers?
I used the term “social conservatives” to refer to less fundamentalist Christians and others who see marriage as a union defined by gender difference. Not all those who voted against gay marriage are fundamentalist. And you–and the gay leadership–would be wise to take note of that.
Seems your reading your prejudices and animosities into my words. Your very attitude helps make my point ever clearer–we need gay leaders who can address your prejudices and not paint all opponents of same-sex marriage with such a broad brush.
(And anyway, do you even read our comments? Don’t you know that we have a problem with the filter? It’s not that we’re not allowing you to comment. It’s just that the filter eats them up, including comments from friends.
Oh, and by the way, please find a left-wing blog that allows so many critics to comment so regularly, where the blogger goes out of his way to rescue such comments.)
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 3, 2009 @ 6:06 pm - April 3, 2009
My, my iawguy, we do need to vilify. Why must you cast aspersions on Mary Cheney? Don’t you know what she has already done, simply be being herself and being openly gay in conservative circles?
And please tell me what exactly is wrong with my analysis? Address specific points. And show how the gay leadership is making a case for gay marriage that resonates in the heartland.
And please while you’re at it, ask yourself why you feel it necessary to engage in name-calling and insult a very good woman whom you’ve never met and with whose good works you remain unfamiliar.
Our critics do harbor so much hate.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 3, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - April 3, 2009
Oh, and I forgot to ask, iawguy, do you know why I brought up Mary Cheney in this post?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 3, 2009 @ 6:16 pm - April 3, 2009
Correct me if I’m wrong GPW… but isn’t it the fundamentalist Christian doctrinal believers that are the main opponents to gay marriage?
Given that Barack Obama opposes gay marriage, does that mean our government is run by fundamentalist Christians?
I bet David and the rest of the gay-sex liberals can figure out how to contort themselves into little hypocritical knots over that one, support and endorse Federal bans on gay marriage.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 3, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - April 3, 2009
provide an image of a normal gay American. . .please list other normal gay Americans. I too admire Mary Cheney, but the daughter of Dick Cheney doesn’t bring up warm fuzzies, just brings up Halliburtoon, etc.
I agree with you Dan, it is time to reshape the GLBT leadership. But there are many normal GLBT folk out there, both Conservative and liberal, DEMs and Republicans. I hope there is a way that America could see GLBT folk working together in a bipartisian collaboration.
Many hands (and minds) make way for success.
Comment by rusty — April 3, 2009 @ 6:55 pm - April 3, 2009
Good point. Personally, I don’t think liberals or conservatives are being well-served on most issues they care about.
Comment by John — April 3, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - April 3, 2009
I seem to recall that Mary Cheney supported the effort to overtturn Prop 8…
Comment by John — April 3, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - April 3, 2009
Good article, GP. I think the same sentiments could be said of many stuggles between groups in our country. Going straight to the judiciary to try to force a change on a group of people grows more resistence, because no one likes to have something forced on them and that is not the function of the judiciary.
Marriage is a sacrament, and it sanctioned by the church. The civil authorities have no say over other church sacraments and they shouldn’t have any over this one.
Civil unions for all would be best. The legal protections are needed for any two people who decide to commit long term to one another. Some churches sanction gay marriages, some don’t, but it shouldn’t be up to the state whether they do or not.
I think separating the spiritual aspects of marriage (which the church governs) from the legal aspects (that the state can govern) would cause the quickest, least painful resolution of this division.
Comment by Carol — April 3, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - April 3, 2009
Beautifully put, GPW.
Comment by Chuck — April 3, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - April 3, 2009
Your filter is on steroids.
Comment by BCnSanDeeahgo — April 3, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - April 3, 2009
Oh, and straight David out there – you are not answering the question I put to you in #4. Would you be in favor of my putting the moves on you, or would you deny me my civil rights.
Grow a pair and answer, please.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — April 3, 2009 @ 11:57 pm - April 3, 2009
Brown vs. Board of Education.
Loving vs. Virginia.
The court’s role (as one of the three branches of government) is to rule on the constitutionality of laws. Period.
Some day conservatives will figure that out. Even the supposedly gay ones.
Comment by commie atheist — April 4, 2009 @ 3:51 am - April 4, 2009
Please, commie, go read the Federalist Papers before making such silly assertions. The court has a much broader role than that. And anyway, what does your comment have to do with the point of this post?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 4, 2009 @ 3:54 am - April 4, 2009
[...] The Gay Marriage Debate and the Needed Overhaul of the Gay Leadeship [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Should CA Supreme Court Uphold Prop 8 when it releases its ruling on Tuesday . . . — May 26, 2009 @ 5:35 am - May 26, 2009