Glenden BrownTime for real strategy on same sex marriage
When historians write about measures like Utah’s Amendment 3 and California’s Proposition 8, they will no doubt see these measures as exemplars of George W. Bush era politics - entirely symbolic measures who actual passage benefitted no one, harmed many, and served only to divide the electorate.
Look at it this way - outlawing same sex marriage doesn’t solve any social problems. It does not reduce the divorce rate, it does not prevent the spread of STIs, it does not strengthen any existing families, it doesn’t prevent a single act of child or spousal abuse. Such measures actually create problems - they divide communities, they create animosity. In every case I’ve seen, such measures are marketed dishonestly - often with the false claim that allowing same sex marriage is a threat to religious freedom or that allowing same sex marriage means school children will be taught how to have gay sex. Such claims are of course bald faced lies and they serve not to pass the measures but to increase acrimony, bitterness and anger.
In the end, anti-same sex marriage drives are all politics, no policy. To my mind, almost nothing else better exemplifies the Bush era.
At the same time, the invisible change of the Bush era has been the tremendous growth in support for Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships with grant all or nearly all the rights of marriage without actually using the word marriage.
Our challenge is to construct a strategy about same sex marriage.
First, I think it’s important to point out the divisive nature of such political moves. This is a distraction, an issue that stirs the waters to no end other than stirring the waters. Ultimately there are better ways to deal with an issue this complex and this new than passing laws and constitutional amendments now.
Second argue that such statutes actually do nothing to benefit families. Having outlawed same sex marriage has had now effect on divorce rates and has not strengthened a single marriage. In essence, people were tricked by conservatives into voting for a measure that was entirely symbolic in its impact on everyone except gays and lesbians.
Third, as cathartic as it may be, focusing protests on the Mormons is a misleading strategy. Yes, it’s cathartic, yes it feels emotionally gratifying - and the LDS church has certainly opened itself up to some very deserved criticisms. The Mormon church isn’t the real problem. There are a lot of people sitting in pews around the nation who are quietly supportive of glbt rights but who aren’t comfortable speaking out for a variety of reasons. We should NOT dilute or otherwise compromise the core message about glbt rights; many religious people are open to the message of fairness and human rights. The hard core right is unpersuadable but a much smaller portion of the population than you’d imagine. The real goal isn’t even to swing the vast middle -which already supports granting Civil Unions to same sex couples - it is to blunt the effectiveness of the religious right. If it looks as if gays and lesbians are hostile to faith, we have effectively given up one of our most powerful avenues of persuasion. We need to focus our protests on the actual institutions of bigotry - the places which enact the laws that deny glbt people equal rights.
Fortunately, we have history to guide us. Civil Rights workers focused on voter rights, on legal segregation. We need the same strategy. Hold sit ins at city offices where you get marriage licenses. Work with churches. Organize in and around churches - get pastors and religious lay people to speak.
Fourth, the real winning argument is the fairness argument - it’s about treating people fairly without regard to sexual orientation.
Finally, I think there is an argument to be made - a la Olbermann - about our shared humanity. Whitman once wrote (I’m paraphrasing) nothing human is alien to me. Olbermann talked about this in his special comment. It’s a smart rhetorical choice. It grounds the discussion in real, lived experiences of people around the nation. Ask, for instance, how would you feel if you could not marry the person you loved?
November 11th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Ideally for the benefit of our misinformed friends…
References: The difference between civil unions and marriage.
Wikipedia entry on the Court challenge to Nazi party of Caleephornia proposition 8
November 11th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Did anyone read about Equality Utah’s proposed legislation? They are asking for LDS Church leaders to back same-sex civil unions and four other bills being introduced in the Utah legislature. All are based on public statements made by the Church during the Prop 8 campaign.
According to Equality Utah chairwoman Stephanie Pappas:
November 11th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
This strikes me as a very smart response. The church has already provided the opening.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Silly Equality folks. The church can’t get involved in politics and still maintain their tax free status.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am
But Cliff, I thought they could use their power to raise money and also use their most fantastic calling tree to rally support. I’m sure I heard that somewhere.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:43 am
WRONG Cliff!
A church can’t endorse a particular candidate but can be involved in politics all they want and maintain there tax status. You really should do your research before posting, Cliff.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
RO’s right on this one.
November 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Churches are free to express opinions and speak against any issue. They are only barred from endorsing political parties and candidates or risk losing their tax exempt status (which I think should not be unconstitutional anyway, because that gives the government control over religion). The day Churches are not allowed to speak up on what they consider to be moral and social issues is the day we no longer have freedom of religion in this country.
You can’t have it both ways. If you tax Churches then they would have every right to endorse candidates, finance them and even call on their members to vote for them.
I can just see it now. Vote for “such and such”, God’s candidate!
One thing that has always amazed me is the fact the Democrat candidates routinely speak in churches but if a Republican candidate ever tried it there would be howls of protests.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“One thing that has always amazed me is the fact the Democrat candidates routinely speak in churches but if a Republican candidate ever tried it there would be howls of protests.”
Michele Bachmann spoke at a church. As did Bush. As did McCain. And Reagan, and…..
Where is this place that protests this?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Yeah Ken!
Listen Ken. What you mean to say is when a Republican PANDERS to a church, we puke up our guts.
Speaking at a church about community issues and matters of the heart is quite a different thing than fragging queers and inspiring idiots to go out and bomb clinics.
Right Okelbomber?
November 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Shane, you remind me of when I lived in South Ogden, and the little joke there was, to get elected to the city council, you had to run on the (Mormon) Stake High Council ticket. It was pretty accurate, too. Most of them were. I remember one time attending a ward “fireside” on a Sunday evening only to have a council candidate show up and give a campaign speech.
November 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Got any evidence of this, Cliff? Or are you talking out of your ass again?
Hard evidence, not your laughable “learned” opinion.
November 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Wrong
They spoke while they were in office. I don’t remember where any of them spoke in Churches during their campaigns and there speeches were intentionally apolitical. Democrats however routinely make blatant partisan speeches in Churches, not to mention politically active pastors like the “Reverends” Jackson, Sharpton, and hatefully racists such as Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright that use the pulpit specifically for political purposes. What about their tax exempt status hmm?
Also isn’t “queer” supposed to a slur? Are you a closet homophobe Clifford?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Ken, ken, ken. You and I have attended the same church, so you can’t kid me. I’ve listened to all kinds of campaigning from the pulpit — back in the day.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
JD,
Just talking out my ass again.
But I am no more guilty of hyperbole, than the preacher or parishioner who characterizes abortion as murder, or homosexuality as an abomination.
The ultimate hypocrisy is that the very same Okelfarts who use that language, refuse to use the word “murder” to refer to what we do daily to innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Do you attend church?
November 13th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
JD,
I believe Cliff wants to know if you attend church to help him decide how much he hates you… It’s like a member of the KKK asking somone if the are Jewish.
November 14th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
And that’s why I don’t answer questions like that (or other questions that might be used to pigeonhole me).