How To Promote Gay Marriage (Not That I Support It)

Crossposted at Right Minds

One of the most watched elections this year was the vote deciding whether to pass Proposition 8, which would amend California’s constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage. California is one of the most liberal states in the country, and the debate over same-sex marriage is one of the most controversial social issues. The election was seen as a measure of public opposition to same-sex marriage.

The measure passed, which reassured social conservatives and angered and frustrated gay activists. Two groups were largely responsible for the passage of the amendment—Mormons, who flooded the state with anti-gay marriage ads, and blacks, who were out in force supporting Obama but opposing gay marriage.

Angry gay activists decided that the proper way to build support for gay marriage was to take their frustration out on both groups. Some California gays have announced plans to boycott Utah to protest the Mormon church’s opposition to gay marriage (although it’s hard to see exactly what they would boycott—Utah wasn’t exactly a gay mecca in the first place). Gays also took out their anger on blacks—according to some reports, gay protesters called black passerby (and some black fellow protesters) “n*ggers” and blamed them for the proposition’s passage.

(It should be noted that not all, in fact not even most, gay protesters acted in this disgraceful way. But many did, and fairly or not, they became the face of the post-Proposition 8 protests).

I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for those disappointed gay marriage advocates. A constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage may represent governmental overreach—but then, it was passed in order to prevent federal courts from subverting the will of the people from the bench. I don’t support the recognition of gay marriage, so the result (if not the means) of the California ban is in line with my ideology.

That being said, I do have a little sympathy for same-sex marriage activists. Considering that homosexuality (at least according to Roman Catholic teachings) is a relatively minor (though still mortal) sin, and that allowing gay marriage would affect such a tiny part of the population (possibly two percent, and even that’s a bit high), it’s hard to deny that homosexuals are a convenient scapegoat for the erosion of the institution of marriage over the past half century. (If you don’t think that our ideas of marriage have fundamentally altered over the latter part of the past century, consider that over half of U.S. marriages end in divorce, and over a third of U.S. children are born out of wedlock). Gay marriage would redefine marriage, and not for the better, but could hardly weaken it more than it is now.

Given that fact, I can find it within myself to feel rather sorry that the California gay community is handling their loss so badly. Granted, it must have been a real disappointment to gays—but there are at least three things gays could be doing more productive than protesting and boycotting.

1. Find What Went Wrong. The anti-Prop 8 campaign was well-funded, well organized, and media savvy. That wasn’t enough. Gay marriage advocates might want to find out why, instead of trying to threaten those who voted against it.

Anyhow, gays don’t have much influence with their targets—Mormons don’t really care to have gays buy from them anyway, and while hearing “n*gger” is undoubtedly hurtful to blacks (and offensive to whites), it does lose some of its menace factor when coming from a skinny hairdresser in tight jeans.

Anger may be understandable, but it’s counterproductive. I’ve read some screeds by angry gays responding to Prop 8. None have made me feel a bit sympathetic. In fact, after reading 600 words about how anyone who opposed this proposition is hateful and bigoted and basically racist and probably in the closet themselves, I go from mildly glad the proposition was passed to feeling relieved at what a narrow escape we had.

2. Try To Be Normal. Gays suffer from the (correct) perception that they don’t see the world the way most people do. Most people aren’t comfortable with that. So in order to win acceptance, gay activists must combat that image. That probably means that whole “interior decorator” image has to go, replaced by a more wholesome “couple next door” vibe.

An example: when TV comedy Will and Grace was casting, the part of gay character Will Truman came down to actors John Barrowman and Eric McCormack. McCormack got the part—Barrowman was “too straight.” If gays want to see gay marriages recognized, they will have to change that popular image. (Ironically, McCormack is straight, while Barrowman is gay).

3. Establish a Relationship With Social Conservatives. It’s a stretch to expect evangelicals, Mormons, or conservative Catholics to support gay marriage (I certainly wouldn’t), but it is conceivable to conceive of a scenario in which these groups just aren’t all that concerned. Gay activists should stress that gays can be pro-life (though come to think of it, I suppose unplanned pregnancies aren’t a big problem for homosexuals) and pro-gun, and can be friendly to religion. It would, perhaps, be productive to send pro-gay marriage preachers to evangelical churches—they probably wouldn’t change many minds, but they might lessen anti-gay marriage fervor.

I don’t know if these ideas would work, and given that I oppose gay marriage, I hope that the gay community don’t try them. But I do know that they would have to be more effective than what gay activists are doing.

(Some might wonder why, if I don’t support gay marriage, I wrote a 900 word essay giving my best ideas how to promote it. Good question—I really don’t know. It may have been a waste of time—but then, political junkies love thinking about this sort of stuff).
 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

 I'd say just be patient.

 I'd say just be patient.  Don't kid yourself, this is inevitable.  If they don't make too big of asses of themselves in CA, it'll happen within 10 years there.  I'd guess most blue states will follow within 20.  Eventually there will be a SCOTUS ruling that pushes it through nationwide, with heavy resistance remaining in the deep south.  

Only if Constitution is kaput ...

Eventually there will be a SCOTUS ruling that pushes it through nationwide

Only if the idea of the Constitution as a written document is kaput. Only if there is a solid and unrepentent majority of social engineers in SCOTUS, willing to override the real constitution with their own agenda preferences. There is zero legal justification for forcing any change to the definition of marriage in the court, and plenty of justification in law to keep marriage as is.

It would be a horrible and outrageous act of judicial legislating for SCOTUS to make such a ruling that overrides the will of the people in almost 50 states.

The fact that gay activists cant HELP but be hatemongers who go after christians, mormons, black folks, etc. in venomous and personal ways only solidifies the judgement that the pro-gay-marriage side is too extreme.

No, that's the point of the Constitution

The will of the people doesn't matter when it comes to protecting the rights of everyone.  The thoughtfulness and intelligence that becoming a judge requires is of course superior to the that of the base and reactionary average Joe, which is exactly why we've put together a branch that's immune to them, thank God.  I can't wait until the Republican party, which is supposed to champion our status as  a representative republic, gets more comfortable with rejecting populism.

lol

I guess my perspective is obvious given that I am gay, but youre post is slightly offensive. I don't exactly know what "become normal" means. It obviously doesn't mean what the majority does, because the majority of Americans/married couples support the right to divorce, and I can't believe any good christian could support such a means to destroy the sanctity of a holy institution.

One day, people who voted for prop 8 will be on the other side of the initiative process. You can already see it in France, where the majority secular population is already stripping the right to religious free speech from their schools in form of necklace crosses and muslim turbins. When that day comes, I hope people who supported prop 8 remember that they voted to support mob rule over a minority population.

 

 

defining normality

Normal, at least as I use it, means average or typical. Gay people, for the most part, aren't. I'm a conservative Christian, in many ways, I'm not normal. Divorce is normal; it shouldn't be (IMO). Normal doesn't mean good. It just means typical.

well

then youre argument that gays should nominalize to the rest of the population in order to further their rights is a moot point.

The US is not a direct democracy. It's a constitutional republic, which means we have inherent rights that cannot be challenged by mob decision.

Whether or not you personally believe the right to privacy is an inherent right or not is irrelevent. If judges decide that it is unconstitutonal for the majority to define gay marriage and straight marriage differently, or that it is unconstitutional for the majority to strip gays the right to adopt or visit partners in hospitals, then how gays act in society via the majority is totally irrelevent.

(PS, that is the worst argument I have ever heard Republicans make because it totally contradicts the libertarian/states rights argument theyve been trying to make.)

Your second statement about "normal does not necessarily mean good" doesnt mean crap either when it comes to equality. If we could create laws where the majority could decide what is "good" or "bad" is dangerous because what the majority decides is "good" and "bad" depends on who the majority is.

In France, the secular majority has already banned segments of religious free speech in schools, Arab and Christian.

One day, the religious right will be on the other side of the constitutional amendment process, and I hope they remember how they voted on gay state constitutional amendments.