Earlier this week, A Gilas Girl posted a
wonderful diary that spurred quite a bit of interesting conversation. It got me thinking about certain issues anew, asking different questions than I had before, and trying out new ways of describing things. Below, I'm going take a look at the strategies used by advocates of marriage equality and how those are related to anti-gay "backlash." I'm also going to discuss how marriage equality activists "pulling back" won't help gay people or the Democratic Party. I hope it's helpful.
One of the issues that I've been harping on lately is that of being a gay Democrat. When I come to this site and see members ridiculing the Theocrats because they support candidates who don't really advance their agenda, I feel strangely like I'm being described. On a federal level, and at many state levels, gay Democrats have seen very little movement on issues of concern to us. Not only have Democrats not been advancing gay rights, they've often set such rights behind (DADT, DoMA, certain Democratic state legislatures moving forward constitutional bans...). We don't leave the Democratic Party, though, because we recognize that it is the institutional mechanism through which we are more likely to realize some of our goals. However, we also recognize that there are other arenas in which we can pursue those goals, and we can't hamstring ourselves by not taking advantage of them. The opportunities they present may not arise again.
Strategy and Legal Challenges
Queer activists have been trying for quite some time to gain protections for our families. Legal challenges to gender exclusive marriage laws were attempted in several states (WA and MN spring to mind) in the early 1970s. Likewise, those opposed to queer equality have been utilizing fears of gay marriage for that long. In some cases, state marriage laws were changed in the 1970s to indicate that those states would only recognize marriage as a gendered arrangement. There has been, since the earliest days of the movement for marriage equality, an organized opposition. This becomes particularly when we consider the issue of "backlash," which I'll discuss below.
The early legal attempts at gaining marriage rights for same-sex couples failed. State legislatures seemed an even less likely venue to obtain those protections. Efforts moved to (primarily urban) localities and businesses. These more limited benefits still provided some kind of protection.
While activists were organizing to gain corporate and municipal benefits, legal activists were pursuing rights in a more piecemeal fashion. Suits involving such things as inheritance, child custody, adoption and visitation rights established a body of law that treated same-sex couples similar to married couples in many respects. Couples were also using legal tools like "Powers of Attorney" to pull together some kind of protection. At the same time, legal scholars were pursuing constitutional interpretations and legal strategies to gain further rights, including the marriage grail.
The development of these legal tools provided opportunities for activists to pursuit of marriage equality. Legal activists have seized these opportunities when they perceived the time was right. They've realized success. In Hawaii (1993), Alaska (1996), Vermont (1999), Massachusetts (2003), Washington (2004), Oregon (2004) and New York (2005) (am I missing anywhere?) courts have sided with those challenging gender exclusive marriage laws. Not all of these cases have been fully resolved, and same-sex couples haven't gained equality in many of them, but all have been victories at some level.
Backlash?
As we all know, marriage equality was an issue in the most recent election. The prominence of early exit polling showing "moral values" to be a driving force in voting decisions along with the passage of 11 constitutional amendments (13 for the year) produced a "gay marriage cost the Democrats" narrative. I thing/hope that narrative has been laid to rest, but there is still a pervasive sense that marriage equality is a lead weight for Democrats. The backlash has been too damaging, and Democrats need to pull back on gay issues. So says the story.
Well, it's a story. But, it's not entirely accurate. It's been pointed out before, but Kerry did better than Gore in those battleground states that had marriage amendments on the ballot. In Minnesota, the DFL took a stand against a constitutional amendment: the refused to allow a special session dealing with important issues if a marriage amendment was on the table. No special session was held, and the Republicans were punished. In Massachusetts, every marriage equality supporter won re-election. These are only examples, but they are informative. Democrats can support marriage equality, or at least oppose attempts to restrict it, and win.
But, aren't all the amendments evidence of a backlash? Yes and no. There seems to be a common perception that backlashes are naturally occurring events. I think we need to question that assumption. Instead, we must remember that backlashes are manufactured phenomena.
The Right has a long history of stirring up public homophobia. Those of us who have been engaged in political conflict with these folks for longer than the past couple years are quite familiar with this fact. Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" wasn't that different than the battle over Colorado's Amendment 2 wasn't that different than Ohio's Measure 1. California's Briggs Initiative set the stage for Oregon's Ballot Measure 9. Using the ballot box to attack queer folks isn't anything new. Viewing this historically, we need to recognize that every advance in gay equality has been met with organized resistance. This resistance is doing more than opposing gay advances, though. They are also looking for ways to reverse those gains. Thus, the "backlash" we're facing is actually the continuation of gay politics by other means.
They've been fighting against same-sex marriage for years. Campaigns against state Equal Rights Amendments always seemed to end up talking about those amendments allowing gay marriage. In research for my masters thesis, I found impending gay marriage and the downfall of society used as arguments against AIDS education in the 1980s. The opposition is not new, and it did not form in response to these judicial decisions. The "backlash" is the use by this opposition of events to further their goals.
The general reaction here has been to say, "Don't give them the opportunities!" We don't want to give them any ammunition to use against us, so we should pull back. We should stop pursuit of marriage, and maybe other goals.
Pulling back accomplishes nothing
Same-sex marriage is too unpopular and is costing Democrats election. To ensure both the election of Democrats, and the future possibility of equal rights for same-sex couples, marriage advocates need to slow down and pull back. So says "common sense."
This is where I rephrase something from above: I'm a Democrat because it's the most likely institutional mechanism for advancing my agenda in the political sphere. However, there are other spheres of political and social action, and I feel free to take action in them. Indeed, it's often necessary to. Marriage equality is one of those areas.
The historical lessons we can learn from the above discussion tells us why pulling back is the wrong action strategically. It will not further gay equality in any way; instead it will probably harm it. Its effect on the Democratic Party will be determined by how Democrats deal with it.
As I've said, opposition to gay marriage has a long pedigree on the right, as does the use of anti-gay ballot initiatives. There is an important lesson here: anti-gay ballot initiatives will be used no matter what actions gay activists take. Whether or not marriage advocates take any action, the "professional backlashers" are at work. They're coming to a town near you, if they aren't already there. If we do something, they're coming. If we do nothing, they're coming. (I'm reminded of a poem: Where Will You Be When They Come? By Pat Parker.) Democrats can't duck the issue; can't sit back. The issue is being brought to them, no matter what Dems do, or what gay activists do.
This is what we gay activists realize that many Democrats don't: gay issues, particularly marriage equality issues, are coming whether they're brought up by gay people or our opponents. Asking us to pull back insulates the Party from nothing. Additionally, asking us to pull back is really asking us to cede territory. If we don't advance any goals, we will only be reacting to the efforts of the right. We may fight back some of those efforts, but we will also lose many of them. Pulling back will not provide any safety for Democrats and will cost gay people their rights.