Wow. That was definitely more
of a reaction than I expected when I decided to post. If I'd known, I'm
not sure I would have posted. I'm glad I did, if only to have sparked
some dialog, albeit not in the most artful way.
I almost hesitate to draw a
parallel between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement,
but I'm in the middle of reading God's
Long Summer,
and the first chapter is about Fannie Lou Hamer, the 1964 "Freedom
Summer" in Mississippi, and the negotiations behind the seating of the
Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the convention where Johnson
was to become the official nominee.
I was struck by how much negotiating and backroom dealing went on to
keep Hamer and other civil rights activists in the MFDP from being
seated, in order to placate the southern (and segregationist)
delegates, to ensure Johnson's nomination and the Democrats' hold on
power, and how much of it was carried out by Democrats who were
supposedly friends of the civil rights movement. (In particular, I sat
up and took notice when Walter Mondale's name came up, as it's one I
remember from the beginnings of my political awareness back when he was
Jimmy Carter's VP. I think I was five years old and I was basically a
Dem even then, if only by default because my parents were/are.)
The overall message to civil
rights activists in 1964 seemed to be "Just sit quietly in the back of
the bus and let us
do the driving. We'll get you where you want to go."
It seems like we're hearing a similar message on gay & lesbian
issues. It crystallized for me after reading that chapter and
reflection on something said in one of the comments about the basic
message to gays & lesbians being "the seats in the back of the
bus are just as comfy." The questions remains, are
we in the back of the bus at this point? That's debatable, but we ain't
in the front. That's for sure.
Basically, gay &
lesbian equality is not a top priority right now. It's not in the top
ten, and maybe not even in the top fifty; at least not for anyone but
gays & lesbians and their supporters. Definitely not for the
Democrats, because it's not a winnable
issue right now, however right it may be. If I accept that, it's a bit
harder for me to enthusiastically support just about any Democrat, and
I've been volunteering for Democratic campaigns since Dukkakis/Bentsen
ticket. I probably reached my peak of energy and support during
Clinton's campaign in '92. That was probably the first time I really
poured my heart into a federal campaign and doing whatever I could in
my small way to help the candidate I supported win. The truth is, it's
been downhill since then.
Clinton had me when he said to
a room full of gay & lesbian supporters, "I have a vision for
this country, and it includes you." And I give him credit for trying,
but when it became clear that his support for our issues was a
political liability, we basically got dumped. To return to the
metaphor, we were still on the bus, but the last stop was somewhat
short of our
destination. Well, at least we were along for the ride.
The next time I got excited
about a candidate and a campaign was Howard Dean. We all know how that
ended. And Kerry? Well, we supported him in our house, less
enthusiastically than Dean, but we donated, volunteered, phonebanked,
went to house-parties, etc. We all know how that ended too. And right
now it seems like the likely candidates for 2008 (Hillary and Kerry)
are moving ever so slightly right, probably in hopes of getting enough
swing voters to clinch the White House. If it works, what they'll have
to do to retain their slight-right support remains to be seen. I won't
be holding my breath for any progress on my issue, not even a
half-hearted attempt at establishing federal civil unions,
because once they get enough slight-right support to win they have to
maintain it to stay in office.
And then there's the whole
question of civil unions, and whether "almost-marriage" is good enough.
The pragmatist in me says that if it affords my family rights and
protections it does not currently have, then maybe it's a worthwhile temporary
compromise. But from what I've seen, given the reality of DOMA, there's
no guarantee that federal civil unions could
afford us those same benefits without a lot of legislative wrangling
and the courts getting involved.
Besides, the main problem with
civil unions are that they are not
marriage, and no one seems to be able to give a reason why civil unions
are ok but marriage isn't, except for religious beliefs, etc. The
message of civil unions is essentially "You can have this, but not
marriage. You aren't good enough for marriage." In short, civil unions
feel a lot like second-class "marriage" for second-class citizens. And
if you're somehow able to endow them with all
the rights and protections of marriage, then what's the point of
creating a "marriage twin" just because of some senseless discomfort
with a word?
For civil unions to make any sense at all, they'd have to be somewhat less
than marriage--minus some of the rights and protections of marriage; a
marriage-lite or near-marriage for people who don't rate or want (see
next paragraph) the real thing.
Also, civil unions, aren't any
better for straight people than they are for gay people. It's a matter
that I hadn't considered until reading Jonathan
Rauch's book on same-sex marriage.
At the time I was leaning in favor of civil unions, but Rauch makes a
convincing point that civil unions actually weaken
marriage, because they're open to the same issues as domestic
partnerships: you can't really limit them only to same-sex couples. As
soon as they're established, some heterosexuals will seek access to
civil unions as an alternative to marriage. The matter will end up in
the courts where, if previous cases around heterosexuals seeking the
right to form domestic partnerships are any indication, heterosexuals
will win the right to form civil unions. Suddenly you have a viable
alternative to marriage for heterosexuals, where as same-sex couples
don't have any other legal options. You can try to make civil unions
work by discriminating against heterosexuals, but it probably won't
stand.
And speaking of standing, is
there ever a point at which you do something simply because it's right?
Anyway, it's neither here nor
there. I'm one guy, sitting in front a computer. Kerry will do what
Kerry will do, and the Democratic party will do what the Democratic
party will do, regardless of what I do or don't. But if the reality
that I and my concerns are somewhere near the back of the bus, and I
can't be sure the final destination is near where I want to end up, and
the only incentive offered is that it may
be somewhat better than where I might
have ended up...well...I supposed there's little left to do but sit
back and enjoy the ride. Just don't expect me to chip in for gas money.