In the wake of today's predictable yet stinging marriage equality loss, one thing is clear. No matter how strong our finances may be, no matter how robust our lobbying arm might appear, no matter how many phone calls and emails and letters we shower onto our legislators, what is really needed is a shift in public sentiment. We're on our way -- but we're not there yet.
What happened in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire last year that got them across the finish line that did not happen in New Jersey? Nothing especially obvious. Garden State Equality rivals if not tops the LGBT-rights advocacy groups found in those states. Countless hours and dollars were poured into this effort, marvelous television and radio ads were purchased, and for awhile there it did seem like wavering legislators were coming our way.
So what is different about our state and our more successful brethren to the north?
One word: religiosity
Religiousity, mind you, is a measure of how important religion is in the daily lives of poll respondents, not merely whether they identify as an adherent to any particular religion.
Is it any surprise that in the four least religious states -- Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts -- members of the same sex are allowed to get married?
Garden State Equality, as a politically savvy organization, spent quite a bit of time courting religious leaders from around the state, in an attempt to demonstrate that you can be religious and for marriage equality. That is certainly true. But let's be honest: the more fervent one is in his or her religious belief, the more orthodox, the more scripturally pure -- the more likely one is to oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds.
Of course, most Catholics, for example, are of the 'cafeteria' ilk -- they pick and choose the aspects of church doctrine which seem pleasant, while eschewing aspects which are not so palatable. Public advocates for gay rights really like when these sorts of people are on our side, because it shows others who vaguely identify as Catholics that it's OK to be for marriage equality.
This sort of tactic is all well and good for the sake of political utility, but now, as we conduct an 'autopsy,' we should be honest with ourselves: These people are actually committing acts of heresy as per Catholic doctrine. If you willingly reject Vatican-issued Catechism, you are considered 'outside the Church' and must either repent or leave.
So let's be clear. The further people move away from the core tenets of their faiths (I'm talking about Christianity in particular here) the more likely they are to support marriage equality. What does that tell us?
It tells us that what's holding us back is primarily an irreconcilable attachment to tradition and dogma that many New Jerseyeans still hold dear. Think of the resources devoted to this fight by the Catholic archdioceses from across the state, who distributed letters during mass urging congregants to do everything they could to oppose same-sex marriage. Who engaged in the same scare tactics that they have employed everywhere from Maine to California in opposition to equal rights. Who insinuated that children will be in danger if gays can marry.
THESE are the people we're walking on egg shells to be respectful towards?
In this trying time, we need to call a spade a spade. If not for the influence of religious institutions on our secular institutions of government, today same-sex marriage would have passed the senate.
Maybe Paul Sarlo would have appealed to his better instincts, despite his Catholic upbringing and the constant phone calls from priests and bishops that he's said to have received.
Maybe Shirley Turner would have had the courage to stand up to those black Baptist ministers who are opposed to marriage equality with every fiber of their being, and convey as much routinely from the pulpit.
We're only going to be successful when these societal forces are marginalized, ostracized, and condemned for what they are: the last remnants of rigid dogma whose believers realize that their time in the cultural hegemony is rapidly drawing to a close.
This means that nominal Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, are culpable for enabling the influence of the bishops and the pastors on our elected officials. You're a heretic by the standards of the Church, yet you still consider yourself a Catholic? Your political livelihood is being threatened by your pastor, but you still consider yourself a Baptist? Let's have some intellectual integrity here. Communal or familial ties are not enough to justify your continued membership to an institution which threatens you with damnation, while simultaneously using your tacit condoning of their activities to stymie social progress all across our country and the world.
We need to wake up. Cafeteria Catholics in particular, I look at you -- you indirectly helped this happen. Perhaps the bishops would lose some of their clout if those Catholics who are not really Catholics at all took a serious look at themselves and realized: I do not need the Church to be a good person. I do not need the Church to retain cultural and familial tradition. If it means forsaking my LGBT friends and relatives, I do not need the Church at all.
I understand that this is not what a lot of people want to hear. And I concede that it is a long-term solution for a problem that for many requires instant gratification and progress. But we must couple our short-term political goals with long-term philosophical ones, for as we know -- the arch of history is long.
I know what it feels like. It's hard. As a former Catholic, I've had to grapple with it myself. But as we press on in the fight for equality, we must come to terms with the underlying cultural wavelengths that hold us back from our ultimate potential. Maybe next time we won't have to cater to those self-professed forces of morality and goodness who engage in patently IMMORAL behaviors, yet for one reason or another are afforded immunity from criticism.
We're better than that.