There has been a lot of activity surrounding gay rights in the past year. We've had
Lawrence v. Texas (pdf version of decision), in which the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws. There was the
election of Gene Robinson to the position of Bishop within the Episcopal Church (link to multiple stories). We're currently waiting for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision on marriage rights for same-sex couples, while Canada is moving to recognize said unions. And, President Bush declared "
Marriage Protection Week" during annual "Coming Out Week" activities. Finally, conservative groups have come out and said the gay issues, particularly marriage, will
feature prominently in 2004. Democrats and progressives, all of us opposing Bush, need to figure out how to best deal with this, both politically and ethically.
There has been a lot of activity surrounding gay rights in the past year. We've had
Lawrence v. Texas (pdf version of decision), in which the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws. There was the
election of Gene Robinson to the position of Bishop within the Episcopal Church (link to multiple stories). We're currently waiting for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision on marriage rights for same-sex couples, while Canada is moving to recognize said unions. And, President Bush declared "
Marriage Protection Week" during annual "Coming Out Week" activities. Finally, conservative groups have come out and said the gay issues, particularly marriage, will
feature prominently in 2004. Democrats and progressives, all of us opposing Bush, need to figure out how to best deal with this, both politically and ethically.
On these boards, and elsewhere, people have said that we should put gay rights, and other "social issues" on the back burner in order to woo as many voters as possible into the ant-Bush column. One commenter at Eschaton put it this way the other day:
The media will love it, since its the sort of "safe" contreversy [sic] they love to cover with lots of sordid details, and the dems will play their part by saying some really idiotic pablum that will all but destroy their chances outside of MA, NY, and CA.
Sorry, I am no homophobe, but I AM NOT willing to have Bush for 4 more years simply so dems can prove how open minded they are. Call me an ass if you will, but I have a very selfish desire to see Bush booted out of office, so if gay marriage or gay bishops are issues to be put on the back burner for the time being, so be it.
I've seen similar concerns voiced here at dKos. Basically, the argument is that because gay rights are so divisive in the public at large, best to avoid them in favor of things we can get more agreement on, things like the economy and Iraq.
This may seem like a tempting line of thought. But, there are problems with it. First, it's not the D's who are going to be making gay rights an issue. It's the R's who will bringing these issues to the public. Should we simply cede this territory to the bigots on the right? That's exactly what advocates of the position are saying we should do. That serves no one well. If the D's fail to respond to attacks on queer Americans they do two things: 1) they allow the Right to dominate public discourse over the issue, demonizing queers and making our struggles more difficult, now and in the future; and 2) they risk alienating queer voters. While we LGBT folks may not make up a huge proportion, we are a significant bloc in the Democratic coalition. Not responding to attacks on our communities will serve to push us away from that coalition (be it through shifting Green or other third party, not voting, or, heaven forbid, voting R). In a close election, that's not something the D's can really afford to do.
Our votes aren't the only thing we could withhold, though. More importantly, if the Democratic Party cedes gay issues to the Republicans, our energy, resources, time, and money might be withheld. That would be a blow to D chances.
The next big problem with sending gay issues to the back burner is that it's wrong. We queer Americans do face a hostile climate in this country, Queer Eye and Will and Grace notwithstanding. The FBI has reported that antigay hate crimes are on the rise. By not responding to attacks from the Right, we become complicit in the fostering of a culture in which anti-gay bias and it's related violence become acceptable.
Also, by pushing gay issues out of the way, we deny LGBT Americans our rights as citizens. I would hope thats enough to convince people, as simplistic as that hope is. Beyond that, though, it's useful to bring in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" (I've posted a longer quote and comments on my blog.):
We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
To change it slightly, there are always important elections just around the corner. Gay rights will, for the immediate future at least, remain divisive. If we keep pushing them off the stage because theyll be too divisive in the (always) upcoming election, we'll never get to dealing with them. That's unacceptable.
I don't have any solid ideas on how we should handle these issues next year. One possibility is that the R's will have a repeat of their disastrous '92 Hatefest in Houston, where they successfully alienated large segments of voters. We can all hope for such an outcome. It's likely, though, that they have learned from their mistakes. The convention will probably be just as hateful, but framed in "nice" ways, sort of like Shrub's lovely "remember, we are all sinners" quote.
We could also force the issue. Bring it to the R's on our terms. Fight it out and put them on the defensive. This will no doubt please many queer folks, and is probably the most ethical approach, but does bring the risk of alienating centrist voters. (It would be my preferred approach, but it may not be the most politically pragmatic.)
I guess I'd like to see others discuss ways that we should approach this. We can't simply "put the issues" away. It's dangerous and wrong. But, how should we deal with the issues, frame them, organize around them in ways that neutralize the issue for the Right and make it a winner for whoever the Democratic nominee is?
P.S. and O.T.: I've noticed a lot of discussion on issues of framing recently. As a sociologist involved in the study of social movements, the issue of framing is somewhat "old hat" to me. I'd like to recommend a book on the issue that deals with theoretical approaches in a way that makes the issue accessible and useful for grassroots organizers: Prime Time Activism by Charlotte Ryan. Worth a read, and has lots and lots of very useful information.