May 11, 2005

Marriage Wars, Part 2: Finessing the Fags
by Jeff Langstraat

Last night, I put up the first in a series of posts on the politics of queer folks gettin’ hitched. That post took a critical look at the Civil Unions vs. Full Marriage Equality debates. I also discussed one thing many Democrats and progressives seem not to realize—the anti-gay “backlash” is coming no matter what gay activists or the Democratic Party do. I figured I’d start a series dealing with some of the issues I see surrounding the politics of queers gettin' hitched, to try and explore some of the issues with a bit more light and less heat (heat can be fun, though, and swearing is always welcome). Today, then, I’m going discuss the Democratic Party and some options for dealing with marriage equality. Whether people like it or not, the issue is here to stay.

Democrats are gay

That was the scroll on a Simpsons episode spoofing Fox News (“Your source for evil.”). Although it’s an oversimplification, the Democratic Party is thought of as the party of gay rights in this country. The Right has successfully branded the Democratic Party as the party of fag-lovers, and gay rights activists have worked within the Democratic Party to achieve electoral, legislative, and policy goals. Some moderate or conservative Democrats may object to this linking of gay rights to their party (there are more than a few anti-gay Democrats), while many gay rights activists think that the party hasn’t exactly earned it’s mantle as the party of gay rights. Safe to say it’s a tenuous relationship.

A question that arises from this is, What should Democrats to about this public perception of being gay rights supporters? A popular answer among many, particularly following this election, relies on the early narrative that “values voters” were pissed at the homos and punishing the Democrats for being too supportive of gay marriage. Part of the problem with that narrative, aside from its neglect of the electoral complexities in all of the states where the issue came into play, is that Democrats weren’t supporting gay marriage! Indeed, in Oklahoma, the Democratic candidate for Senate, Brad Carson, endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment and that state’s anti-marriage amendment came out of a Democratic-controlled government. It’s hard to imagine Oklahoma’s Democrats moving much farther in an anti-gay direction, but I nothing would surprise me. Likewise, in legislature after legislature, Democrats have merrily joined their Republican counterparts in a nice frenzy of constitutional gay bashing. These Democrats represent one position with respect to the party’s gay image—join the gay bashing to smash the image. This “purge the gays and fuck ‘em” attitude is one that I hope most of us here do not share (although it’s also obvious that some progressives or Democrats would be just fine taking that approach).

The second approach is more complicated. This involves a de-emphasis of the Democrat=gay equation while still attempting to support some level of equality. The usual attitude is that we should de-emphasize gay issues. Here is why that position is problematic. First, it assumes that Democrats have been driving discussion of gay issues, and that if they don’t engage these issues they’ll go away. Ain’t gonna happen. The issue of same-sex marriage is going to be pushed by the Republicans and the anti-Gay industry no matter what the Democratic Party or gay activists do. Wishing it away or trying to push it to the back burner is not going to make the issue less prominent. Democrats are going to have to deal with same-sex marriage whether they like it or not. That’s where the “Stop talking about it! Stop pushing it!” folks are just dead wrong. We have no choice but to engage with the issue; our opponents will make sure of that. Bans will keep coming no matter what Democrats do. Democrats need to accept that reality.

The second problem with this approach is in the way these debates take place. By refusing trying to push the issue to the back burner, by wishing it away, we cede ground to opponents of same-sex marriage. The debate is framed, from the beginning, on their terms. I’m not arguing that the Democratic Party needs to endorse same-sex marriage in every state…for now. I’m also not saying that this should be the primary issue Democrats campaign on. That would be silly. (However, I’d appreciate it if those folks who want us marriage equality advocates to be patient would be a little less fussy when we take advantage of opportunities to win victories in those states that are “ready” for queers to get hitched. If we’ve gotta respect the conservatives, they’ve gotta respect us.) I would argue, though, that the Democratic Party needs to rethink its approach to the issue.

Distancing the Party from gay rights doesn’t really serve anyone well…except opponents of gay rights. The Party already carries the image of being gay supportive. Despite the fact that Kerry came out in opposition to same-sex marriage, despite the failure of the Democratic Party to fight state-level anti-marriage amendments, indeed despite state Party support for some of those amendments, Democrats have been unable to shake that image. The only way I can see for the Party to shake the image is to become openly anti-gay. Not a prospect many of us here relish.

So, how does the Party deal with that image in a more productive way? That should be the question. I’d like to offer up the example of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. During last year’s legislative session the Republican-controlled House passed an anti-marriage amendment, making it one of their top priorities. The DFL-controlled Senate instead focused on issues of central concern to more of the State’s residents, including a major bonding bill. The session ended without resolution on a number of matters, in large part because of the two bodies’ intransigence. The House refused to deal with the other issues unless the amendment was part of the agenda. The Senate refused to guarantee a vote on the amendment, sticking to dealing with the important issues of the day. The DFL was able to frame the Republican Party as putting essential needs secondary to its anti-gay agenda. The DFL picked up 13 House seats. There may not be a direct causal relationship between individual House pickups and the marriage issue, but the Republican intransigence was a factor in the election. The DFL was able to use the issue in a way that punished the Republicans.

The lesson is that you can kill anti-gay measures in a way that provides an advantage. The DFL was able to protect gay citizens. It was also able to show the Republican Party’s irresponsible attitude toward governance. Punishing gay people became more important than fixing necessary infrastructure or keeping violent sexual offenders behind bars. The DFL didn’t endorse same-sex marriage. They didn’t cast gays over the side either. They reframed the debate to their advantage, and they acted in concert. They stepped up to their pro-gay image in a way that cost the Republicans.

Obviously, there were specific circumstances in Minnesota that helped the DFL. The specific circumstances in any given state will make different strategies necessary. I don’t think any of us would seriously argue that the Oklahoma Democratic Party needs to immediately become the equivalent of the Massachusetts Democratic Party on gay issues. However, it would sure as hell be nice if they became less anti-gay! I find it ironic that there are people on this site who sarcastically ask if it’s ok to be against gay marriage and still be a good Democrat, while it appears to be no problem whatsoever to be against gay folks in general and be a “good Democrat.”

We have lives, you know

This is where I also think many in the Democratic Party need to take a new approach. When the Theofascisti bring up the “spectre of gay marriage” tell them that you don’t support punishing people who are productive and valuable members of our society, communities, and families by making their lives more difficult. Tell them that attacking these folks won’t do a damned thing to solve a single problem facing America’s families, indeed it will make life harder for many families. Then introduce legislation improving medical coverage and childcare. Make that the top item on the agenda. Every time they bring up gay marriage, tell them you’re interested in solving the real problems facing America’s families. (The Navajo President recently used exactly this argument in vetoing a same-sex marriage ban.) Hold their attacks hostage to actual support for families. That’s one strategic approach. It jumps around the issue much in the ways Democrats have been trying to do already, but with a bit more of an offensive stance.

When I was watching Senate debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment last year, I was struck by one thing in particular. Supporters of the FMA were the only ones talking about gay people. Senator Allard was talking about a gay staffer who he helped get a scholarship, in order to demonstrate he wasn’t acting out of hate. Other Republicans were talking about the number of gay staffers who worked for them, how they weren’t really anti-gay. Democratic Senators were talking about discrimination in the abstract or Constitutional principles. Gay people were nowhere to be seen in their arguments.

That brings me to another thing Democrats might want to consider trying: Personalize the issues! One thing we in the queer movement have learned is that knowing someone gay tends to make people more accepting of gay rights, including marriage. We know that the stories of our lives have been extremely powerful in realizing the limited gains we’ve made. If we can describe the effects of these measures on actual families we might be able to shift the debate. Talk about how these efforts affect the children in these relationships. Acknowledge that queer folks are part of our society, communities, and families, and talk about the real damage these anti-gay attacks do. Don’t leave the discussion of gay lives to those who want to destroy us. The Democratic Party comes off, in that scenario, as defending a parasitic and destructive minority. Talk about the actual contributing humans we are.

Let’s be honest, the people who vote exclusively on the issue of same-sex marriage, or gay rights more generally, are fairly set in their voting—we’re not going to win a lot of the hard-core anti-marriage folks and they’re not going to win a lot of the hard core marriage equality advocates. We’re striving for other folks, many of whom may be uncomfortable with same-sex marriage, but who will also be uncomfortable with discrimination. The real world affects of these things make a more compelling reason to vote against anti-marriage measures and politicians than generalized principles. We’re also able to frame our opponents as trying to hurt families, to make life more difficult for children. Show them real examples of gay foster parents or a same-sex couple struggling because they can’t marry. Discuss the actual harms. Stories sell better than arguments. (For a bit more of a theoretical take, see my diary at dailyKos On Frames and Stories.

For those who would argue that the anti-marriage amendments prove that the issue is death for Democrats, I say there are two problems with your argument. First, the relationship between the amendments and Democratic electoral success in those states is far more complicated than you want to imagine. Second, you’re assuming that the public is immovable on the topic. Those of us working on the issue know that isn’t the case. We also know that retreating from it only harms queer folks and doesn’t help Democrats all that much. We’ve got to come up with a strategy that serves both groups (particularly those of us who are queer Democrats) better.

So, to recap:

** Many recent Democratic strategies for “finessing” the “gay marriage issue” have helped neither gays nor Democrats. A new strategy is needed.

** Same-Sex Marriage is on the agenda no matter what Democrats or gay activists do. Democrats, in particular, need to realize that wishing the issue away or trying to set it on the back burner is not going to keep it off the agenda.

** Democrats don’t need to become more anti-gay (or to back off on gay rights) to shake the public association with gay rights. Indeed, they can use gay issues to defeat Republicans, if they think strategically.

** By refusing to talk about gay people, Democrats cede far too much to anti-gay forces. Talking about gay lives can personalize the issue, giving us a potential advantage.

Posted by in Politics
Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (3) | Technorati Cosmos

Trackbacks

Trackback for this post:
http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2944

The following blogs make reference to this post :

» The "Gay Issue" from Oliver Willis

I don't think simply being bigger gaybashers than the GOP is any kind of way to move forward for the Democrats, and Lisa's about right

[More...]

Found inMay 11, 2005 07:47 PM

» The "Gay Issue" from Oliver Willis

I don't think simply being bigger gaybashers than the GOP is any kind of way to move forward for the Democrats, and Jeff's about right

[More...]

Found inMay 11, 2005 08:13 PM

» You Got A Few Minutes? from Mizzkyttie's Mind
Update: [More...]

Found inMay 12, 2005 12:33 PM

Say it loud, say it proud!