GLAAD President Speaks Out on Prop 8, the Religious Right

In this exclusive interview, Neil G. Giuliano, President of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) addresses Prop 8, the religious right and the future of civil rights for LGBT Americans. Since Mr. Giuliano took the reins at GLAAD in 2005, the national organization's media programs work has more than doubled its scope to include advocacy efforts in the worlds of sports, religion, faith and values, young adult; and the 2007 acquisition of Queer Lounge, a venue at independent film festivals for LGBT and LGBT-friendly film professionals. All of GLAAD's programs work towards GLAAD's mission to ensure fair, accurate, and inclusive representation of LGBT people and events in the media and to respond when defamatory statements about the LGBT community are made.

1. California, Florida and Arizona voted to amend their constitutions against gay marriage. Are you as upset about this as I am, and how can we turn this around?

Well, we're very upset and we have to acknowledge that homophobia and misunderstanding and the powerful influence of our adversaries' money won the day this time. So, it's a setback and we have to work hard now to keep moving on our quest for equality and the fundamental rights that our Community deserves. And we will continue to do that. So I view this as a setback, certainly not the end of this situation by any means.

2. Why did the No-on-8 campaign fail?

Well, why don't I give you a little history too. You have to remember 8 years ago, this same issue was on the ballot in California and we failed then by 9-10 points greater than we came up short this time. So, there has been progress. There has been cultural change. I think if there's any one single thing that hurt our campaign, it was the fact that our adversaries had their financial resources much earlier than we did. They were able to inundate the media and control the message and essentially put the 'No on 8' Campaign on the defensive in the beginning.

They started in October with about $12 million and we had about $2 million. And they helped define the campaign for a lot of people who were unsure. And it was tough when the resources finally came in for 'No on 8', which they did, which was terrific, a wonderful outpouring of support that came in. The timing was such that those resources came in a little late for us to make and have the kind of impact that we needed to have in fighting the lies and misinformation of our opponents. So, a good message out here for all of us is that we have to fully fund our efforts early and to the strongest degree possible rather than waiting until we feel like we're on the ropes and then everybody kinda kicks in their support.

3. Being that Prop 8 wasn't only about gay marriage but our LGBT civil rights was our message effective?

Let's put it this way, we knew all along from intense polling that 40% of the electorate was clearly on our side and 40 some % were clearly our opponents and the 20 or so% that was in the middle was very conflicted. What we know is they were not necessarily supportive of same sex marriage, but we also know that they did not want to be viewed as intolerant or bigoted because of that view. So I think the messaging that was used was the appropriate messaging to meet that demographic that was still unsure, not those of us who have already made up our minds or any of our allies who already made up their minds, but the messages were right for the people who were still unsure.

We just got outfunded and we got outflanked from the standpoint of them helping define the message. They used the images of children which is a total misrepresentation and a lie. So from a campaign standpoint, they ran a tactically very smart campaign against us and we did all we could with the resources we had at the time to combat that. It just wasn't enough. Although in the last five weeks of the campaign the gap was closed significantly, it just wasn't enough.

4. In our film "OUTTAKE", Arline Isaacson, Co-Chair of the Massachusetts LGBT Political Caucus, states that if interracial marriages were voted on in 1948 it would have been the same outcome. What's your thoughts on this?

I agree with that. I think that's a fair and very accurate statement of what the time was like at that time with the views of the majority of people at that time. So, I agree with you.

Voting on Civil Rights is never something that should be desired and it shouldn't have to come down to that. When it does, like in this situation, we have to fight as hard as we can to get the messages out as strong as we can. Of course, we didn't win. Now, we'll see what this California Supreme Court says about the fairness and the legality of the initiative in the first place.

5. Do you think we should be voting on civil rights of minorities?

It's not appropriate. Whether the Justices in California are going to want to re-engage on this issue, I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that today.

6. How did the Religious Right buy votes with lies?

Well, they clearly used a lot of misinformation about what would have to be taught in schools about marriage which is totally false and wrong. And I think their whole fundamental argument that if this were voted down this would somehow force religious institutions to do something they didn't believe in. Of course we know that is false, but that resonated with some folks and we have to do a better job in communities of religion and faith. That's why we have a really strong communities of religion and faith media program at GLAAD now for the last year or so and it needs to get stronger quite frankly. We need to do more. We need more resources to fund that kind of a program because those are the communities where we still have a lot of work to do. We still have a lot of hearts and minds that we need to change.

7. In Massachusetts in order for gay marriage to get on the ballot it had to go through the State Legislator where it was defeated. Since it's easier in California to get issues on the ballot couldn't we have seen this coming?

For all of us in the Community to remember that we're in this for the long haul. And, we're in this until we receive full equality that we deserve as American citizens. And so, we may have had a bit of a setback with this election, but that doesn't deter us, that doesn't take us out of the game by any means. In fact, we've seen in the last week or so, it only encourages us to be more powerful and more united in our message and in our cause. We've seen that very clearly and so it's a setback, yes, but our day is going to come and we will persevere and we will achieve full equality.

To continue Mr. Giuliano's interview about Prop 8 being the second Stonewall, Obama & the future of LGBT issues in America click here.

More Info on GLAAD: www.GLAAD.org

Copyright OUTTAKE Media LLC. 2008

Comments

[JohnBisceglia]

(sigh) Can't we just get this whole Equality mess OVER WITH in the United States?

The National Equality Tax Protest is Wednesday, April 15th, 2009.

Those who do NOT wish to engage in civil disobedience may simply protest outside of their local post office (where our IRS tax forms will be mailed). The message is this - "WE CONTRIBUTE TO AMERICA - WE THINK WE DESERVE THE SAME".

Those who DO wish to engage in civil disobedience may stand there withholding their tax forms and let society know that "WE USED TO CONTRIBUTE - WE DEMAND THAT YOU TREAT US THE SAME IMMEDIATELY!"

Organizations will NOT get us our civil rights alone; if they could, we would have equality now.

INDIVIDUALS will push this forward, as they always have in the past.

[blasofsky]

Hey!

Two close friends and I recently started a grassroots site (http://OurVoicesForMarriage.com) as a response to Proposition 8 passing. It is a VERY basic, no-frills site that allows individuals to voice their sadness, their frustration, and, most importantly, their personal stories on how the passing of Proposition 8 effected them. Our hope is that President-Elect Obama will soon announce a GLBT liaison whom we can refer to this site, and, who in turn, will refer President Obama to it with the hope he will speak out and say, loud and clear, that discrimination written into any constitution is a violation of everyone's civil rights.

PLEASE take a moment, go to the site, and post YOUR story. The more voices we have the louder our message will be. . .

http://ourvoicesformarriage.com

Thanks!

[DubiousVoter]

We need new leadership in the Gay Community, who will call these demoralizing and slanderous attacks, organized by religious organizations, for what they are; Civil Rights Violation.

Leadership that is capable and willing to force this issue to be address by the courts, armed with sound constitutional arguments concerning our state of being at its core. Unable to set aside the core issue, the US Supreme Court will final rule on the matter.

[kellygrrrl]

as always, MONEY talks!
hit 'em where it counts! Mass National Boycotts of the businesses who funded the Yes campaign, including a boycott of Utah tourism, even the Sundance Film Festival.

Trust me, we will get their attention -- and apology!
El Coyote Restaurant, very popular Mexican restaurant in LA, donated $100 to the Yes campaign. When the boycotts and BAD online reviews and blogs started last week, the owner issued an apology and $500 to the campaign to overturn 8

[kellygrrrl]

I say we vote to Eliminate the Rights of any adulterer to ever marry again!!!!!!!

Adultery is far more of a "threat" to "traditional marriage" than anything else.

[johnnyjust]

I'm bisexual. Why can't I marry a man and a woman? Or two men and two women?

Don't restrict my rights.

[SBrooksB]

Go for it, babe.

[MagicalPossibilities]

For the love of Pete, why does the state have to be involved in "marriage" if marriage is a religious sacrament???
City halls should stop issuing "marriage licenses" in favor of a legal contract called a civil union. If someone wishes to get a religious sacrament, then go to a church to exchange marriage vows. Churches as always should remain free to refuse to perform vows for any couple as they see fit, for whatever reason. Problem solved.

[noamjunior]

why should a religious institution be allowed to define Marriage in civil cases.If chusrches want to to issue "super magic marraige licenses with extra religious power" - fine, but churches dont get to define marriage in the secular arena

[moonbay]

"...couldn't we have seen this coming?"

Yes, we could have seen it coming the moment the proposition was recorded. Let not our "leaders" give excuses and non-answers; make them answerable to us with REAL information. Then we can decide what corrective measures we must take in our representation. (not a call for cannibalism).

Demand that the State warn the Church that intrusion into State matters will trigger a suit to remove tax-exempt status, bringing all the resources of the State to bear. Demand that the State give us back our constitutional rights, which NEVER should have been allowed to be decided with a popular vote.

Over the past 20+ years, we have seen an increased number of instances where the line between Church and State has been blurred - all over this country. This has been a tremendous failure of the State to protect "we the people." It is time for a vigorous and certain change in that regard.

Let the Churches decide whether they want to bestow religious recognition upon their congregants that are legally married by the State. Meanwhile, demand that the State return our civil rights back to us. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER ANYONE'S GOD WANTS TO RECOGNIZE OUR UNIONS, State recognition of our marriages is a civil right.

And, as an aside, I'm sure that if there is a GOD, She loves us all and recognizes our unions.

[Citizen-Jane]

Religion do not own the definition of marriage. Religion did not invent marriage. The definition of marriage has change through out history. In the middle ages for instance, many pesants were not married by the church. The couples had a commitment that was recognized by their communities.

I am disappointed with the passing of prop 8, but I feel that this issue will be overcome in the near future. Hopefully the courts in California will not pass the buck again.

Also there is something luney about this issue being decided from state to state. The idea that you can be legally married in one state and cross a state line and it is null and void.??

LarBear you said it. Civil rights for ALL USA CITIZENS.

[Makeadiff1]

"CALL in GAY" DAY - December 10, 2008

What's next on the protest agenda, you ask?

It is CRUCIAL we keep the pressure on those who should and will be held accountable for violating the constitutional rights of GLBTIQ persons in CA, AZ, FL and AR.

Next up is a "Call in Gay Day"...aka "A Day Without Gay"

All GLBTIQ's and their friends, families and supporters are urged to stay home or refrain from work on December 10, 2008, a day which coincides with International Human Rights day. Don't buy anything, rent anything, sell anything on Dec. 10, 2008. The impact to this country's economy will be massive and it WILL make all those who are apathetic or disconnected from what is going on to America's GLBTIQs will have no choice but to notice. This is classic MLK and Gandhi strategy of hitting the oppressors where it hurts most: their pockets.

Facebook has a group all set up and ready for you to join! Spread the word!

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38177567454

Also VISIT http://daywithoutagay.org/

[realityczech4u]

I see the alphabet soup has a new ingredient. What is an "I" person?

[700rpm]

The Mormon church said, "People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal." And people opposed to religious meddling in private lives have a right to boycott businesses that actively support that meddling.

Boycott Utah and all Mormon-owned businesses, starting with WordPerfect, which made Alan Ashton rich and allowed him to donate $1 million to the Yes campaign. Lists of such businesses are readily available with a Google search. Educate yourself and act with conviction.

Oh, and by the way, to paraphrase the Yes campaign, we are not anti-Mormon, were are pro-separation of church and state.

[NeoStar9]

Then you should be going to the government, the IRS, etc in order to take away their tax exemption status. Making as much noise as possible while backing it up with examples and facts. Going after these businesses actually harms those that work there that could very well be supporting you and/or voted against Prop 8. The actual owners are in no way going to be as hurt, not even close. This whole boycott needs to be rethought and people need to look at who is actually going to be hurt by it.

I am really concerned by the actions of the "No on Prop 8" side of things here. There is so much going on and not all of it is well thought out. To many of the wrong people are going to be and are getting hit in this push back. That in the long run will not help any cause and could very well drive people to the other side because from their point of view they've done nothing wrong but are the ones being attacked and punished.

[700rpm]

These are fair points, and those tactic should be part of the plan. But I do not wholly agree.

Push back worked in Boston in 1774; in Washington, DC, in 1812; in Texas in 1848; in Europe in 1918; in the South Pacific and Europe again in 1942; against McCarthy in 1954; against racism in Selma in 1965; against exploitation of farm workers in 1966; against the Vietnam War in 1968. Push back works. If we hadn't made our original push back we might now be petitioning Queen Elizabeth II for redress of grievances.

If you don't push back against injustice, you get subjugated, minimized, bullied, victimized, trampled. Yes on 8 pushed first. So I say: Push back, with everything you've got.

[jerryfromcalifornia]

I agree, Where do I get a list of Morman Business?????????????

[jerryfromcalifornia]

Who are they?

[JUSTME]

This is not a setback. It is an opportunity and SHOULD BE all the freaking motivation any progressive-minded American needs to go after the tax-exempt status of these churches and religious right dickweeds who are forever trying to meddle in our society.

This has to be an aggressive, two-fronted war. One is to change the cultural perception that says it's OK to deny gay and lesbian people their civil rights. Two is the full-scale legal and political assault on any church or religious institution that takes a political means to accomplish religious or doctrinal goals.

It has to be a take-no-prisoners approach because this s**t has gone on long enough and I, for one, am absolutely done with it.

[cstanley]

Ban Gay Marriage? NO Ban the religious Right? YES
These people are radical, bigoted crazies.
What happened to separation of church and state?
On a side note, let's balance the federal budget - tax all religious organizations. They are loaded and engage in political action. No more tax free anything for hate-filled religion!

[walk0nwalls]

That's a whole seperate can of worms though it requires that religious organizations be federally tabulated and the creation of a whole new tax code for religious entities which calls into question so many other things

[NWBrunette]

Separation of church and state, at least as it regards this issue, has to do with the churches being prohibited from promoting, endorsing or campaigning for candidates. Issues are just fine. Google it if in doubt. It's always helpful to have the facts at hand.

[hoopesaz]

"And I think their whole fundamental argument that if this were voted down this would somehow force religious institutions to do something they didn't believe in. Of course we know that is false"

We do not know that this is false. Unlikely, maybe. Impossible, no. Fighting misinformation with misinformation doesn't seem like a great approach. Any legislation to provide gays equal rights needs to address this issue head on. If they do, the 20% undecided spoken of in this argument turn easily to support the gay community.

[mick7191]

Time to pull that tax exempt status.

[NWBrunette]

Oh pooh. If we can't beat a batch of religious loonies with magic underpants and several million bucks then shame on us. We've got way more money and way more passion if we'd just care to organize. The only reason you want to revoke their status is because you lost. Get over it and fight back.

[realityczech4u]

I agree. When they didn't get their way in court against a bunch of kids, they resorted to the financial blackmail routine. It has dinged the Boy Scouts, but the overall impact was little more than a f art in a windstorm. The BSA is still going strong.

[zest]

Marriage is a civil action. Divorce is a civil action. Church has nothing to do with it. If you god cares who marries who then you follow your gods rules. My god doesn't care.