The Power of Fear and the Obligation to Hope
I was not expecting the news to look like that this morning!
Yes, it was not surprising to learn that New Jersey and Virginia both elected Republican Governors - though it is deeply saddening. But I could not have predicted a loss in the tiny, liberal, free state of Maine.
Yesterday, I posted a story talking about fundraising in LGBT causes and how central the money raised was to a successful push for LGBT rights. Maine, the state we have all been watching closely for months, had a strong pro-rights group with a significant fundraising lead over the opposition. I was sure, sure, that the dollars would translate into successful votes on an issue where spin is so central to individual political affiliations.
But, the morning after, many are saying that the same old arguments -- they'll teach your kids to be gay in schools, children will no longer have mothers and fathers, marriage will be meaningless for everyone -- resonated with the public. At this point, I have to agree. There is something about the fear tactic that works.
Perhaps because fear tactics have always worked. When working to promote rights at the ballot box, we are asking people to accept an unknown, to extend benefits and to do so with no concrete benefit to themselves. They are being told that this extension of rights will have concrete negative effects on their quality of life and quality of life for their children. Many don't want to take the risk.
Identifying the fear is important.
Things that people are afraid of take a long time to happen. But they most often do. Over time, the barriers break down, the arguments for the other side lose their cache, and people start to feel like they were just ridiculous for ever believing that a silly thing like marriage could affect their lives at all.
We will get there. Slowly, but surely. And this morning, I recognize just how difficult that optimism is to hold onto.
Follow Emma Ruby-Sachs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/EmmaRubySachs
Johann Hari: Why Is Anti-Gay Violence Soaring in Britain?
In the past few years, gay people have finally begun to exercise the same rights as their straight siblings, yet there has been a sharp surge in violence against us.
Paul Hogarth: Maine Question 1: We're Working too Hard to Lose ...
It's inspiring to see the passion as we sense this election's national implications for marriage equality. And we're still asking folks to make spur-of-the-moment plans to drive up to Maine.
Paul Hogarth: Why I'm Optimistic About Maine
I truly believe that Maine will become the first state in the nation to successfully defend marriage equality at the ballot box, providing a road map for California to repeal Proposition 8.
Mike Alvear: What Thomas Jefferson Would Think of Maine Voting on Other People's Rights
There is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them. Sometimes I wonder how the framers...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You missed the point. The real issue isn't winning people over or not. The real issue is: When did it become acceptable in America to put a minority group's fundamental civil rights on a ballot for an up/down vote? In America, fundamental civil rights are supposed to be inalienable - that means that they cannot be taken away from a whole swath of the population - a bare majority should not be able to band together and vote away the rights of minority groups they don't like. To even think of doing that is un-American and an affront to the Founding Fathers - who specifically wrote the Constitution to protect minority groups from the whims and tyranny of the majority.
What we need is a constitutional amendment. Hopefully, Obama's presidency will continue along the lines it has been going, and he will be a one-termer. Then we can get this important business done.
At the federal level, we only need DOMA repealed.
Support Respect for Marriage Act - H.R.3567
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/13530.htm
Beyond that, the constitution provides for sufficient protection.
The states control civil marriage.
I was talking about an amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one women. In other words, make explicit what has been implicit since the country was founded.
That amendment would contradict the 1st and 14th Amendments which prohibit theocratic laws and hierarchical citizenship.
Either government STOPS allowing votes on constitutionally-guaranteed rights, or Queers will need to continue to publicly acknowledge those institutions and individuals who are hurting our families - each and every time. Shame them publicly. Let them know that despite the fact that they are ALLOWED TO bring emotional suffering to our families and steal our pensions at the ballot box, that doesn't mean that they SHOULD do it. IT IS EVIL - IT IS WRONG.
What?...you don't think this is PERSONAL?
Ask these folks how PERSONAL it was to be denied rights;
http://gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2009/02/cruel-suffering-due-to-marriage.html
Ask their children.
You're confused about what is evil. Homosexuality is evil, according to God. Homosexuals have no right to marry anyone of the same sex. If you want to marry, find a woman who will marry you.
Homosexuality is evil only according to your VIEW of God. There are a number of Christian denominations which believe otherwise- United Church of Christ and Episcopals are two of them. Bet you can't find anywhere where Jesus condemns homosexuality yet you claim to follow him.
Your assertion about G-d is 1) incorrect and 2) irrelevant in a secular state.
Freedom of religion must necessarily include freedom FROM religion.
Loving establishes marrying an adult of your choice is a basic human right.
I refer to civil marriage, nothing whatever to do with religion.
Shame them? As you can see from narrowway (aptly named) these people have no shame.
Yes, they are shamelessly hateful, ignorant and intolerance. Just who you want determining your civil rights!
Good link. We have to continue in Washington to get the names of the petitions signers as is our right under the Public Records Act and publish them all to shame them publicly.
I think they are actually shameless, but we can turn our backs on them as they have turned their backs on us.
Reveal the names!
I have some colleagues that think mob rule is okay, women's rights can be voted away, and also they usually rant about how they can't stand Latinos, Italians, the Irish...
I've found the most effective argument to be:
"When you start voting away the rights of others, yours could easily be next."
I follow up by saying "You know all those people you are always complaining about? They're Catholic. Their clergy is telling them not to use birth control. What if they out reproduce you? What if they become the majority? Should they be able to vote away your rights to protestant beliefs and practices? What if they decide you should not be able to get a divorce unless it is first approved by the Catholic Church? " They usually say "No. Well maybe the majority should not vote on these things."
I don't like that they basically "get it" because they are bigots, but they get it. And it shows that even bigots can get it, when you make it about them.
First of all Maine is a very conservative state. That you should be surprised that Gay marriage was not approved does not make sense. Let's face it, if you can't even win over California how do you expect to win over a place like Maine! It is time to go back to the drawing board and design a different strategy. The majority of Americans are not ready yet for this type of transition or changing the nature of the institution of marriage. I do believe the Supreme Court will state that Gays have the right to equal benefits etc. but they will not require states to require marriage in order to give those rights. It looks to me that Civil Unions with equal rights will become the norm. For the Supreme Court the problem that they will encounter is the fact that marriage by definition has always been historically between a man and a woman. In order for the court to allow the term marriage to be used it has to change the definition of marriage. This it cannot do legally. So it has to go back to Congress or the states for that. I think the only hope is for peoples hearts and minds to be changed by going door to door and talking to people about the issue so they can whip up the votes.
While the people of Maine have elected Republicans, they have bee moderate.
It is surprising that people have been brainwashed into believing the lies and dire predictions of the FRight Wing in California or Maine.
It is surprising that baseless propaganda passes for public discourse.
It is surprising that people who profess to be Christians can't displace a bit of Christian love and tolerance toward their brethren.
The majority of Americans do support equality and fairness, even for gays and lesbians.
There is no change to the nature of the institution of marriage, this is propaganda.
In countries with marriage equality, the nature of heterosexual marriage has not been changed at all. It won't in the US either.
There are many things that are not good in history and the bible and we don't continue them. I suppose you propose to continue slavery too because it is permitted by the bible and has a history?
The Supreme Court could simply find that gay marriage bans violate the 14th Amendment, equal protection, without redefining anything.
Yes, the personal touch can help.
Also we need to look at regulating the purely false propaganda campaigns, the abuse of tax exempt church funds against of segment of the population and to political ends, and the basic legality of voting away people's rights.
Denying "same-sex marriage" is not mistreating anyone. No one has the right to marry somone of the same sex. You people are confused about what your rights are.
“Rights aren't given to those who wait, they're won by those who agitate.” ~Andrew Young
Hopefully we can find some millions some where to put initiatives on the ballot to eliminate civil marriage for all and replace it with civil union for all or domestic partnership for all.
Also should include initiatives that preclude the clergy from acting on behalf of the state in this matter.
Once civil marriage is renamed, and the clergy are taken out of it all together, then moving toward marriage equality should be easier.
Time to start putting referendums on the ballot to tax the Mormon and Catholic churches behind this hate campaign and reverse any state level tax exemptions they enjoy today.
Excellent idea.
If you think about, ballot initiatives and referendums cost the tax payers a lot of money. The people who dream them up, including out of state entities, should be taxed to help defray the unproductive costs they bring to the state.
The failure of President Obama to come out in open support of Gay Rights is interesting considering his position as the first African American President. Despite the racisim and violence-perhaps because of it-he came out and supported long over due civil/voting rights.
President Obama has no excuse not to support the rights of lesbians and gays to marry and be afforded the sames rights and dignity. His lack of action/voice as many of those in the African American is simply unaceptable.
didn;t he just sign the hate crimes bill?
isn't he working on repealing DADT?
lets give it some time folks and him a chance to govern!
it was change we can believe in, not change overnight!
He is not working toward the repeal of DADT.
He has been advocating for it from his first day in office. How? By firing troops.
Since he has had the power to not fire those troops and chose to do so, that's advocacy.
His administration continues to aggressively advocate for DADT in court, too.
He has had the ability to halt DADT from his first day in office, and the public was behind that. Even before he was elected, majorities of church-goers, conservatives, and even Republicans supported the ending of DADT. People are trying to make excuses with false arguments like his administration is required to "follow the law" and that it requires some great amount of research to figure out how to stop firing these troops. Even the Pentagon had a once-secret policy dating from 1998 to forcibly retain openly gay troops under stop loss, in defiance of their "unit cohesion" basis for DADT and the law they helped to force into place.
The White House also pressured Alcee Hastings to withdraw his amendment to stop funding DADT as well.
He has "come out" in favor of gay rights.
Many would say that deeds have not followed the words quickly enough. But this is measured progress.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/gays-and-lesbians/
I stated that LBJ, despite the violence, racism, and resistance-perhaps because of it-he came out in support of the voting rights act.
President Obama might take a look at how other Presidents conducted themselves on racism and discrimination.
while President Johnson was able to sign the Civil Rights act fairly quickly and was instrumental with pushing it through the Senate, he did benefit from JFK's efforts on Civil Rights. I believe that JFK was able to sucure passage in the house - half the battle was won.
The voting rights act was 1965 2 years into his presidency. Gee President Obama has been in office for 10 months and I think there has been some higher priority items on hos plate.
We're all upset today, but we have to keep working and fighting
LBJ while he did champion the Civil Rights bill through the senate, JFK had already lined up support in the house. Not to diminish LBJ's efforts but, again it takes time, and in that particular instance it took 100 years after President Lincoln Freed the slaves to get a cival rights bill.
Also it is difficult to compare LBJ's time to the situation our country is in now.
Gay Marriage is an important issue but there are higher priotity issues right now and there si progress being made.
strategically we need to focus on states - because that is where the fight is, one step at a time.
Rathe rthen complaining about what president Obama didn;t do how about what can be done to gain a few more precentage points at the net state elction. how to combat the the spinning of the gay marrieg issue into a gay sex education issue?
Like you, I don't buy the tired old "give him time" meme. And talking about support is not the same as supporting actively (a distinction some repliers here failed to make).
I wondered if his speaking out more forcefully about how deciding civil rights by popular vote is simply wrong-headed would have helped or hurt the Maine struggle. But I certainly felt that the huge vacuum from the White House must have had an impact. This is a man known for teachable moments, and I do not care how many measures he SIGNS (signing is easy), he could be "teaching" to a broader audience instead of repeating campaign promises at gay parties, dinners, and receptions. Without appearing to meddle in states' issues, he might have said something. . .anything to help. Most of all, if there had been a ballot initiative that infringed on the 14th Amendment rights of any other minority or of women, he wouldn't have hesitated. Better yet, if there had been a ballot initiative infringing on the rights of some right wing church, I am betting we would have heard something.
I would draw the line at asserting that the African American community has not been heard. That is simply not true. For example, listen to this forceful, clear, vocal, and brilliant speech and its introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZQEXTMM1g
“Rights aren't given to those who wait, they're won by those who agitate.” ~Andrew Young
[President Obama's] Promises about Gays and Lesbians on the Obameter
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/subjects/gays-and-lesbians/
How can we ever adress gender, class, and race, if we can not respect the right of lesbians and gays?
This whole "let's see who has suffered more and compared different people" issue has not worked in over 100 years.
Feminists tried it by trying to equate being female with being black. Also trying to argue who has had it worse. This has been a completely failure.
The same is true with Jesse Jackson's infamous "rainbow coalition". It pretty much was trying to get people of different minority groups (blacks, hispanics, Asians, etc) to view themselves all as the same in the same boat. This was also a complete failure.
I agree with SSM. But this tactic is doomed.
What?
It is about discrimination of one group of people and refusing them access to the same rights and privaledges as other groups of people.
It is pretty clear.
I think William is saying "if we can respect humans (who happen to be gay and lesbians), how can we hope to respect humans (of different class, race, ethnicity, gender...)? "
Or "If we can't respect humans, how can we hope to respect humans?"
Don't see segmenting in the comment.
As a conservative I find it inconsistent that one can be for less government intrusion (lower taxes and less social programs) and support anything that regulates the ability of two people to live their life as they please (of course without hurting others).
In addition given the marriage penalty, I am surprised it was not approved as a revenue raiser.
Thank you!
Your welcome
And this is the Hypocrisy of American conservatives. They says less government then want to insert government between two people who wish to make a civil contract with each other (which is essentially what civil marriage is, a contract).
They say "states rights" then oppose states rights when they come to the "wrong" conclusions such as marriage equality in Mass., medicinal marijuana or right to die. Particularly interfering with states when conservatives control federal government.
They say public health care will put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, but when women seek reproductive health care, the first thing they want to do is put a bureaucrat between the woman and her doctor.
It is time for you to abandon the conservatives. They aren't conserving anything good!
or people of a similar mindset should work hard to have their voice heard within their party.
While I am not a conservative I do agree with some conservative principles. While I lean towards the left, I don't agree with everthing on the (far) left.
Diversity is our strength!
Unfortunately you are talking more about republicans then true conservatives.
I could have written the same and inserted progressives and with minimal changing of words came to a similar conclusion about progressives
In every state where a ballot initiative has appeared regarding gay marriage, the anti-gay marriage side has won.
So the question is "if the word 'marriage' is blocking you from getting the civil rights you deserve and desire, isn't it time to pursue the rights and abandon the word?"
Would not a rose by any other name still smell as sweet? Are you so "wedded" to the word "marriage" that you cannot see another path to attain your goals? Would not some kind of civil ceremony acknowledged by the civil authorities in a state -- the same as the ceremonies performed at city hall or by judge or justice -- be a good starting place?
No one climbs Mt. Everest in one fell swoop. There are base camps and stages to reach the summit. Maybe it's time to establish some base camps. Maybe civil unions are the base camp before the summit.
Washington state's "Everything but [the word] Marriage" won yesterday at the ballot box, if you hadn't heard.
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?RaceTypeCode=M&JurisdictionTypeID=-2&ElectionID=32&ViewMode=Results
Civil unions for all! No civil marriages for anyone!
This works only if everyone abandons the word "marriage." Everyone.
Civil unions do not confer the same benefits--not by a long shot--as marriage. But if you mean that no one "marries" but everyone is eligible for a civil union that confers exactly the same benefits, regardless of orientation, then fine.
The thing about Everest is this, and the comparisons to other civil rights struggles that some find so odious--Everest has already been climbed. Not to the summit, but certainly past base camp. The base camps have long been established. Why ask a group to repeat the exercise? Other equal rights movements took on the Goliath of discrimination and sent him reeling. It does not seem reasonable to now turn to gay Americans and say "Your turn now; the stones are over there."
Gay Americans are simply not given the credibility of other minorities. If folks compare the current equal rights struggle to those of the past, it is simply a way of turning up the volume on the astonishing fact that there is still a group of Americans that the 14th Amendment does not cover.
First off... Maine is a HUGE state. Second, why is it the same yawn-worthy fear argument. Im for gay marraige but this whole, oh they used fear argument gets sooo old.
Agreed. I am for SSM. But most of the mainstream arguements and tactics on the pro SSM side are doomed for failure.
The whole movement needs to recheck itself.
How can an argument for simple equality not be enough in this country, founded on the very principle of freedom and equality for all? What else could be a more compelling reason than the most basic of fairness and decency? Do we need to come up with some tangible benefit for heterosexual society at large in order for this to finally pass? Really?!
Then what do you suggest?
How should the argument be framed?
Part II
So, if the issue of SSM is not a federal question, what is it? It's a States question. Each State, according to its own state constitution and laws is entiled to determine whether to legalize SSM or not. Maine's constitution allows the voters to reject a law passed by the state legislature. Therefore, the voters in that state DO have the right to decide what is a civil right and what is not, within the state of Maine.
No, it’s a moral question. Should the State regulate the Church.
Specifically, should the State force one Church to obey the laws
of another church. For every marriage is a Church marriage,
and every home is a Church home.
For in all 50 states a one-family parochial church school in a
home, this is recognized as a “church.”
I'm sorry, I don't see your point. I what way is the State of Maine regulating the Church? In what way is the State of Maine forcing church to obey the laws of another church?
Not a moral question.
This is about civil marriage, a contract between two adults recognized by the government.
Has nothing to do with church.
Only DOMA makes it a federal question. Typical conservatives who say "states' rights" then come up with federal obstructions.
Marriage is supposed to be regulated by the states. States are supposed to respect each other. The federal government is supposed to respect the states.
But states like Mass., brought lead conservatives to say "I don't want to respect state that I don't agree with." And downhill from there.
Other federal aspect of marriage include federal taxation and immigration.
I disagree that the voters of the state of Maine (or California) have the right to deprive their fellow citizens of civil rights. It is unconstitutional.
Support the Respect for Marriage Act H.R.3567:
http://www.hrc.org/laws_and_elections/13530.htm
It has been a federal question for 141 years:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
--the 14th Amendment
Part I
All these arguments that we post here on HuffPo, for or against SSM, aren't going to make any difference to the ultimate outcome. With one exception; the argument that eventually the older voters will die off and the younger ones will vote to legalize SSM. I think that's likely to happen but there are no guarantees. Many a young liberal has become a conservative when he or she grows older.
Those of you who claim that banning SSM violates the 14th amendment are certainly entitled to that opinion but, to date, no federal court has agreed with you, and ultimately, it's SCOTUS who decides that question. In 1972, the very same Berger Court that ruled, in Loving v. Virgina, that marriage is a basic civil right, dismissed Baker v. Nelson for 'want of a substantial federal question."
Baker had sued the state of Minnesota for denying him and his male partner a marriage license. By dismissing Baker in that manner, SCOTUS ruled that limiting marriage to one man and one woman did not violate the 14th amendment other any other part of the U.S. Constitution, or any federal law.
In Perry v. Scharzenegger, Ted Olson and David Boies are once again challenging that. It will probably take another year and a half before that case is brought before SCOTUS. Until then and unless the Roberts Court reverses that 1972 decision, banning SSM does not legally violate the U.S. Constitution. Morally, perhaps, but not legally.
Using the rulings of the State to establish t
he morality of the Church, surely you jest.
Abolish the immoral Marriage License Law
and State no longer rules over Church,
otherwise Church and State are one.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote. What I said was that while banning SSM might morally violate the 14th amendment, it does not legally do so. That morality, of which I speak, has nothing to do with any church. Morality is not soley the purvue of a church. We all decide what is moral and what is not, whether we are religous or not.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
