Four Lessons Gay Marriage Activists Must Learn From Obama

Barack Obama won a historic and overwhelming victory. It's too bad the proponents of gay marriage don't seem to have learned much about how and why he won.

I am in total agreement with those who want gay marriage to be legal. They are right. Being right isn't enough.

In fact, many progressives have found an odd sort of contentment in being grumbling angry losers for years because they were so damn right. Now that Obama has lit the path for being both right and effective, it's time tor the conservatives to be the grumbling losers and time for progressives to chalk up victories on issues important to them by applying the lessons of this election.

1) Anger Loses
The protests and expressions of anger on the part of the GLBT community and their friends and family have been impressive. Thousands of people have taken to the street and their anger is justified. I don't think it's smart, however. I see no evidence at all that it's going to help advance the cause of gay rights.

If anger won elections, John McCain and Sarah Palin would now be the king and queen of America. McCain was practically bursting blood vessels in the last few speeches of the election and he lost in a landslide. Anger turned off the independents at the same time it fired up the base.

Just because anger is justified doesn't mean it's wise. That's where discipline comes in. As Obama said repeatedly, "Don't boo - vote." In other words, channel your emotions into something more productive then the easy road of making loud noises.

WWOD? The McCain campaign threw a fresh pack of lies at Obama every chance they got. The number of death threats towards him increased as the angry McCain campaign cranked up the rhetoric. If anyone was justified in their anger, it would have been Barack Obama. He could have struck back in anger and fired up the Democratic base to take to the streets to protest racism and lies.

Obama could have gotten angry.. He didn't. He won. We all won.

2) Get Organized
The No On 8 people have shown they can get big numbers out to a rally. So why couldn't they run an effective ad campaign, send out a clear message or win the election?

The Yes on 8 crowd had the advantage of a built in organizing system in the churches. It's the same organizational structure that explains why Fireproof, a Christian themed, ultra low budget movie with Kirk Cameron as the lead has grossed more than Oliver Stone's 'W'. Churches are good at getting groups of people to do things en masse. That's not a bad thing; it sure helps when they do charity work.

And the ability to organize people isn't a left / right thing; black churches helped Obama. There's a similar secular power with unions or groups like the National Rifle Association. None of it was harnessed by the people in favor of gay marriage to any significant degree.

Without that structural advantage, the pro gay marriage crowd needed to work harder and not be self satisfied. The forces that defeated gay marriage in California did what Obama did; they organized a diverse group of voters and got them out to the polls.

3) Outreach Works
Barack Obama showed that reaching beyond the base can yield big results. I haven't seen much evidence that the people who support gay marriage did much more than reach out to the people who already support gay marriage. In fact, rallies that have protesters yelling 'Mormon scum!' are negative outreach.

What if the gay community reached out to the black, Latino and Mormon communities that voted against gay marriage? What if instead of merely chalking up opposition to 'fear and hate' they went in churches and communities and started engaging in conversations? Would they meet with resistance? Of course. Would they see fear and hate? Absolutely. Changing a lifetime of thoughts and feelings isn't easy but the election showed us change does happen.

But African Americans, Latinos and Mormons all know firsthand the pain and frustration of discrimination. They have all seen their share of fear and hate. They know the value of marriage and family. The way to expose the things they have in common with their gay brothers and sisters is through dialog, not demonstration.

It may seem like an unlikely alliance but it's just as unlikely as getting a white working class guy to vote for a President whose middle name is Hussein.

4) Pick Your Battles
The Obama campaign showed a lot of discipline in picking which battles to fight and which to avoid. Here's a good rule; pick battles you can win.

The current tactic of trying to fight church tax exceptions is a dead on arrival loser of a battle. It's not going to happen.

Tax free churches have a long precedent in our society. It's a fight that will result in a direct battle with every religious organization in America, not just the ones opposed to gay marriage. Further, selectively going after the Mormon or Catholic church is a slippery slope. Trying to take away the tax exempt status of churches you don't like only makes it easier to take away that status for churches with inclusive agendas, like the Unitarian Universalists. Even that doesn't matter, however, since it won't happen.

Some people don't like the idea of picking battles because they want their entire agenda enacted right now. Well, wisdom says that 'perfect' is the enemy of 'good'. Incremental steps require patience but they work.

I believe that the enactment of Proposition 8 is a delay of the inevitable as our county moves towards a more perfect union. If my comrades will take a moment and learn the lessons of this last election, I hope that delay will be short.

Lee Stranahan is a writer and filmmaker who also blogs about politics at BobCesca.com which may sound like a contradiction but it's not but it is.

Comments

[lovethesinner]

Really excellent points. Thanks.

[noamjunior]

all good points- but overlooks the fact that prop H8 was a well financed lie machine with lots of workers paid to convince people to deny civil rights to homosexuals.

[frenchrn]

I look forward to the day when Americans wake up and realize they do not have to cling to their bibles and the questionable stories contained in it. And also realize that they will not be "unholy" in the eyes of our "Maker" if they stop taking religion so seriously. Our society is civilized and we have laws to protect us. Society will not crumble as religious groups would like us all to believe, should we break free of religions grip. Most Western European Countries have done just that and they are just fine, it probably has promoted more peace. Everyone should see the movie "Religulous". It won't cause you any harm. Did everyone read the book The Da vinci code? Americans should open their minds and stop living by rules that were established some 6000 years ago by regular people like us.How many laws have we had to take off the books because they were not only unfair but outright shameful. I believe we will always be adjusting our laws as our country continues to grow and change, it only makes sense. Change is in the air. I believe our younger generation will realize this. And religion well no longer be practiced by the majority, it will become a practice available for those who feel they need it. It will lose its power to divide, just as racism finally lost the power it had over the American people. Peace to all.

[staticnoise]

I note someone suggested civil partnerships. The fact of the matters those who will not accept same gender marriages are apposed to civil partnerships as well. Civil partnerships still may rob same gender partners of the things they have paid for, that heterosexual marriage partners receive. Civil partnerships can't pass the separate, but equal smell test.

[SNLiberty]

Civial Partnerships in the UK and most Westerns European countries do pass the smell test. Totally equal, different name. I think we should pick our fights - and civil partnership is an easier battle to win.

[Mrsuu2nd]

You don't have to be gay to believe that everyone has the right to chose their partner. I chose marriage to be between a man and a woman, but I don't believe that I have the right to impose my view on anyone else. Next thing is someone is going to tell me if I can have a pet, or children, or a car and what color it has to be. Nope. I think me and my GOD will talk about my life decisions and let others work out their life decisions with their GOD. How many of the those that are judgeing could stand for their own life to be judged? Not many if any.

[jmundstuk]

The No on 8 campaign was terrible until the last couple of weeks; let's face it. Gay community in CA was complacent. This issue doesn't have traction anymore, we thought. The Yes campaign was aimed at the gut ur-fears of child recruitment and used blood libel like those used against blacks and Jews. As Andrew Sullivan persuasively argued, the hide-the-gay approach doesn't work and nor does ignoring those on the other side.

In addition, liberal political leaders among heavily voting Yes groups did not step up, even a little, even when the political risk was minimal to none. Where was Barbara Lee, for instance? I'd like folks to give her a jingle and challenge her for an explanation, given her touting of her LGBT positions on her website.

[jwest150]

Let's face it. We lost because we didn't have an adequate response to the last push fear ads the proponents put out when they were clearly so far down in the polls. They were losing so badly so they rolled out the dirt. Obama won without for the most part having to drag out the dirt. Dirty political tactics can only be used so much before people wake up. Over 70% of the younger vote voted against this measure. This older generation is going away and with it will go their last gasps of bigotry.

[jwest150]

I think you got the whole anger thing wrong my friend. I've been to the rally's, not protests, and people have been doing just that, rallying, not protesting. The mood around the rallies have been very festive. People are coming together at these rallies to share their feelings of loss, but also rekindle their hope. The most hateful angry thing I have heard written on signs or heard uttered in word is people disapproval of the hate that is being slung at them.

The proponents of this prop have held rallies and they are angry hateful things with such vile things to say about their fellow man. I have seen none of that at any of these rallies. Disapproval of anger and hatred is not being angry or hateful yourself.

[Rawkcuf]

Love the self righteous person, hate their self-righteousness.

[democratUSA]

Military brought Don't Ask Don't Tell. Employment Non-Discrimation Act? No where. Domestic partner benefits? sporatic. Marriage? defeated.
There could at least have been employment non-discrmination and maybe even civil unions but no- didn't fight the battles that could have been won and went for the gold and now , nothing. What do you say now to those who can't be on their partners health insurance? Who are fired from their jobs legally? Picking our battles could have been a reality in somebody's life but it isn't, is it? Left with life changing, realistic opportunities along the road that only lead to a all or nothing dead end.

[faithlikewater]

Mr. Stranahan makes good points. But anger by itself is neutral and can be constructive when it causes one to take strong action against injustice. Also, as others have noted, Obama's victory came on the heels of plenty of angry protests--some peaceful some not-- that ultimately moved us to toward this day.

I am straight, African American, and have been a committed practicing Buddhist for over 20 years . I do not find it acceptable in this day and age that LGBTQ people are discriminated against. It's simply wrong and against the principles of the U.S. constitution which essentially declare the equality of all people. If we restrain justified anger and fail to employ it constructively change will never come.

[frenchrn]

Well said. Maybe if more Americans practiced Buddhism instead of the current religions, they to will stop their discriminating ways. Peace to All.

[SNLiberty]

Why not fight for civil union/partnership rather than 'marriage'? We have that in most places in Western Europe and it is fully equal to marriage in all aspects. In the UK the only difference is that we cannot sue for divorce on grounds of adultery! So you can have a Civil Partnership if you are gay or a Civil Wedding if you are straight. The difference is semantic.
It's no big surprise that you can't have a gay wedding in a church, synagogue, mosque or temple. I can't understand people's surprise at that after centuries of persecution and rejection by these institutions. If you are really wiling to hang your believe system on some mutated prehistoric codes, then don't be surprsed when it turns round and bites you on the ass!

[kfields108]

We're fighting for (civil) marriage because civil unions are essentially "separate but equal" which we all know is inherently unequal. It's bigger than semantics here. I wouldn't want to be denied the social recognition of my family by having to use some euphemism like "partner" because you won't let me call someone of the same sex my wife, thus making my union something "less than". Also there is no guarantee that civil unions will confer all the rights that marriage gives to heterosexual couples. Its not about trying to build some cookie cutter life mimicking heterosexual norms just with two people of the same sex. We just want our rights and to have our families protected equally under the law. No one is asking to get married in anyone's church here, especially when they make it known we aren't welcome.

I personally feel that we should do away with the legal contract being called marriage altogether (seeing as the semantics call up the issue of "sanctity" which has no place in this argument seeing as there is a separation between church and state) and call ALL unions protected by law civil unions. If you want to have a marriage in a church, fine, but it has no legal recognition until you get the papers signed. Also, marriages should be harder to get into and easier to get out of so that people would take them seriously. A marriage license should have to be renewed like any other license.

[SNLiberty]

Ah ok - I am writing this from a different perspective - from the UK where civil partnership is equal to marriage. Every bit of legislation has been gone through and altered to accomodate civil partnership. We have the same rights on inheritance, pensions, immigration (he's a US Bush refugee!) etc. Even some law from the 1700's to do with the inheritance of abbatoirs has been updated.
I call my husband my 'husband' as that is what he is.
Am I right that even a gay marriage in California would be unequal to a straight marriage eg when it comes to immigration, since that is at a federal level, non US citizens wouldn't be able to marry their US partners and live with them in California?

[ruscle]

Civil Unions weaken marriage. Civil unions would give both straight and gay partners an option to form a union outside of marriage. Since marriage is already a state sponsored institution (you don't get your marriage license from your church, you get it from the state) this creates a SECOND state sponsored institution. Once you create a second option, the first option becomes weaker. Why get married when you can get Unioned and X (whatever difference there is in this separate but equal setup) becomes a selling point.
If churches REALLY were interested in strengthening Marriage, as they claim, they would be insisting that everyone have the option (and the only option) to get married. The more couples who aspire and honor "marriage" the stronger marriage becomes as an institution throughout the entire population.

[Ronardo805]

For a fuller understanding of why it is that civil unions or domestic partnerships are separate and not equal, and consequently not acceptable to many gay and lesbian folks, take a look at the ruling of the California Supreme Court on the Marriage cases last May. They lay it out in fine detail.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
(especially pp. 36-47 and pp. 80 to 84.)

[jwest150]

The Supreme Court has ruled that separate is not equal.

[jenniferlt]

I do agree that a calm, reasonable, clever and calculated approach would serve political interests best. It is obvious better organization and campaigning is needed. And I do agree that reaching out to those who don't understand, being loving and patient and tolerant is important.

But please tell me how to look my 10 year old son in his eyes and explain when he catches the news and says in shock "you mean you and mom aren't really married?" Should I tell him he is expecting too much to expect to have his family validated?

No. We watched the peaceful protesters and I compared our struggle to that of his hero, MLK. I hope no one tells him that OUR civil rights aren't the same.

[Heru1]

I think that would be the least of his shock

[Smith808]

"Outreach to the churches?" Not yet. "A step too far." ...@ 48%, a step much closer than it appears you would like.
People are actually suggesting that we suspend equality until we help religion see the injustice of its ways? That hasn"t worked for thousands of years¦is California that much more enlightened? Right now, I"m just concerned about another 5% support, not a paradigm shift in religious dogma.
No one is going to be able to convince evangelicals of marriage equality if they curtail your reasoning with "sodomy, sin, and salvation." Save the outreach for later, when we stand on equal "legal" footing.

And don"t you DARE advocate neighborhood campaigning if you care one bit about our safety. We are STILL TARGETS of violence. I"ve already done campaigning in an old Irish Catholic neighborhood¦you have no idea how many households keep baseball bats by the front door " seriously.

[Lust4Lost]

the easy solution to this is to remove government from the marriage business. how many billions of our tax dollars are spent yearly as we willingly allow the government into our homes and bedrooms.

government sanctioned marriage of any kind (straight or gay) creates two classes of citizens, those married and those single.

this is an incredibly simple solution yet we are so rooted in tradition and incapable of thinking outside the box we end up digging deeper holes on a constant basis

[LaFlow]

Exactly! Government shouldn't be in the marriage business, period!

[KelleyP]

Wasn't that a plot in The West Wing? I like the idea. The government should only recognize civil unions whether same-sex or two-sex. If religous groups want "marriage", they can have it.

I am a 50 year old woman happily married to a man I started dating in 1978, and I believe our relationship will survive other's non-traditional unions and doesn't need any protection from religous groups. Our union has been civil for decades.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I think it is the next logical step in the civil rights campaign.

[IreneSimmons]

Kelly - I think we all have a dog in this fight. In 1979 I sat in a congregation and listened with growing horror to a youth pastor give a speech in which he outlined a strategy whereby Christians could take over the US government. It was a simple but effective strategy that exploited voter apathy, after nearly 30 years the Christian Right has successfully blurred the line that divides Church and State. The religious right has gained elite access to the White House, the Bush administration has been doling out tax dollars with exemptions that allow discrimination, political campaigns are blatantly run out of churches yet still enjoy tax-exempt status. The US press makes a show of badgering our political leaders with questions about deeply personal topics and they are not allowed the common courtesy to reply "none of your business," or all hell breaks loose. We've seen throughout history and even currently how devastating theocratic rule is to a civil, progressive society. With Prop 8, the religious right singled out a group of citizens and through the tyranny of the majority, stripped them of a basic human right. I believe we all have a dog in this fight because I know that this is not the end, fueled by each and every success, the intolerant won't stop until they have everyone living under their biblical jurisdiction.
PS Congratulations are in order, decades of civility is somethng to celebrate!`

[jmundstuk]

Yes. That is the smart way to go, definitely. Put another way, separate civil/secular and "sacred" unions. Let the churches do what they want about sanctifying unions.