Gay marriage

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia

Currently, only MA and CT legalize gay marriage, but many other states offer same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships that cover most of what marriage is in the legal definition. After 18,000 gay marriages performed in CA this year, its status is now uncertain (but it will be argued in the courts for years). I guess after the slim passing of CA's Prop 8, gay rights groups are wondering WTF happened and if they are still living in "liberal CA" (just last week it looked like the prop would fail 44-49, but it passed 52-48). And in Florida (Miami has another large gay community), a similar measure passed by a whopping 62-38. In 2004, 11 states passed bans (some going further, banning any sort of same-sex legal union, not just marriage), even blue states like MI and OR. Arizona, not the most gay-friendly state, rejected a constitutional ban on gay marriage just 2 years ago, but this week changed its mind and passed one. Actually, AZ is the only state on record to have ever rejected a gay marriage ban by vote, so such initiatives have at least a 93% success rate in recent history.

I guess with a potentially larger black voter turnout for Obama (this has been debated in the press), it might have been tougher for gay marriage to pass, since blacks are the most anti-gay-rights voting group in America, and 70% voted pro-8. Obama, the most popular and visible politician in years, didn't really address gay rights in his campaign (maybe fearful of the backlash Kerry incurred, and opposed to gay marriage from his religious beliefs), which was dissapointing to gays. Confusingly, he has publicly opposed both gay marriage and Prop. 8. Maybe he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but doesn't think that constitutional amendments are the proper way of addressing the issue? Gov. Arnold also opposed it, while McCain supported it.

Maybe a lot of the "silent majority" living in rural or suburban areas, who may have been overlooked or avoided participating in the polls, also favored bans. Well, their loss in CA can't be chalked up to money, since the "No on 8" side spent almost double what the pro side did ($44M to $25M). It was the most expensive campaign ever for a social issue. While the "No on 8" side got huge donations from Hollywood and other gay/liberal elites, the "Yes" side was funded by religious groups and families concerned (justifiably or not) that legalized gay marriage would erode the traditional family model and confuse their children. Some also consider it an abomination. The Sacramento Bee reported on a blue-collar Mormon family in CA that gave its entire savings ($50,000, and amidst a bad economy) to the "Yes on 8" campaign, after much agonizing and prayer. That is half the amount that rich Brad Pitt gave to the other side. The Mormon and Catholic churches, as well as Dr. James Dobson's "Focus on the Family", were large donors too, and many Christian preachers discussed it in their sermons (either for or against).

Legally, pro-gay groups are challenging if it's fair to have popular votes decide whether to amend state constitutions to block a minority group from having various benefits/rights such as marriage. Because obviously a minority group doesn't have the numbers to represent itself in a vote. A positive facet of American democracy is protection of minority rights, but not at the expense of the majority's "greater good" of course. It's a tough balance that we have and will struggle with for decades, but it's much better than Saudi Arabia or Russia. The CA constitution and others prohibit any sort of discrimination based identity characteristics, so is this discrimination? I'm not going to debate whether marriage is a right, a religious institution, or whatever, but obviously it's a sensitive, divisive, and challenging issue.

Some gays feel especially persecuted in America, and think that they are much less accepted than other minority groups (even illegal immigrants). I find that bizarre and maybe inaccurate, since the majority of hate crimes reported by the FBI are still against blacks and Jews (only 15% against gays). Obviously some discrimination does occur, but are they victims any more than other groups? There have been some very high-profile sucides and murders involving gays which may affect perceptions. But there are also several gay mayors and other politicians starting with Harvey Milk in the 1970s (unfortunately assassinated), and most recently the first gay man elected to Congress. Gays have been successful in the entertainment industry (as well as most other industries besides sport and military), and gay media is everywhere and similarly prevalent versus women's, black, or Latino media. There is no obvious education gap with gays (no stats on this, just my feeling), and a smaller income disparity between gays and straights (12% less, according to a recent study in Canada), versus whites and blacks (40% less) and men and women (20% less). We're not the most tolerant society, but we are very gay-friendly compared to other nations. Of course this varies by state and community. Religion obviously confounds the situation, since many faiths oppose homosexuality to various degrees (since it's generally viewed as a sin), while others have gone out of their way to be accepting, even at their own peril. This has caused a major rift in the American Episcopal Church (that allows gay preachers and elected a gay bishop). Some members have threatened to leave the church and join the International Anglican Communion instead (who prohibit gay preachers and marriages).

What also makes the matter more politically complex and high-stakes in America is the vast amounts of cash infused by a new elite gay lobby (see link below). I guess they recognize that money = power in politics, and they can't go about their struggle in the old grassroots ways that MLK and Cesar Chavez did (marches, sit-ins, etc.). Or maybe money achieves results more expediently than those other methods? I guess it worked for the Right, so why not? They've injected millions into gay groups and political races across the nation, namely in NY where they hope to expand Dem representation in their legislature to legalize gay marriage.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1854884,00.html

From Time:
The Cabinet [a small, secretive, wealthy group of pro-gay advocates and political donors] is emblematic of a larger shift on the left since 2004 in the direction of big-money politics, a shift most clearly seen in Barack Obama's refusal of public financing for his campaign. The Cabinet is only one of several flush, members-only liberal groups that have formed since 2004, the most famous (and richest) being the Democracy Alliance, whose sponsors include billionaires George Soros, Peter Lewis (father of Cabinet member Jonathan) and Pat Stryker (sister of Cabinet member Jon).

That raises questions: What does a civil rights movement look like in an era of massive wealth? Can you still inspire a grass-roots movement when all the street troops know that the billionaires can just write bigger checks? And is it possible that the left has become a movement as coldly obsessed with money as it always assumed the right was?

But I am not sure if this "big money shadow movement" is the best way to gain more gay acceptance in the US. I think it may make some average people more suspicious and hostile to them, even if it does get more pro-gay people elected. Like some perceptions of Jews, I don't think it benefits gays if some believe that gay puppet masters are pulling the strings of their leaders to advance a "gay agenda". People will be less likely to accept gays if they feel that gays only care about their own community needs. If you only care about yourself and your kind, you may find that no one else will either. If gays want non-gays to treat them better and give them more equality, I think they have to be sensitive and considerate of non-gay sensibilities too, and many are - if not for decency then for survival. I know it's frustrating that gays may have to placate and bend over backwards to accommodate non-gays, but that is the curse of minority status. Plus the alternative is much worse. Instead of just proclaiming that gay marriage is their right and no one should stop them, they could demonstrate to others that gay marriage really isn't a threat to non-gay values, live and let live, etc. Then everyone gets what they want, right? It shouldn't be about "I can do this because it's legal, so too bad for you", because obviously people can change the laws to stop you. So why not send the lawyers home and instead focus on a social movement for coexistence and understanding? It won't be easy, but it's better than our current standoff. After the results in 2004 and this year, I just hope it's not too late for both sides to work together.

It's easier to make friends of enemies than fight enemies (not that gays and straights are enemies, but just as a metaphor). Sometimes you have to fight for your rights, and fight to the death, but hopefully things haven't gotten that desperate for gays. You can fight injustice by sitting down and talking too, and sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot. Obama succeeded where the "angry black man" failed, and I think the same has to be done in the gay community. Defiance and militant pride may accomplish some goals, but also do harm. You have to reach out, and empathy for others breeds empathy for oneself. I am not sure if gay advocacy groups are doing that with their opponents, or just preaching to the choir. The sobering result in CA should make them rethink their approach. I think minorities have success and get more of what they want when they attempt to integrate with the mainstream and merge their interests, while hopefully not losing their heritage and unique identity in the process. So then, it's not "us-versus-them", but "what's good for you is good for me too". This applies to illegal immigration, La Raza, and whatnot.

Like that famous anti-gay marriage commercial in CA where SF Mayor Gavin Newsome said, "[Gay marriage] is going to happen, whether you like it or not!" I think that turns off a lot of centrist or previously ambivalent people. Some people may not like gay marriage at first, but at least they are willing to talk about it and may be open to change. But if you approach a sensitive issue so dominantly and egocentrically, it may harden your audience's hearts and make them less receptive to compromise/understanding. Then you just shot yourself in the foot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto