The state where I live has had a tumultuous relationship with marriage equality in the past few years. After a vigorous campaign on both sides of the issue (during which I worked on the pro-equality side), same-sex marriage was legalized by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. However, the state has a very open referendum law that allows for a “people’s veto” of unpopular legislation, and later the same year the law was repealed by popular vote, with roughly 55% favoring repeal.
That was three years ago, and after a successful campaign to put the issue back up for referendum it will be back on the ballot in November. This time the question will be whether or not to establish same-sex marriage in the state. Poll numbers have been encouraging, with 54% now saying they favor marriage equality. However, the polls looked more encouraging last time, too, so I’m very wary about getting too happy just now.
Anyhow, this is an issue of tremendous personal importance to me. The Better Half and I worked hard on the previous campaign, and opened our home to out-of-town workers who needed a place to say. We were both devastated by the defeat. In fact, when we saw how the area where we lived had voted (almost uniformly in favor of repeal), it was a major factor in our decision to move somewhere else in the state. We care a lot about this, and have signed up to start working again on the new campaign.
The other night we attended a meeting presented by one of the major organizations in the state working for LGBT equality. It was, in many ways, very encouraging. The Better Half and I were among the youngest people there, and there were probably twice as many 50+ people there as people in their thirties. All of them were straight, and many identified as Catholic and/or Republican. These are the people we need to be reaching out to friends and family and advocating for us, and it was wonderful to see them there.
In fact, the comments and actions that gave me pause came from my more obviously liberal confreres. First of all, there was way too much Republican-bashing. I can understand why several people decided to take pot-shots at Rick Santorum, who has made hating gays a central theme in his presidential campaign. But there were numerous off-the-cuff jokes directed against Republicans in general. As I said, there were several there, and they seemed to take it in stride, but they shouldn’t have to. We want to have Republicans supporting our campaign, and it serves no purpose to alienate them.
The other reservation I have is less clear-cut, and concerns a practice that the sponsoring organization apparently does at all its meetings. The leaders ask everyone to introduce themselves, and in their introduction indicate what kind of gender pronoun they prefer. I happen to think that’s a bad idea. I totally grok why they do it, and sincerely salute their dedication to being inclusive to the transgendered people who fall under the “LGBT” banner. But I think it’s off-putting to a roomful of people for whom gender identity is a non-issue, many of whom clearly didn’t understand the question. Asking an 81 year-old Catholic man to stipulate that he prefers to be called “he” creates a sense of “otherness” that I worry will be unhelpful. I doubt any of the people who would show up for a campaign meeting so early in the process are likely to be thrown off by it, but when more undecided people are approached by the question I can imagine it weirding them out.
This is probably my vestigial conservatism speaking, and it’s the same feeling I get when I see some of the freakier elements at gay pride parades. On the one hand, yes — I agree that people should be free to be themselves. Similarly, I agree that movements that support LGBT rights should be true to that mission, even if parts of it are a tougher sell than others. But on the other hand, some of the stuff that marches proudly down the street has me gaping in shock, and I’m ostensibly part of the club. It practically begs to be used in a Focus on the Family fund-raising video, and it’s hard to argue that it’s not representative of gay people when it’s right there in our parade. To an obviously much lesser degree (and with a much more laudable intent), I wonder if asking people who show up to support marriage equality about their preferred gender pronoun is a worrying sign that some elements of the campaign are out of touch with the people they’re hoping to rally and persuade.
Umm… yeah, there might be a bit of a problem, if the people don’t actually understand the question. Either it needs more explaining, or you need to set more of a “holler if we might be wrong” policy — which can still be open.
You know where else this drives me nuts? Animal rights. PETA – Instead of ridiculing people or doing stupid attention-getting stunts that persuade exactly zero people, they could be working with animal farmers to ensure humane practices and actually improve the lots of animals. Like these guys: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/10/146635596/how-two-bitter-adversaries-hatched-a-plan-to-change-the-egg-business?sc=fb&cc=fp
Similarly, I read a book once the premise of which was that the reason the ERA was defeated, despite the approval of a majority of Americans when pollsters actually read the text, was because supporters overstated what it would actually achieve if it passed. In reality, it wouldn’t change all that much, but the apparent radicality of the change put people off.
I’m just happy to see the word “pragmatism” in a post that someone else wrote.
But aren’t things like that (the pronouns; more outrageous behavior at pride events) about challenging privilege? If it was equally acceptable for a gay couple to walk down the street holding hands or engage in the same type of pubic displays of affections as straight couples, there would be less of a need to go so far above and beyond during the pride events. I always assumed some (not all) of the motivation for the more outrageous behavior was to say, “I have to hide myself in a way that you don’t 364 days a year… today I don’t and I’ll get my year’s worth in.” If same-sex couples engaging in PDA was generally accepted by society, my hunch would be that a vast majority of the more out there behavior would cease.
Likewise with the pronoun. Yes, you might throw off, confuse, or even offend an 81-year-old Catholic dude who doesn’t understand the question*. How much sympathy should we demand for him from folks who are routinely referred to with a gender pronoun they do not identify with?
* As Kimmi points out, there are probably preemptive steps that could be taken to avoid the confusion; people might still not like it, of course.
Another question one might point out is — what is the expected level of compliance? In our society, some level of “it’s okay, you’re OLD” is allowed, in terms of social norms compliance… (colored sounds an awful lot different from an 80 year old than from a 20 year old)
I agree with most of what you’re saying, which is why I can’t offer a full-throated condemnation of what goes on at the parades. I understand the impulses that drive the displays. (But oh, some of those displays. Yikes! [“My eyes! The goggles do nothing!”]) But taking a broader view of what the gay rights movement is meant to accomplish, I think those same displays come with a cost. If your goal is untrammeled free expression, then let that freak flag fly! But if your goal is normalization of the relationship with mainstream America and being accepted as just another flavor of folks, then it hurts that goal for people to go around [redacted because sometimes my mom reads this blog].
Similarly, do you want to say to the 81-year-old Catholic guy who’s there to support marriage equality, and who will be a much more effective advocate with his peers than a more queer-empowered campaign worker can hope to be, “Thanks for coming! Now sit there while we challenge your heterosexist gender norms!” I think that’s kind of a big ask, and may do more harm than good.
Understood. Hence the title of the post!
Disclaimer: I’m straight, cis gendered. I’m not particularly comfortable with some of the more extreme elements of Pride events. But I’m not particularly comfortable with more extreme displays of heterosexual affection in the public square. That’s just me though.
This is sort of the whole debate between Booker T. and WEB DeBois. I never knew quite how to rectify that one, nor do I know how to rectify this one. If those who fly the “freak flag” are comfortable losing some supporters, go for it. It is unfortunate that such a dilemma exists, but c’est la vie. But I think that decision should come from within the community (which you obviously are a member of) and discussions such as the one here would be much more productive within than without (Second disclaimer: I have no idea what percentage of your readers here identify as LGBTQ; it is very possible that this is more an insider space than I am aware of).
Disclaimer: I’m straight, cis gendered.
Dude, you have the lingo down cold.
I totally agree that this is a decision that the various elements of the LGBT community need to come to amongst themselves. I’m sure (or, at least, very hopeful) that these conversations happen over and over. And it’s a very vexed question to answer, one that I’m not sure is possible to get “right.”
I have no idea what proportion of my readership comprises LGBTQ people. I’m delighted to have anyone reading that I can get. It’s not my goal to position myself or this blog on one side of a group identity or another. This is just a place for me to natter on about things that are on my mind, and this topic happens to be right now.
“Dude, you have the lingo down cold.”
I’ve been ’round this block a time or two… 🙂
To your last point, I didn’t think or mean to imply that you are or ought to make this blog specific. I just wasn’t sure what the makeup was and whether the subsequent conversation would be a more internal or external one. If there was a group of LGBTQ people who wished to use this forum to have that conversation, I would have more than happy to step back and kibbitz.
I understand what you’re saying, BSK, but I think that what they’re actually doing is assuming the endpoint. I think that movements have, since the civil rights era, adopted this militant sense of unyielding certitude, completely forgetting that their real goal is to bring people over to their side. And I think that that is the essence of what Rose is talking about.
Taking absolutist positions is a luxury that social movements cannot afford. Rose’s example of PETA was a good one; they are convincing no one, but boy do they feel righteous. Instead of making a moral case that appeals to the existing instincts of those you want to persuade, it seems that the primary tactic of social movements (mostly of the left) is to simply declare that your world view is the only acceptable one, and that anyone not with you is a–pick one–racist, homophobe, anti-science, anti-progress, anti-baby seal monster.
I blame the success of the civil rights movement: that was a completely righteous fight; and–looking back in retrospect–it is clear that giant moral progress was made. Even Republicans are now claiming Martin Luther King as one of their own. But if you look at how civil rights really unwound, and you date the fight back properly to the Truman Administration, and consider how Middle America was actually brought on board, you’ll see that it follows the same pattern.
Early civil rights workers wore suits and ties, spoke calmly and persuasively, picked small symbolic fights that garnered widespread sympathy (e.g. Rosa Parks, or the Woolworth’s lunch counter). They responded to hatred with love and patience, and never stooped to the tactics of their opposition. And the greatest social revolution in US history was wrought.
It was only later, when the descendent movements of civil rights became angry, and militant, and condemnatory in their outlook that they lost middle America.
This is getting a little long-winded so I’ll wrap up. The only minority rights movements that have ever worked were those that appealed to the conscience and already-existing values of the mainstream culture. If people are comfortable in their lives and their values, and you ask them to upend them, you have to do so respectfully, and gently, and while making a moral case that is pretty compelling–to them.
+1.
Booker T. and W.E.B.
By Dudley Randall
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.,
“It shows a mighty lot of cheek
To study chemistry and Greek
When Mister Charlie needs a hand
To hoe the cotton on his land,
And when Miss Ann looks for a cook,
Why stick your nose inside a book?”
“I don’t agree,” said W.E.B.
“If I should have the drive to seek
Knowledge of chemistry or Greek,
I’ll do it. Charles and Miss can look
Another place for hand or cook,
Some men rejoice in skill of hand,
And some in cultivating land,
But there are others who maintain
The right to cultivate the brain.”
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.,
“That all you folks have missed the boat
Who shout about the right to vote,
And spend vain days and sleepless nights
In uproar over civil rights.
Just keep your mouths shut, do not grouse,
But work, and save, and buy a house.”
“I don’t agree,” said W.E.B.
“For what can property avail
If dignity and justice fail?
Unless you help to make the laws,
They’ll steal your house with trumped-up clause.
A rope’s as tight, a fire as hot,
No matter how much cash you’ve got.
Speak soft, and try your little plan,
But as for me, I’ll be a man.”
“It seems to me,” said Booker T.–
“I don’t agree,”
Said W.E.B.
I had never seen this poem before. Thanks for posting it.
Snarky-
I understand all of your points here and appreciate your use of the historical context of the civil rights movement.
A big problem for me, which I think underlies much of what you said, is that acceptance, equality, rights, etc. are something that are GIVEN. If only Group X took Course of Action Y, then they’d be given Right Z. No. Sorry. Do not pass go, do not collection $200. Rights are not given. Rights, TRUE rights, are inherent to the person. The notion that an oppressed groups needs to, for lack of a better term, shuck and jive to the dominant, oppresionist group’s content in order to have their rights fully realized is the mindset that has allowed such oppression to persist for so long.
Would such an approach probably work better and/or faster? Maybe. Probably, even. But how much of his diginity should an individual give up to be fully acknowledged as such? Why fight for a right if doing so means sacrificing the ability and opportunity to fully exercise that right once realized? And what if the dominant majority still tells you to go fish yourself?
Yes, I realize this plants me fully in the idealist side. I’m 28. Sue me. :-p
Listen sonny-boy… (I’m 54)
I understand what you’re saying. And the burning fire of righteousness certainly helps movements stay bound together. But you have to figure out whether your goal is really to get there from here, or to feel good about yourself.
Gay people have been largely despised in the culture at large for almost as long as history. Women have had rights subordinate to men for as long as we’ve been a culture. Blacks (and other ethnic and cultural minorities) have been oppressed for as long as we’ve been a country.
And yet, in the last 45 years, these have all changed, radically. Our conception of the “all men” that are “created equal” has expanded in a way that is an absolute historical miracle. We have overcome history to expand the circle of justice. I hope you appreciate how giant that all has been.
But cultures and social system move at their own pace. And the only tool in your toolkit that works is persuasion. That’s how blacks did it, and women, and–now–gays. If you push too hard, if you take people past their moral comfort zone–they will push back. And if you think the culture wars are doing any of us any good, you’re mistaken.
We have a completely polarized political system; and it’s largely a result of pushback on a social agenda that moved too far too quickly, and without acknowledging its impact on many people with no dog in that hunt, but just don’t want to have their lives upended.
I, for one, am convinced that the cause of gay rights would have gone much further had their advocates pressed a more consensus-based, incrementalist approach (first fair employment, then civil unions, and–only then–gay marriage). But many people feel as though that the moral universe they grew up in is being upended, and that the people pressing those changes regard them with nothing but contempt.
And so, they press back. I live in a large suburban area (Orange County, California), and most of the people I know that oppose gay marriage are–in my estimation–persuadable. But when the change is from someone whose first instincts are to label them as a fascist, a homophobe, or a hick: it’s pure human nature to react “Fuck you! I’m standing pat.”
So the left looks at the success of the conservative movement over the last 50 years, and wonders why–this is it. The conservatives spend a lot of time persuading, and reframing, and convincing. And you can see it in the shifts in attitudes on such issues as abortion rights, feminism, taxation and government, and military intervention over the same period. We are becoming a more conservative country. And not, I think, because conservative values are superior to liberal values. But because the conservatives know how to play to win, to bring people over to their side, and to frame issues in ways that make sense to people’s already-existing moral reasoning.
I was with you right up until the past paragraph, Snarky. I think it’s a mixed bag when it comes to the direction of the country. The country is markedly more liberal on gay marriage than it was even a few years ago, but is still very divided on abortion, for example. And while I think a lot of people say they want conservative things when you ask them (“Lower taxes! Less government spending!”), when it comes to things they want the government to provide and what they’re willing to cut, the water gets much muddier.
Snark-
All great points. But a few challenges:
1.) In the incrementalist approach, what stops the powers-that-be from saying, “We already gave you civil unions. What more do you want?”
2.) What do you say to the gay man who genuinely is as flamboyant as the most flamboyant freak at the parade? “Settle down there, sonny. Who you are ain’t good for ‘the cause'”…?
3.) What you advocate for still removes the autonomy of the individual. They are still entirely dependent on the oppresor to decide that they have jumped through the necessary hoops. Self-determination is dead.
4.) “But when the change is from someone whose first instincts are to label them as a fascist, a homophobe, or a hick: it’s pure human nature to react “Fuck you! I’m standing pat.”” There is a lot of mileage between what I advocate for and this approach.
Listen. I get it. I get that the approach I advocate for involves a much rockier road. And I think there is a certain amount of privilege involved whenever straight people (if you don’t mind me asking, how do you identify?) engage in this conversation. My position is easy for me to advocate for as a straight person because I don’t have to suffer the fall out of the backlash. Likewise, your position is easy for straight people to advocate for because they aren’t the ones being told to act proper and bide their time. Ultimately, the movement itself has to decide. And I would not criticize the movement(s) for what decision they make. It is easy to play armchair quarterback when it is not YOUR rights that are being discussed.
I think our conversation here sums up the larger point of the good doctor’s post. I particularly appreciate the historical context you have provided.
Ooooo, one last point… I think it is important to separate out “the movement” from “what people do”. This sort of gets at one of the questions posed above. While the movement might opt not to put Perez Hilton, in all his pink haired glory, front and center, it would also be wrong of them to tell him to keep his natural hair color or what-have-you. As much as people attempt to make it so, not every action by every gay person needs to represent the larger movement.
BSK,
The natural hypocrisy of the position “we give you civil unions” stops them. Their children stop them — by standing up to them.
Like it or leave it, you must take the stage. Whether you take the stage bombastically or not, smoothly and gracefully or not, is less important.
Stand up, be counted — and watch who stands with you.
One of the best protests this century has been “a Day without Immigrants”
While the movement might opt not to put Perez Hilton, in all his pink haired glory, front and center, it would also be wrong of them to tell him to keep his natural hair color or what-have-you. As much as people attempt to make it so, not every action by every gay person needs to represent the larger movement.
Good Lord, I hope not. Perez Hilton gives me hives.
BSK –
I’ll respond to your questions one by one.
All great points. But a few challenges:
1.) In the incrementalist approach, what stops the powers-that-be from saying, “We already gave you civil unions. What more do you want?”
Continuous, gentle pressure will get you where you want to go. There is no “powers that be”–that is a rhetorical construct. What there is, is people.
In the arena of gay rights, especially, the biggest part of the problem is that the opponents don’t understand you. They feel frightened and threatened, and think that their universe is going to change. Many don’t know a gay person (or, at least, don’t know that they know one.) Best way to show them that they’re fearing a boogie man? Show them how boring gay couples can actually be.
2.) What do you say to the gay man who genuinely is as flamboyant as the most flamboyant freak at the parade? “Settle down there, sonny. Who you are ain’t good for ‘the cause’”…?
In a word, yes.
You don’t think a large part of Martin Luther King’s job was cooling down the radical factions who wanted to see faster progress–the Malcolm Xs, and the Stokely Carmichaels? Do you think that if the civil rights movement had started out by throwing rocks they would have made the progress that they did?
3.) What you advocate for still removes the autonomy of the individual. They are still entirely dependent on the oppresor to decide that they have jumped through the necessary hoops. Self-determination is dead.
That’s why they’re called “movements.” People subordinate their personal goals to shared goal. If you think that your self-determination is destroyed by electing to use a strategy that’s more likely to achieve your aims, then you’ve bought the Madison Avenue version of “self-determination.”
4.) “But when the change is from someone whose first instincts are to label them as a fascist, a homophobe, or a hick: it’s pure human nature to react “Fuck you! I’m standing pat.”” There is a lot of mileage between what I advocate for and this approach.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Conservatives are completely cognizant of the contempt of the left, and that just makes them stronger in their self-identification.
As a general point of strategy: Don’t us-and-them conservatives. The instinct runs much deeper in conservatives than in liberals. Moral change can only be made by persuasion. Showing them your moral contempt will not persuade them: it will harden their attitudes (and make them dislike you at the same time).
BTW: since you asked — I’m heterosexual.
Snark-
My responses:
“In the arena of gay rights, especially, the biggest part of the problem is that the opponents don’t understand you. They feel frightened and threatened, and think that their universe is going to change. Many don’t know a gay person (or, at least, don’t know that they know one.) Best way to show them that they’re fearing a boogie man? Show them how boring gay couples can actually be.”
Why can’t they show how boring gay couples are while still seeking the end point instead of an increment towards the end point?
“You don’t think a large part of Martin Luther King’s job was cooling down the radical factions who wanted to see faster progress–the Malcolm Xs, and the Stokely Carmichaels? Do you think that if the civil rights movement had started out by throwing rocks they would have made the progress that they did?”
I was speaking more about the guy not involved in “the movement”. Just the guy out doing his thing. Is “the movement” going to gang up on two gay guys sharing a kiss on the street corner?
“That’s why they’re called “movements.” People subordinate their personal goals to shared goal. If you think that your self-determination is destroyed by electing to use a strategy that’s more likely to achieve your aims, then you’ve bought the Madison Avenue version of “self-determination.””
I don’t know waht the MadAv version of SD is. I do know that having to beg and plead for rights reinforces who is in charge and who is not.
“As a general point of strategy: Don’t us-and-them conservatives. The instinct runs much deeper in conservatives than in liberals. Moral change can only be made by persuasion. Showing them your moral contempt will not persuade them: it will harden their attitudes (and make them dislike you at the same time).”
I agree wholeheartedly.
I think a lot of what you touch on here is about delivery and less about the broader structure of a movement. One can take an incremental approach but seek those steps in unpalatable ways, just as one can take a more absolutist approach but work to build coalition.
I think that the best movements do much of what you said. W/R/T the specific example of the Good Doctor, I think the group could have reasonably included the opportunity to correct pronouns in a way that wouldn’t have turned people off. It might have confused people or taken some time to explain or seemed completely unnecessary, but, hey, so it goes. If someone walked out of that thinking, “What a freak! That “he” wants to be called a “she”!”, that is not likely someone who would have made the best ally in the first place.
In some of the work I do on issues of diversity, they talk about a 20-60-20 split. 20% of people are or will be firmly in your camp without any work. 20% will never be, no matter what. The 60% in the middle are who matter most. If someone is turned off by taking a moment to correctly identify everyone’s pronoun-of-choice, I am inclined to think they are closer to being in other 20% than in the 60%. Of course, that might be my own bias peaking through.
If someone walked out of that thinking, “What a freak! That “he” wants to be called a “she”!”, that is not likely someone who would have made the best ally in the first place.
People adapt. That person might be a mighty ally next year, if you don’t blow them off this year…
Touche, my brother, touche. And this is why voices like yours are important. The youth (like myself) tend to co-opt such movements because of their energy and passion and ability to stay up past 9:30 (har har har). And that is important. But it need be properly balanced with the type of vision and patience you advocate here.
Good talk! Thanks to everyone who jumped in! (And I’m happy to talk more, but I think we’ve sorta hit all our points and get what the other is saying.)
“While the movement might opt not to put Perez Hilton, in all his pink haired glory, front and center, it would also be wrong of them to tell him to keep his natural hair color or what-have-you. As much as people attempt to make it so, not every action by every gay person needs to represent the larger movement.
Good Lord, I hope not. Perez Hilton gives me hives.”
Uh, Russ… those aren’t hives. You might want to get that checked out…
*shudders*
+1, also.
You don’t think the conservative movement has been successful?
I think that the examples you gave (“Lower taxes! Less government spending!” are evidence of their success. People widely accept the conservative framing–to such a degree that we are running a trillion dollar deficit and the political conversation largely revolves around tax cuts. Even if people don’t understand the budget repercussions of the lower spending they advocate, the world view of the movement conservative has been largely accepted.
And–for better or worse–we have achieved a Federal government that is unable (or unwilling) to raise taxes to match spending, unable to address global warming, or income inequality, or entitlement reform. Continue that for a generation, and it’s the new norm. Make no mistake that the conservatives are winning most of the big battles in our cultural / political sphere.
Support for abortion rights has dropped by more than 30% in the last 20 years–and we’re only a few years away from a solid majority supporting absolute restriction. People accept the general view that taxes are too high, despite their being at a 50-year low. Only 11% of people polled think an estate tax is fair. Trust in the ability of government to address problems is at historic lows.
These are sea changes in attitudes, and they all redound in the direction of the “conservative” world view. The left has had some isolated successes in the social sphere, but they have come at the cost of losing the South and much of Middle America.
Fair points, all. I don’t know how much to credit the conservative movement for winning the South, and how much of that was a reaction to the Civil Rights Act. (I suspect the latter more.) In any case, I will agree that the frame most issues now take is largely set in conservative terms, and we now have a centrist party and a crazy right-wing party in this country, and no truly liberal alternative.
How much of that has to do with the conservatives doing something well and how much has to do with the “liberals” doing something totally shitassbackwards?
This has a sense of the old “Is it good for the Jews?” take on how best a minority can enter the public debate. If you’re looking for every potential ally it’s a perfectly legitimate approach but it’s rarely an easy question to answer, especially when there’s infighting within the group. Good luck.
I think the key here is knowing when the goal is to push buttons and when the goal is to win an argument. A pride parade is about celebration of who you are. If someone isn’t going to come to you on your terms, that’s their problem. A town-hall-style meeting to convince other people to take your position on an issue is (or can be) about coming to other people on their terms. One of the great policy successes of the LGBT community has been convincing people that gay couples are basically just like straight couples: they want to get married, have kids, whatever. For better or worse (and it’s both), that’s how you win an argument when you’re in the minority.
Republican-bashing? Take a look at the platform that the national GOP ran on in 2008. See what they put in their platform for 2012. Check out some state GOP platforms if you want to be really shocked. You’ll find that the anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-choice agenda is baked in. The party is institutionally on the wrong side of the culture wars. This wasn’t always the case, but it is absolutely true today.
Republicans have been ruthlessly purging social moderate elected officials for years. There are almost none left. Most recently, Sen. Olympia Snowe decided not to seek reelection because she was pressured to support the radical anti-contraception legislation.
Lindsay, I totally understand why there is a great deal of animus toward the GOP within the LGBT community, as well as a whole lot of other communities to boot. Indeed, it’s very clear to me which party is clearly aligned with opposing further movement in LGBT equality. I dig it.
But expressing partisan outrage at campaign meetings is not helpful. This is particularly true in the state where I live, where the Republicans who get elected still tend to be of the moderate variety. (Our current Tea Party governor is an outlier, is very unpopular already, and only got elected with a plurality because the progressive vote was split between a Democrat and an independent.) Further, the self-identified Republicans who show up aren’t major party actors, they’re individual voters. Lambasting their party serves no useful purpose, and has the potential to alienate people we desperately need.
There’s a time for venting spleen. Meetings like the one I describe ain’t it.
A moment, please: How many of those folks there do you think are justifiably outraged at their own (republican) party? It’s possible to make fun of the other guy, while making the people there feel included in your outrage. Probably better ifyou’re all, “I USED to be a republican, back when Javits was around”
I don’t know how many are outraged at the Republican party writ large. It’s really not important to me to find out. I want their vote for marriage equality in eight months, and I want them to get their friends to vote that way, too. Making them vote against the Republicans is a job for another campaign, which can bash away at the opposition during their own meetings.
As someone who lives in Democrat-controlled Chicago, there are times when I’m tempted to join the Republican party just to spite the sometimes very awful (and occasionally very anti-gay) Democratic party machine. And then I look at some of the websites the party puts up, or see some of the things Republican politicians on the state or national levels say, and then I demur. Still, in my local Democratic-party safe districts, I vote for the Republican just to do my small part to check what strikes me as the (Democratic) party’s smugness.
My point is, I agree with you. I just wanted to add that many reasons compel people to join or identify with a political party, and that’s one reason why gratuitously lambasting “Republicans” might hurt more than help. I for one will never identify comfortably (and perhaps never at all) with the Democratic party, even though I support their policy proposals much more than I do the Republicans and even though I want Obama to be reelected and even though I want the Democrats to control both Houses of Congress after the next go-round of elections. My reasons? Very complicated.
My liberal ward votes routinely for the Republican candidate. They’re also heavy, heavy Obama supporters.
First of all, there was way too much Republican-bashing. I can understand why several people decided to take pot-shots at Rick Santorum, who has made hating gays a central theme in his presidential campaign. But there were numerous off-the-cuff jokes directed against Republicans in general. As I said, there were several there, and they seemed to take it in stride, but they shouldn’t have to. We want to have Republicans supporting our campaign, and it serves no purpose to alienate them.
I was talking about this with a co-worker yesterday.
He goes to the same church as my mom and this church has recently resolved the debate of whether it’s going to stay with the National Presbytery or split off and join the National Evangelical Something Or Other. The National Presbytery said that they’re going to be fine with ordaining open homosexuals in life partnerships. The National Evangelical Something Or Other is, of course, saying no.
His church said “You know what? We have no plans to leave The National Presbytery.” This caused a ruckus and my friend said that the ruckus has pretty much turned him off to this particular church.
I told him that his church was doing, by his lights, the right thing and thus he should stick around to show his support for the church, the pastor, and so on.
But my heart wasn’t in it.
But my heart wasn’t in it.
Why not?
I wouldn’t want to go to a church where I knew half the congregation didn’t want gay folks ordained. I’d rather go to a nice Unitarian Church and have to put up with the pinko hippie touchy-feely bullshit than the ugly undercurrent that about half of half of the congregation carried with them (and the best-intentioned doctrinaire attitudes of the other half of that half would just make me wish I were elsewhere).
I wouldn’t want to hang with these people, were I in his position.
Thank you for clarifying. It spared me writing a lengthy and embarrassingly inappropriate sermon about the Importance of Standing Up for What’s Right after having totally misunderstood your point.
The point you were actually making? Yeah, I get that.
I’d enjoy reading that sermon, if only to see how much it overlapped with what I was telling him about how he should keep going there despite his distaste at the clamor.
I have a personal connection to the same issue, though within the Episcopal church rather than the Presbyterian. In short, us gay folk would have been pretty screwed if all the supportive straight people had jumped ship because they found the clamor distasteful. We need them around.
Duh. Just make more gay folk. Oh… wait… :-p
Man, this is just an awesome post and thread-discussion. I want to respond to 50k things at once. So I’ll probably respond to nothing in particular except to say… awesome!
This is probably my vestigial conservatism speaking,
No, it’s not. In-group lingo is different than out-group lingo–the two groups are fundamentally different audiences, and it’s critically important to know your audience. This is a battle that is won by bringing over people from the other side, and they’re willing to potentially go as far as live-and-let-live equality, but they don’t want to be really “in” the group. Try to pull them in too far too quickly and they are likely to simply back out, whereas if you give them plenty of room to be comfortable on the periphery of the group, they’re likely to get drawn in a little further than they ever expected.
Russell, I get your concern, but I think there’s a distinction to be made between things that are at least partially INTENDED to discomfit (“freakier elements at gay pride parades”) vs. things that are just basic courtesy (preferred pronouns). That isn’t to defend entirely the way this was structured, and maybe more could have been done to give context to the volunteers in question or the issue could have been handled less awkwardly/obtrusively. But at the end of the day, these are people volunteering to knock on doors in support of gay marriage–I’d give them a little benefit of the doubt that they could understand why this would be an issue (which, again, I might have presented differently).
The other thing I’d like to note is that political volunteering is a hard, thankless task, and to get people to do it for free requires that they be fired up. The sense of being on a team and defeating a common foe is a powerful motivator–especially for the type of person who cares enough about an issue to volunteer their time–and the advantages of motivating people this way shouldn’t be downplayed. Politics isn’t only about convincing the general electorate–it’s about motivating your supporters (especially in an environment like an organizing meeting). Without them, your side of the issue doesn’t have anybody knocking on doors.
I think we’re pretty much on the same page, Dan. I don’t really think these things are going to make or break the participation of those who are dedicated to volunteering. I do think it’s important to find a middle ground (and suspect it really is largely a question of presentation) between adherence to one’s ideals and creating a space that welcomes people who still aren’t fully comfortable with involving themselves in the campaign.
While I certainly agree there’s far too much unnecessary name calling, ranting and superficial outrage, I wouldn’t worry too much about this Out of Touch business.
My g/f and I bemusedly laugh as one of our friends begins the journey into a series of sex change operations. It’s as if she’s suddenly embraced every feminist cause and anti-Republican meme. I contend it’s useful for her to get all that out of her system before she can get on with the rest of her life. I encouraged as much rebellion as I could manage with my own kids, all of whom went through an Anarchist phase, none more so than my son. Rebellion is awfully good for sweeping the floor of a cluttered mind.
What have you found to be the most effective arguments, mechanisms, etc. for persuading Republicans to embrace LGBT equality?
Kyle-
In my conversation with Snarky above, he lays out a really good framework for approaching this work more broadly. If you are looking for specifics with the LGBTQ movement, there are some good tidbits in there as well.
Thanks, BSK.
Being related to them.
I’d have to agree with this. I have a brother-in-law who hated faggots until.. yeah, that’s right.
Also, finding out someone that they’ve known and respected is gay–it really shakes the cognitive dissonance tiles around. This is a little dangerous, because there’s a more-than-decent chance that they’ll move to somewhere between their old views and complete acceptance: they very well may end up liking and respecting that friend a little less.
But the tactic I think is most powerful is being a mench. Virulent hatred of homosexuals is a product of “othering” them. The more people they meet that are normal and gay, the more that foundation will be shaken up.
That makes sense. Being close to someone makes the issue real, more difficult to argue in metaphysical and moral abstractions. Whatever you say refers to a real person you know very well.
Or being knowingly* exposed to them often does the trick. Though I would say this is a good strategy not just for Rs, but also Ds, and basically anyone who is a bit squeamish about gay people.
*I say “knowingly” because that’s a pretty important piece. I have seen plenty of people in my life who, when told someone they knew/worked with,/went to school with,/etc. was gay, refused to believe it because either the man was not incredibly effeminate or the woman didn’t seem to “hate men.”
I agree. The fact that my sister is gay has given a personal incentive to be pro-gay. However, I confess that it was a long time coming. I found out in 1991, but it took at least 6 years or so before I came around; my family had halfway disowned her, so it was easy for me to separate her being my sister from her being gay. We have grown much closer since then, especially in the last 10 years.
I agree with Tod Kelly, too. I knew a gay rights activist when I was getting my MA, and he really challenged many of my assumptions. By that time, I was already theoretically on board with gay rights, but his arguments encouraged me to be accepting in practice as well as in theory. I’m probably not completely there yet–there still are times when I might uncritically laugh at a gay-baiting joke or be afraid to call someone on their homophobia–but I think I’m further along than I was.
Finally, there were times in my life when I felt ostracized or otherwise alienated from others. It was nothing exceptional–just fodder for a mediocre Bildungsroman–but it gave me a chance to feel some empathy for what it might be like to be rejected for who one is. (Note, I’m not claiming that I know what it’s like to be gay, only that I have experienced personal challenges that for whatever reason enabled me to see my then homophobia in a new light and later to reject it.)
I love the back and forth between BSK and Snarky and obviously see both sides of their take. It’s got to be hard to understand why you can’t be treated equally and *RIGHT NOW*. I’m so convinced about the necessity of making marriage available to all that I almost can’t listen to another argument about rapid social change and institutional instability and cutlural upheaval, blah, blah, blah. Especially in the face of what, admittedly, is an increasing amount of evidence that says the world will not descend into fiery, evil lava if this happens. My inability to understand why others can’t see the inherent inequality in their position makes me doubly impatient about having change *NOW*.
But I also know, pragmatically, that Snarky’s view is certainly the better way. It is certainly less likely to alienate and more surely to persuade others through gentle methods rather than the “fuck you homophobic bigot” tendency that some might be inclined to take, regardless of how satisfying that might be at the moment it is uttered.
In fact, I had a discussion with a conservative gentleman who seemed to equate “gay-marriage” with “throwing it in his face.” Generously, I assume he hears “gay-marriage” and thinks “gay pride parade” which would, to a man of his 87 years, be kind of a shocking thing. But if one of his kids had been gay or a brother or niece, he would know, through repeated exposure that, for all intents and purposes, these gay relatives are no different than the straight ones.
I’m with Will T. Awesome discussion!!