On social justice, same-sex marriage, and not running for office
Well, Brad, of course you're right. Fortunately, I'm not running for office just yet (or, God willing, ever--my mom has that task covered in the Graff family). I'm just introducing myself to a bunch of smartypants progressives. Let me say that as well in response to one of the comments on my intro post, too--someone wrote in to say that talking about marriage equality for same-sex couples is a big loser issue. I'm not writing a platform here. I'm introducing my intellectual and moral passions.
However, since you asked, there is a much better way for Dems to handle lgbt rights in general and same-sex marriage in particular. They could make it a winner--or at least a neutral-- instead of a loser. (More after the jump.)
And they better get on it, because the right wing has gleefully figured out that all the "moral values" issues terrify the Dems, and will keep running anti-marriage initiatives whenever and wherever they can. About half a dozen are scheduled for this fall. I've got an article on that coming soon, and when it appears, I'll post the link here. Meanwhile, for the basics about how the Dems could do better in talking about marriage and reproductive rights, please see my recent article at TomPaine.com, issued on the occasion of Sir Elton's nuptials. It's not just about Elton John's wedding. It's about why talking about marriage appropriately is essential to a progressive agenda--especially if progressives want to win back those "working families" they purport to believe would be true-blue voters if only their lunchbuckets were kept full.
Please do look at the article; I'm really interested in hearing your comments.
EJ
Very good article! I'm still wondering if the real difference between our country and the rest of the civilized world is the stranglehold that radical "Christians" have on ours. Somehow those "Christians" have decided that Jesus would have rejected gay people, and therefore they must do so too. That is despite the fact that Jesus isn't known to have ever rejected a identifiable group of humans. But, the radical "Christians" call all of the shots now.
I think we need to separate the legal and religious aspects of marriage. Legally marriage is a partnership. In that partnership both members own 100% of the assets and owe 100% of the debts. Our laws regarding taxes and inheritance reflect that aspect of marriage. So, I think I favor a federal law that recognizes that marriage type partnerships can be entered into by any two people. But, the churches can decide for themselves who they want to consign to Hell for entering into that partnership with the wrong person.
January 14, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
touche...
:-)
Brad DeLong
January 14, 2006 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great article! The way we always lose is because the Rights gets hung up on the word Marriage and tries to twist it to be about definitions. It has to be about equal rights, whether or not the word marriage is used.
January 14, 2006 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think, frankly, that Democrats are losing hordes of voters for their presumed failure of courage to take up and champion the issue of gay marriage. Progressive values aside, we (including socialists like myself) must always be mercilessly
honest about the facts of the world, whether it be Iranian nuclear ambitions and the possibilities of stopping them by negotiation, or the degree and depth of public support for gay marriage in our society at this time.
In my view, living in Massachusetts, if gay marriage can't be sustained here, there are less than a half-dozen solid blue states where it is even conceivable as statewide policy, and possibly none. What bothers me here is that the Constitutional Amendment not only allows the legislature, in keeping with public opinion, to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but fossilizes that definition into the Constitution itself.
Those groups that have protested the amendment on the grounds of supporting gay marriage have gone and will go nowhere, even in this state. But if someone had insisted, as part of the 'compromise' that included same-sex civil partnership rights (which should be pursued in other states), that the Constitution, rather than forbidding gay marriage, merely allowed the legislature to forbid it Constitutionally, there would at least be a major improvement. As public opinion changes, which is slow, even for MA, let alone the 'bible belt', then at least the legislature will be able to reverse this policy someday, without the huge barrier of amending the Constitution, which in MA is a collosal pain in the ass, and takes YEARS AND YEARS.
That is a kind of strategic approach that might not satisfy purists, but the truth is that most gay rights organizations, fifteen years ago, were talking almost exclusively about civil unions in order to address many of the rights issues (hospital visitation, inheritance rights, etc) that were especially raised by the AIDS pandemic. This issue is much better understood from the political and practical roots -- the practical problems -- out of which it arose, rather than as a reified issue of "RIGHTS", somehow outside of and above political calculations and interests. I agree that in principle, even if it is an indignity that must be tolerated given our political climate, the mere fact of not allowing gays to have legally recognized marriages like straight marriages is -- other than ALL the practical considerations -- an insult, like making people ride in the back of the bus. (Note that those challenging that insult-as-policy also were challenging many practical issues as well, and were extremely politically strategic-minded, perhaps to much so prior to April 1967 on the Vietnam War.
One other central issue of LGBT issues. There are many long-standing issues that have been at the top of the LGBT policy agenda for at least 15 years. Like I said, gay marriage (like gays in the military) was not one of them. These issues have been pursued in the system, and the resultant publicity from the mainstream has often made them central to the agenda of gay activists, rather than the other way around. This dynamic is extremely important to understand. There is reason to believe (especially clear in the case of gays-in-the-military, which a Democratic Congress under Bill-the-Shill Clinton put front and center in Congressional hearings -- part of the politics of supposedly "serving" by playing to lose on the part of Democrats -- rather than a host of issues much more popular with the public, or even rather than issues of greater significance to the gay community activists themselves) that the issues that have been dominant have been precisely for the purpose of promoting wedge issues, including with elite Democratic complicity. As for the issues most important to gays, Larry Kramer early on labelled Clinton "Bill the Shill" on those concerns, of which gays in the military were not one.
So I would like to hear about those issues, other than gay marriage/civil union, and gays in the military, that have been central to GLBT concerns. For example, what about fast-track automatic approval for disability benefits for anyone who is diagnosed with AIDS or ARC? What about massively increasing research and experimentation and development of treatments, cures, and preventions? What about effective legislation and policies to address the patterns of physical assault on gays, of which the Matthew Shepard case was but one extreme example? What about laws, creeping forward, against discrimination in employment, housing, etc against people on the basis of sexual orientation? Why is it that the most controversial issues are being pushed the hardest? This isn't something coming bottom-up out of gay grass-roots activism, but top down from the White House, from Congress, from the Al From Democrats themselves, from (possibly underground obedient to the agenda of divisiveness???) courts, and so forth. Then the media get hold of it and then it is cause celebre for gays at the grass roots, as a result of being introduced for the purpose of using gays as a freak-show target of enema politics, rather than as a result of being raised by progressives as their priority from grassroots and not astroturf roots.
As they say in ACTUP -- truth may not be comfy, but it's what we need.
January 14, 2006 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I sympathize with your intent, I found your article less than convincing. You use two examples, Spain and Canada, and imply in your piece up above that what prevents Democrats from doing the same thing here is "fear" (next up, I'm sure, would be charges of "spinelessness"). I'm going to knock off the easy part first, Spain. In your article, you say,
In Spain, opening marriage to same-sex pairs was an easier sell. Spanish progressives will quickly tell you that because Spain's Roman Catholic Church was in bed with the Franco regime, its moral credibility is a little less than nil. For years polling has shown that 60 to 70 percent of the nation favored gender-neutralizing the marriage laws.
So why use Spain as an example relevant to U.S. politics at all? In fact, in the U.S. the polls are almost the exact opposite of what they were in Spain on this issue. And no rational person would claim that religion in general or the christian movement in general has no "moral credibility" in the U.S.; rather the opposite is true. It was, unfortunately, a pointless comparison, except that when examined closely it actually hurts your argument rather than helps it.
Now, to Canada. The obvious point to make touches on something I've been pounding on for a while now: your discussion of Canada completely ignores the regional divide in U.S. politics. Canada has a parliamentary democracy; the U.S., of course, has a republican democracy. So ... let's say, for a moment, that the timid Democrats lose their "fear" on this issue, come out strongly in support of civil unions and gay marriage, selling it as part of some broader support for human rights in general. And let's further say that the public buys into this, and the national poll numbers on gay marriage flatten out closer to 50-50 than they currently are. Does that mean the issue becomes a winner, or even is, as you say, "neutralized"? Not at all -- it could merely mean that Dems would win California and Massachusetts et al by 35 or 40 points or whatever instead of the customary 25 or 30, while getting crushed in more conservative states where moderate Dems are currently able to compete. In a parliamentary democracy like Canada's, national poll numbers are much easier to accept at face value than they are here -- something you don't discuss at all.
As I said at the start, I'm sympathetic to what you are trying to achieve, and ultimately this should be a moral issue rather than an electoral one, and I believe it's immoral to withhold rights from any group. But before I believe this issue can be a winner or "neutralized," before I believe a majority in this country can be made to think like I do because of what amounts to a PR campaign by the Democratic Party, it's going to take better arguments than what I saw in that article. Your idea might even work -- who knows? But the U.S. isn't Canada, and it's even further away from Spain.
January 14, 2006 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw a quote from Mark Twain in a letter to the editor in today's Phila. Inquirer - to paraphrase "Christianity is a great religion; it's too bad no one's ever tried it."
January 14, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't take credit for this idea (I got it from a friend).
Would it be so unthinkable to divide the religious concept of marriage from the civil concept of partnership? Then anyone who wants to (and fits some basic criteria) could register a civil partnership, or whatever you want to call it. Once that right is universal, then we can let each church pick and choose whom they will let marry under their religious rites. Of course, people who belong to a church that won't let them marry are SOL.
January 14, 2006 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such things as medical decisionmaking are ironic, as I've encountered a happily decreasing resistance to advance directives in the hands of heterosexual spouses or parents.
I can't count the number of times I've had to go in as an advocate, to be able to interpret between family and medical staff.
The Patient Self Determination Act can use better implementation in many states, as well as the critical problem of getting access to the advance directives of travelers. Perhaps working on these rights for all Americans will also help some of the GLBT issues.
Yes, I am in favor of separating into civil union contracts and reigious (or spiritual) marriage.
January 14, 2006 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
B) I am glad you have assumed a torch for GLBT issues on this site. The issue needs a little attention on here. I am doing media analysis work in 6 states re gay marriage this November. Would love to keep talking to you about what's going on in the states.
January 14, 2006 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your arguments on why Spain and Canada are less than perfect comparisons are well taken. We are very different from either of those nations and it's very hard to imagine that, in this country, marriage equality is in the forseeable future.
Despite this, I think the Democrats' current strategy on gay marriage is seriously misjudged. I think a comparison to abortion is useful here. A majority of Americans are pro-choice, with a significant minority pro-life. Despite being in the minority on abortion, Republicans are quite comfortable declaring themselves to be pro-life. Similarly, a majority of Americans are anti-gay marriage, with a significant minority in favor. However, Democrats, rather than simply being pro-gay marriage, tend to hem and haw and tie themselves into knots trying to avoid taking a clear stance. This contortionism is (accurately) perceived by most voters as cynical and politically motivated.
The key thing to realize is that the U.S. is not overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage. Rather it is somewhat opposed, with many people having mixed feelings and a significant minority strongly in favor. There is no terrible political downside to Democrats coming out clearly in favor as a party. (Although, just as northeastern Republicans are allowed to be pro-choice without much serious intraparty retribution, southern Democrats, who could actually be seriously hurt by this issue, should be allowed to oppose gay marriage.) While it seems unlikely that we can actually enact marriage equality for many years, by taking a clear stance on the issue Democrats will earn long-term political points with gays and lesbians and, more importantly, with the rapidly increasing numbers of young, straight, future voters who have gay friends and view being gay as unexceptional. Moreover, we would demonstrate our willingness to take a tough stand on a controversial issue - something we haven't done too much lately.
To be clear, I'm not advocating that we make gay marriage the center of our platform or even that we particularly emphasize it at all. (I think we need to stick with bread and butter issues of national security and economics.) I simply think that, when asked, Democrats should simply and clearly state that they believe in the right of all Americans to marry. I think in the long-term, it will be an enormous political winner for us. It also happens to be the right thing to do.
If we want to discuss a cultural issue that genuinely has the potential to hurt the Democrats politically, let's talk about gun control.
January 14, 2006 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
<i>'And they better get on it, because the right wing has gleefully figured out that all the "moral values" issues terrify the Dems, and will keep running anti-marriage initiatives whenever and wherever they can.'</i>
You speak the truth, the Right does indeed seem to be anti-marriage; they want everyone to be bastards presumabily, much like many of them are the further extreme and religious you get
January 14, 2006 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
That being said, this post, with its direct address to Mr. DeLong and the "smartypants" word, made me wonder what the hell was going on while I wasn't looking for a day or so. It took a while to find all the bits that belong to this discussion, but now at least I see that you apparently waved a red flag by using the term "social justice."
Oddly enough, when I read your first post, that phrase struck me as well. I realized that it's not the way things are framed on this site. People may talk about some of the issues that are inherent in pursuing social justice, but I don't recall hearing the overall label being assigned to those issues. Your use of the term was "jarring" because it seemed "out of place" for this place.
Yet, it was a most congenial phrase to see. It spoke to a similarity of interests and goals. It brought purpose back to the discussion. Like a good bowl of grits, your use of that phrase provided comfort food for my soul.
Still, in reading some of the the responses to your post, I began to feel the need to channel some of Duncan Black's (milder) epithets. Distorting an honorable concept to suggest that it smacks of "street justice"! Breaking the issues apart from the goal for the sake of expediency! Hmph.
Oh, well. I recognize that there is a fairly grim reality to be faced in trying to achieve social justice and that some of these "practical politics" kinds of matters have to be taken into account. But, I have to say, it's damned nice to see someone toss the moral compass right into the middle of the table. You go, girl!
January 14, 2006 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite being in the minority on abortion, Republicans are quite comfortable declaring themselves to be pro-life.
Republicans do not openly campaign for making Roe illegal. They hem, they haw, they dissemble, they use code, but they never come out and say they are against Roe -- except in the areas of the country where they can get away with it.
One of the great mysteries to me about modern discourse is how so many on the left buy into the notion that the Republicans just lay it out there, while the Democrats cringe and doubletalk. In fact, both parties doubletalk, the Republicans actually more than the Democrats as far as I can tell. Republicans don't campaign for a flat tax. Republicans don't campaign for letting businesses pollute at will. Republicans don't campaign for mandatory school prayer. Republicans don't campaign for privatizing Social Security. All these things are clearly Republican goals, but they chip away at them, taking what the public offers. No one comments on it, though, while lambasting Democrats for "standing for nothing." I wonder why.
January 14, 2006 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
One significant difference is that Canada appears -- at least in places like Toronto -- to be comfortable with its diversity rather than to have embraced our fake "melting pot" crap which puts a nice face on things while our politicians talk about "English only" and want to build fences on the southern border.
The other significant difference is that the R's have long used the politics of fear and division -- think the "southern strategy" that they used to lure southern dems into their clutches -- to gain votes. Not only would any D who wished to take on this issue have to deal with the conservative Christian problem, they would also have to deal with the R's standard mantra about "special rights." So many folks here are devoid of critical thinking skills -- we don't teach them until well into college or grad. school -- and when you couple that with the fact that our society strongly embraces notions of individualism, it becomes difficult, though not impossible to sell folks on the Canadian notion that "no one is equal until everyone is."
I authored a somewhat related rant elsewhere on this site on the subject of Alito. Some folks were suggesting that his opposition to abortion shouldn't be disqualifying. My rejoinder suggested basically that we are all in trouble until we can realize that a threat to one constitutionally protected right is a threat to all of them, including those that we personally may deem more important than abortion. The Canadian PM's approach was the same and the Canadian populace was far enlightened and intelligent, and therefore more inclined than we seem to be to embrace the concept of collective good.
January 15, 2006 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marriage is viewed as much more than a legal partnership by people whose support we need to deal with the vast problems facing the Republic. Dealing with that reality is essential.
January 15, 2006 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink