Why Gay Marriage Is Such A Big Deal

In the grand scheme of American politics, the gay marriage issue seems like it should really be a footnote. It affects so few people, how could it be so important?

The question is simple enough, right? Either you think same-sex marriage is a symbol of plummeting morality and the decline of Western Civilization, or you see it as a fundamental human right. Like abortion or gun control, it's not a subject that lends itself to much middle ground.

And with 10.2% unemployment, a war raging in Afghanistan, and the worst mass-murder on a military base in US history having just occurred, it might seem trivial to discuss it. And if you're not gay, why should you care?

Well, a few days ago, voters in Maine shamefully denied same-sex marriage rights, as they have done in all 31 states where the question has made it to the ballot. This completely mocks the idea of equal protection under the law, and exposes the tyranny of the majority--what my sister called the "fly in the soup" of democracy. And I will demonstrate that this is no empty metaphor.

To put it in perspective, let's start with something that should send a chill up the spine of every American--even in "red" states: Opposition to gay marriage is what gave George W. Bush a second term. And the second Bush term is what plunged us into the "Great Recession." Lest you think I'm overstating the case, Bush's own Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in 2008 in this report:

"The turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into early 2007. (emphasis added)"

Most of this gross malfeasance took place under the second Bush term. And it cost Republicans dearly in the 2008 election. It's also a well-known political fact that John Kerry lost the state of Ohio in 2004 because of aggressive pastoral support for the Ohio Marriage Amendment. While other factors may have played some role in the outcome, both academics and Catholics acknowledged that the marriage amendment is what gave Bush the edge.

From The Religion Card: Evangelicals, Catholics, and Gay Marriage in the 2004 Presidential Election, Notre Dame University, Brigham Young University:

"Does George W. Bush owe his re-election to the groundswell of opposition to gay marriage? We find that while gay marriage was not necessarily the most important factor overall and did not matter equally for every voter, it did matter to white evangelical Christians and Catholics. Specifically, evangelicals and Catholics were more likely to turn out to vote in states with a gay marriage ban on the ballot."

Catholic News Service article:

"But when it was all said and done, 22 percent of all voters across the United States picked "moral values" as the most important issue facing the nation, followed by the economy and jobs (20 percent) and the war on terrorism (19 percent). Eighty percent of those who saw moral values as the most important issue voted for Bush, according to post-election data released by the National Election Pool."

"Eleven state ballots included measures similar to the Federal Marriage Amendment, revising state constitutions to limit marriage to its traditional definition. The measure was approved in all 11 states, including Ohio, where a Bush win secured his victory in the Electoral College, (emphasis added) and eight other states won by Bush."

"Clearly the supporters of traditional marriage helped President Bush down the aisle to a second term," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council."

Why can't they just have civil unions? What's the big deal about calling themselves "married?"

In the runup to California's infamous Prop. 8, someone I once greatly respected asked me this question in a disparaging manner. I lost my respect for them in a big hurry. It's amazing how similar this sentiment is to labeling African-Americans "uppity" for wanting full equality. "Separate but equal" doctrines were struck down by Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. Still it took until 1964 for full equality under the law to take effect with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

1964 was the year of my birth, which means it's been my entire lifetime since this issue was legally settled. Yet Americans still quibble over whether gay people are worthy of having their rights protected. Slightly over half of voters in at least 31 states feel they are not.

On the same day Maine decided to scrap its marriage law, Washington voters narrowly approved a separate-but-equal version, granting all domestic partners the same rights and obligations as married couples. I'm happy about the historic passage of Washington R-71, but even though it marks the first time recognition of gay unions has ever succeeded at the ballot box, it's bittersweet. Gays can now have 'weddings' legally in Washington, but they still can't drink from the same champagne fountain.

"He is entitled to his opinion"

The young son of a friend of mine posted his opposition to gay marriage on a Facebook poll. I took issue with it, told him he was homophobic, and ended up hearing back from the father: "He assures me that he is not homophobic. He simply opposes granting special status to gay unions by legalizing them as marriages." And that "there is plenty of reason for well-meaning people to differ on this one. He is entitled to his opinions and, at fourteen, I would expect him to evolve as he grows up."

I hope so. But in this case, it's pretty damn clear that the young man had been influenced not only by his peers and locale (a strong red state), but also by the attitudes of his parents. And I'm not sure I agree at all with the idea that "well-meaning people" can differ. I think being opposed to gay marriage entirely excludes a person from the category of "well-meaning." Exactly what "well-meaning" or humanitarian goal is being served by denying an entire class of Americans the right to join one of civilization's most important legally-defined subgroups? How does such a "well-meaning person" sleep better at night knowing they've seriously degraded someone else's quality of life--a state of affairs they could reverse at zero cost to their own well being?

Just as blacks were once considered by many Americans to be sub-human, so are gay people today. And this exclusionary attitude should be treated by all "well-meaning people" with utter contempt. The fiction that such opinions are within the range of acceptable dialog serves only to reinforce and prolong bigotry.

What about the children?

In an article about the Maine vote, political consultant Frank Schubert (who was also instrumental in passing California's Prop. 8 ) said he discovered a deep vein of fear and disgust while conducting focus groups on the issue.

"Schubert said he had an ah-ha moment in California when a focus group watched a campaign commercial featuring a Massachusetts couple who described how their 7-year-old son came home from school and explained that a man can marry another man, something he learned in a children's book."

"One of the members of the focus group shook his head, and Schubert asked the moderator to inquire. The participant said he would be angry if something like that that happened to his kids."

""So that was sort of a light-bulb moment, that this education issue was really going to be a powerful one for us," said Schubert, who with Flint was named the "public affairs team of the year" for 2009 by the American Association of Political Consultants."

I talked about this on Facebook, and one friend of mine--who has four delightful kids--wrote "Kids should be taught about sex - period! Enough with the lies and denial, kids are aware of sex and if you put fairy wings on everything they will think that sex is a shameful thing." I replied with the following comment:

"I agree. Careful surveys (or eavesdropping) should be done to figure out at what age kids are already talking amongst themselves about sex. Then schools and parents should pre-empt them slightly with better information. But that would be using logic."

"Never happen in a million years. Parents seem to experience an epidemic of prudishness when their kids are young. And that's a trait that crosses the liberal-conservative divide."

"Parents, if you don't like being seen that way, then do something about it!"

"There's an interesting herd phenomenon in social psychology that people act as if the group is more prudish than they are. To avoid being viewed as crass or amoral, they profess to be offended by something long before it actually offends them. They are more concerned with having the "correct" response to something that is seen as controversial than about authentically expressing their own opinion, particularly when it involves a risque topic."

"And all it takes is one person to ratchet up the prude factor in a group of parents. It's far easier to provoke a group shaming response than one of acceptance. We all know this, know it's a problem, but there seems to be no way to fix it. "For the children" seems to be the most prominent thought-stopping tactic in politics."

"So the end result is that anything about expanding sex education or reducing the age at which it is offered is political kryptonite."

Standing for Liberty and Freedom

We Americans seem pretty pleased with ourselves, as if we were some kind of bastion of liberty and freedom--a beacon to the world. Horse sh*t. We must recognize that the greatness of our society is measured specifically in how we treat our pariahs--gays, Muslims, atheists, and illegal immigrants. We must learn to be very disturbed as long as any American minority is committing suicide at several times the rate of other citizens (as gays do). Lives are literally at stake. And that's not all.

There once was a Republican Unity Coalition, way back in 2001, dedicated to making sexual orientation a "non-issue" in the GOP. It was chaired by Alan Simpson, joined by former President Gerald Ford, and counted such prominent members as John Danforth, Mary Matalin and Diane Ravitch. But that was before--before the religious right devoured the soul of the former party of Lincoln and Eisenhower. The "Log Cabin Republicans" have likely never seen a worse time in the party's history. Why can't today's arch-conservatives remember the words of President Ford?

"I think they ought to be treated equally, Period. I have always believed in an inclusive policy, in welcoming gays and others into the party. I think the party has to have an umbrella philosophy if it expects to win elections."

But Ford did not forsee the rise of the exact inverse strategy: today's relentless wedge politics. The story of how the radicals stole the party from the moderates is outlined in Max Blumenthal's horrifying book Republican Gomorrah. Ford couldn't have grasped the towering ideological collapse of a party which could so quickly be seduced by the scent of raw power into straying so far from its principles of limited government and individual rights.

But we had better learn to understand why and how they are succeeding. First and foremost, we'd better come up with a better rejoinder to help American parents get rid of their squeamishness over their children learning about gay marriage and gay sex. Whether it's actually taught in schools or not is irrelevant. Many parents have bought into the idea (or fear) that it will be. If we can't beat them on this messaging challenge, the radical Tea Party Republicans will milk this issue again and again and again to put their people in power and roll back progress on everything we hold dear: health care, the climate, renewable energy, corporate accountability and a host of other vital issues.