Civil rights activists often disagree over tactics. That was (and is) true of the African-American civil rights movement, and similar disputes characterize those working for equal rights for women, Latinos and other minorities. So it should not surprise anyone that gay rights activists often disagree about where resources should be deployed and when, or whether to be confrontational or to work behind the scenes.
There aren’t “good guys” and “bad guys” in most of these debates—just idealistic people of good will who have different ideas about the best way to proceed.
The most recent evidence of such disagreement was this fall’s March on Washington. It is no secret that many people in the so-called “gay establishment”—HRC comes to mind—were less than thrilled at the prospect of diverting energy and resources from places like Maine, where the recent recognition of same-sex marriage faces a Proposition 8-like repeal effort. (HRC did get on board when it became obvious the March would be held, but its early reluctance was hardly a secret. Barney Frank never did support it.)
At the March itself, another fault-line became evident.
Many members of the gay community are clearly angry that the Obama Administration has not yet acted on several promises to advance equality for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. A number of those who delivered speeches at the March made their displeasure very clear. The general sentiment was: yes, you talk the talk. But where’s the walk?
Others–generally those who have worked on equality issues for many years and who are all too familiar with the political barriers that have to be dealt with–believe that actually achieving these changes is more complicated than the critics seem to understand. They are impatient with impatience.
As a recovering lawyer, I am painfully aware that legal changes almost always lag cultural ones. That’s because legislatures and even the courts (angry accusations about “socialist” policymakers and “imperial” courts notwithstanding) rarely act until something akin to a social consensus emerges. Nor can a President unilaterally make most changes. And even when a President can act without Congress, through Executive Order, there are legislative consequences to be expected.
The impatience displayed by many of the Washington marchers is understandable. It’s like being told that “if you just stay in the back of the bus a bit longer” America is more likely to get health care and environmental protection. Why should GLBT rights be held in thrall to other goals? What’s the point of having political capital if you don’t spend it?
My own analysis is somewhat different. Barack Obama is one of the most strategic politicians to come along in my lifetime. I believe him when he says–as he did at the HRC dinner–that he is committed to achieving equal rights for the GLBT community. And I believe him when he says he will do so in his first term.
There are two things any constituency needs from its political champions: sincere commitment and the strategic smarts to actually get something done. I think Clinton had the commitment; but he couldn’t get it done. He was ahead of his time, for one thing; the culture was not quite ready. But he also made a tactical error; his approach to the issue of gays in the military was clumsy and badly timed. I think Obama knows how to get things done–even very difficult things.
Basically, Obama is asking the gay community to trust him.
It’s easy for me to say, of course–I’m not gay. But I DO trust him. And those of my friends who’ve been long-time activists on behalf of GLBT rights, people who know how tough these fights still are, trust him too.
We may be wrong–only time will tell. But when Obama says he’ll get it done during his first term, I believe him.
As was evident in yesterday’s March on Washington, many members of the gay community are angry that the Obama Administration has not yet acted on several promises to advance equality for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. The general sentiment is: yes, you talk the talk. But where’s the walk?
Others–generally those who have worked on these issues for many years–recognize that actually achieving these changes is more complicated than the critics seem to understand.
Legal change almost always lags cultural change. That’s because legislatures and even the courts (angry accusations about “socialist” policymakers and “imperial” courts notwithstanding) rarely act until something like a social consensus emerges. Nor can a President unilaterally make most changes. And even when a President can act without Congress, through Executive Order, there are legislative consequences to be expected.
The impatience displayed by many of yesterday’s marchers is understandable. It’s like being told that “if you just stay in the back of the bus a bit longer” America is more likely to get health care and environmental protection. Why should their rights be held in thrall to other goals?
My own analysis is somewhat different. Barack Obama is one of the most strategic politicians to come along in my lifetime. I believe him when he says–as he did at the HRC dinner–that he is committed to achieving equal rights for the GLBT community. And I believe he will do so in his first term. But there are two things any constituency needs from its political champions: sincere commitment and the strategic smarts to actually get something done. I think Clinton had the commitment; but he couldn’t get it done. He faced a culture that was not ready, and his approach to the issue of gays in the military was badly timed. I think Obama knows how to get things done–even very difficult things. He is asking the gay community to trust him.
It’s easy for me to say, of course–I’m not gay. But I DO trust him. And those of my friends who’ve been long-time activists on behalf of GLBT rights, people who know how tough these fights still are, trust him too.
I’ve seen this movie before—the one where everyone who knows anything about the subject says we have to do something—in this case, reform our system of health insurance—but the vested interests and the lunatics manage to keep us from doing it.
I know I keep yammering about health insurance reform, and I’m sure your eyes are glazing over when I re-introduce the subject yet again. But it is really, really important. And it is particularly important to the gay and lesbian community, for reasons I have also belabored.
One reason the recognition of gay unions is so important is health insurance: currently, if you are gay and don’t work for an enlightened employer, you can’t put your partner (or your partner’s children unless you have somehow established a legal relationship with them—itself not easy) on your health insurance. And that assumes your employer even offers health insurance. The number of employers who do is declining quickly as costs continue to escalate.
Even if you are one of the lucky few who do get adequate insurance through your employer, even if your employer is one of the enlightened ones who allows you to put your partner on your policy, there are significant differences in tax treatment of that benefit, and—surprise!—those differences mean that you will pay more in taxes than a heterosexual coworker who makes the same amount of money that you do and has the same number of dependents and deductions.
Speaking of jobs—as I noted in these pages back in 2006, a rational national health insurance system would mean increased economic development/job creation and would improve American business’s competitiveness with foreign companies. Today, providing employees with health insurance costs businesses more than their net profits; that is why many companies are dropping it. The cost of health insurance is the single largest “drag” on new job creation. For companies that can afford to offer health insurance, negotiating and administering those benefits, and complying with government regulations attendant to them, consumes untold hours of HR time. Smaller companies—the engines of economic growth—are often unable to offer benefits, putting them at a competitive disadvantage for good employees. Job growth benefits everyone—gay and straight.
If all citizens had basic health coverage, we would also experience a decline in the social costs caused by anxiety, anxiety that is caused in significant part by the medical status quo. When a serious illness means you might go bankrupt—when you are worried that you can’t take your child or partner to the emergency room without busting your budget or losing your house—you tend to take those worries out on others. There is a considerable body of research showing that countries with better social safety nets are more tolerant of differences in race, religion and sexual orientation. (Some studies have even suggested that Canada’s lower rate of gun violence can be attributed to their stronger social safety net.)
You just have to turn on your television to see the smoldering fury that too many Americans are feeling. Most of the people screaming and accusing the President of socialism, fascism and the like can’t even articulate what they are angry about or what they want. It is easy to dismiss them as ignorant and fearful, and most of them are. But the fact of their rage is undeniable—and when people get worked up, when they believe they are victims, when they fear for their jobs, and their ability to get healthcare when they need it, they don’t necessarily know why they are angry or look for rational objects for their fury. They take it out on anyone who is different. That—in large measure—was what happened in Germany between the two World Wars. There, the anger was focused on the Jews. There’s no guarantee it won’t focus here on gays.
To the extent we can patch our tattered social safety net and allay at least some of the free-floating anxiety that leads to disaster, the better chance we have to avoid such outcomes. But getting healthcare reform passed this time won’t be easy. Teddy Roosevelt tried. Harry Truman tried. Nixon tried. LBJ did manage to pass Medicare. Clinton failed to get health reform done.
If Obama is to succeed, he’ll need the help of all of us. Now is the time to write your Congressman, call your Senator, talk down your crazy uncle—whatever you can. We’ll all be the beneficiaries of a more humane, less wasteful system.
In my most recent column for the Indianapolis Star, I reported on our city’s Pride celebration, and pointed to the immense progress that has been made since I began attending such events in 1992. As I put it,
“The crowd was huge, and broadly representative of the diversity of the gay community and those of us who support them. There were young people pushing strollers, old folks like us, and parents with teens. We saw doctors, lawyers and bankers—people who would have been terrified to attend seventeen years ago, when being “out” might mean losing a job—or worse, a family.
Today, when a quarter of the country’s population lives in states that recognize same-sex marriage or its functional equivalent, when polls show that people under thirty support gay civil rights by huge margins, the mood at events like Pride is less defiant and much more celebratory.”
All true. But when you are building a road to a desired destination, it is sometimes necessary to erect appropriate caution signs.
When I first got involved in activism on behalf of equal rights for the GLBT community, much of the community’s political outreach was—let me be kind here—dysfunctional. Most of the reasons for the personal agendas and petty backbiting were understandable, albeit terribly unhelpful, and not much different than behaviors exhibited by people in any marginalized community. (Fights over crumbs, for some reason, tend to be more vicious.) Other behaviors seemed more specific to the gay community.
It is, let’s be honest, a community with many very wounded people. One reason for that, I think, is that while other minority groups may be despised and subjected to discrimination, children in those groups at least grow up with role models. When I grew up Jewish in a small, non-too-tolerant Indiana town, I looked to my parents for clues about what it meant to be Jewish, and for positive reinforcement of my human value. Gays growing up in repressive communities have until very recently had no such models. As a consequence, a lot of GLBT youngsters grow into very needy adults—and needy adults seldom make good movement soldiers. They have trouble subordinating their personal agendas to the needs of the community.
The considerable progress that has been made over the past two decades is largely the result of a recognition of that reality by the gay community. In a very real way, and for a multitude of reasons, the activists in the community grew up. Ostensible disputes over strategy morphed into genuine disputes over strategy, rather than thinly veiled efforts to be important. It was an important turning point that made much of the subsequent progress possible.
So why am I saying we need to erect a “Caution” sign? Because here and there, there is evidence that some of the old dysfunction is resurfacing.
Look at what happened in California. If we are honest, the fight over Proposition 8 was the community’s to lose. Yes, the Mormon Church and others put up a lot of money, but as late as mid-October, polls showed that “No on Prop 8” was winning by a comfortable margin. But as the people involved readily admit, the discord and squabbling among the various gay rights groups charged with defeating Prop 8 got in the way of effective political action.
More recently, there have been some very unseemly charges and counter-charges echoing through gay cyberspace over action and inaction by the Obama administration. Disappointment is understandable, disagreement inevitable, but the shrillness of some of the arguments and accusations has been distinctly unhelpful.
Even in my local community, there have been persistent efforts by some bloggers to mischaracterize and undermine Indiana Equality, a coalition of gay advocacy organizations that has been very effective in bringing different perspectives to the table and advancing the cause of gay equality. (Indiana is one of the very few “bible buckle” states that did not pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage; preventing that passage wasn’t just luck. As someone who was privy to some of the strategic decisions involved, I can attest that it took a lot of hard work by a lot of savvy people.)
Let me be clear about what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am absolutely not suggesting that people who disagree with a position or a strategy shut up and go away. Civil disagreement and argumentation are always appropriate. The best decisions are made when different points of view are aired and a broad array of interests is at the table.
What I am saying is the obvious: there is constructive criticism and then there is bitching—and efforts to undermine those with whom you disagree, even when it makes achieving common goals more difficult.
There was a lot of that bitching and backbiting seventeen years ago. To regress to it now, when so much progress has been made, would be tragic.
In my most recent column for the Indianapolis Star, I reported on our city’s Pride celebration, and pointed to the immense progress that has been made since I began attending such events in 1992. As I put it,
“The crowd was huge, and broadly representative of the diversity of the gay community and those of us who support them. There were young people pushing strollers, old folks like us, and parents with teens. We saw doctors, lawyers and bankers—people who would have been terrified to attend seventeen years ago, when being “out” might mean losing a job—or worse, a family.
Today, when a quarter of the country’s population lives in states that recognize same-sex marriage or its functional equivalent, when polls show that people under thirty support gay civil rights by huge margins, the mood at events like Pride is less defiant and much more celebratory.”
All true. But when you are building a road to a desired destination, it is sometimes necessary to erect appropriate caution signs.
When I first got involved in activism on behalf of equal rights for the GLBT community, much of the community’s political outreach was—let me be kind here—dysfunctional. Most of the reasons for the personal agendas and petty backbiting were understandable, albeit terribly unhelpful, and not much different than behaviors exhibited by people in any marginalized community. (Fights over crumbs, for some reason, tend to be more vicious.) Other behaviors seemed more specific to the gay community.
It is, let’s be honest, a community with many very wounded people. One reason for that, I think, is that while other minority groups may be despised and subjected to discrimination, children in those groups at least grow up with role models. When I grew up Jewish in a small, non-too-tolerant Indiana town, I looked to my parents for clues about what it meant to be Jewish, and for positive reinforcement of my human value. Gays growing up in repressive communities have until very recently had no such models. As a consequence, a lot of GLBT youngsters grow into very needy adults—and needy adults seldom make good movement soldiers. They have trouble subordinating their personal agendas to the needs of the community.
The considerable progress that has been made over the past two decades is largely the result of a recognition of that reality by the gay community. In a very real way, and for a multitude of reasons, the activists in the community grew up. Ostensible disputes over strategy morphed into genuine disputes over strategy, rather than thinly veiled efforts to be important. It was an important turning point that made much of the subsequent progress possible.
So why am I saying we need to erect a “Caution” sign? Because here and there, there is evidence that some of the old dysfunction is resurfacing.
Look at what happened in California. If we are honest, the fight over Proposition 8 was the community’s to lose. Yes, the Mormon Church and others put up a lot of money, but as late as mid-October, polls showed that “No on Prop 8” was winning by a comfortable margin. But as the people involved readily admit, the discord and squabbling among the various gay rights groups charged with defeating Prop 8 got in the way of effective political action.
More recently, there have been some very unseemly charges and counter-charges echoing through gay cyberspace over action and inaction by the Obama administration. Disappointment is understandable, disagreement inevitable, but the shrillness of some of the arguments and accusations has been distinctly unhelpful.
Even in my local community, there have been persistent efforts by some bloggers to mischaracterize and undermine Indiana Equality, a coalition of gay advocacy organizations that has been very effective in bringing different perspectives to the table and advancing the cause of gay equality. (Indiana is one of the very few “bible buckle” states that did not pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage; preventing that passage wasn’t just luck. As someone who was privy to some of the strategic decisions involved, I can attest that it took a lot of hard work by a lot of savvy people.)
Let me be clear about what I am saying, and what I am not saying. I am absolutely not suggesting that people who disagree with a position or a strategy shut up and go away. Civil disagreement and argumentation are always appropriate. The best decisions are made when different points of view are aired and a broad array of interests is at the table.
What I am saying is the obvious: there is constructive criticism and then there is bitching—and efforts to undermine those with whom you disagree, even when it makes achieving common goals more difficult.
There was a lot of that bitching and backbiting seventeen years ago. To regress to it now, when so much progress has been made, would be tragic.
I’ve had two discussions lately that have raised—in very different ways—the strategic questions facing gay activists right now. One of those conversations was with a straight friend who is very savvy politically, and very “gay friendly,” but otherwise not connected to any of the campaigns for gay rights. The other was with a gay friend who spends virtually all his time on those campaigns.
My political friend and I were having one of our periodic lunches to discuss recent national and local politics. (Okay, the truth is, we meet every so often to swap political gossip…) Apropos of nothing in particular, he recounted a conversation he’d had with his wife about the apparent speed with which gay marriage is being accepted. “Who’d have thought Iowa! And who’d have expected that a state legislature—not a court, but a democratically-elected body—would support same-sex marriage to such a degree that it would be able to override a veto! It’s amazing! Does it seem to you that this issue is moving faster than other civil rights movements have moved?”
My response was the typical lawyer hedge: yes and no.
On the one hand, I know how long gay and lesbian people have struggled for the barest legal and social recognition. I remember vividly when the “Coming Out” movement was getting underway, and the amount of real courage it took for many people to simply live an honest, un-closeted existence. So the struggle didn’t just start a couple of years ago. On the marriage front alone, there have been enormous setbacks—just look at the number of states with constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage. Think about Matthew Shepard, and the long history of vicious gay-bashing.
On the other hand, it does seem to me that the gay rights movement, and particularly same-sex marriage, has reached what I’d call “critical mass” more quickly than other civil rights efforts. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in the 1950s, and there are still plenty of schools where segregation is countenanced, if not officially legal. And there’s good reason we still have the Voting Rights Act on the books in a number of southern states. By way of contrast, as I write this, same-sex marriage is legal in four states and pending in another two—not to mention California, where it’s likely to win another referendum even if the California court leaves Prop 8 intact. Marriage advocates face a landscape that would have been unimaginable a mere ten years ago.
Mention of Proposition 8 leads me to the second conversation, the one with my activist friend. He takes the long view, as he should, and he worries about backlash. Nearly every advance in civil liberties, he reminds me, has come at a price. Roe v. Wade energized the anti-choice movement we face today. Brown led to a massive exodus from our common, public schools—an exodus from which we still suffer more than a half-century later. When the Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution required equality, the ruling triggered not only an amendment to Hawaii’s constitution, but the passage of DOMA and the so-called “little DOMAs.” My friend’s point was irrefutable, and I will admit I harbor many of the same fears. How do you achieve progress while at the same time minimizing the likelihood of reactions that could wipe that progress out and set the whole movement back? It’s a conundrum.
Or maybe not. Because this morning, as I began to write this column, I saw a brand-new CBS/New York Times poll that measured support for same-sex marriage. This poll was taken in the immediate aftermath of Iowa and Vermont—and it showed a level of support exceeding any that has previously been reported. According to CBS,
Forty-two percent of Americans now say same sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. That’s up nine points from last month, when 33 percent supported legalizing same sex marriage.
Support for same sex marriage is now at its highest point since CBS News starting asking about it in 2004.
Twenty-eight percent say same sex couples should have no legal recognition – down from 35 percent in March – while 25 percent support civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples.
I think gay rights activists are “over the hump” in this country. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it won’t be very long. There may be some backlash here and there, among the remnants of the reactionary right, but this battle is over.
