Is a movement really a movement if it’s about keeping things from moving at all?
Is it a non-movement?
I’m talking about the National Organization for Marriage. This self-proclaimed protector of the rights of people who believe in the sanctity of marriage is up in arms and feeling very threatened by the nearness of equal rights for everyone. This is an organization that, like many organizations that are about maintaining status quo, uses fear as a rallying tool.
Case in point- one of the main links on the front page of NOM’s site is titled “The Threat to Marriage”. When you click on the link, it goes on and on to talk about how close certain states are to passing gay-union legislation, expressing a frantic tone of urgency, danger…yet never actually qualifying what makes it a danger to the sanctity of marriage. How clever!
It is a common tactic when one needs backing yet doesn’t have a salient point to argue to just create confusion and a sense of immediate doom.
What is going to happen on the day these states pass legislation allowing same-sex couples to marry? Is it going to nullify the unions of those who are heterosexual? Is it going to force heterosexuals to become gay? Is it going to require them to attend gay weddings and toss rice at the couple?
It’s not going to impact the rights of those who already have the right to marry in any real way. The threat is perceived, all in the heads of people who place a religious significance on marriage. Marriage isn’t just for the religious. Marriage is for some a covenant between the couple and their God, yet they still must clear it and register it with the state. Marriage for many others is a contract with the state and God never enters into it. Religion is not a mandated part of the institution of marriage so to apply it to any argument that these homosexual “heathens” should not be allowed to enter into a contract with the state to legitimize their union just doesn’t hold water. The only thing that remains a constant in marriage is the state (and possibly divorce). There is a distinct separation between Church and State by design, not necessarily by practice, but by design. Based on that fact, it seems odd that this is even still a fight, given that most of the hullabaloo against gay marriage is generated by the religious right. Let’s follow the money.
According to Californians Against Hate1 the overwhelming majority of contributors backing Proposition 8, the controversial legislative maneuver to strike void the brief legality of same-sex marriage in California, came from people and organizations with strong religious, fundamentalist affiliations. This isn’t necessarily surprising but it’s important because it shows that the lion’s share of protest comes from the Church, even if it’s not from the Church’s own coffers. The Church has considerable influence on its parishioners and there is circulated report of a letter from the head of the Mormon Church being distributed and read to every member during services, urging them, on top of their 10% tithing to the church, to give generously to NOM and other Proposition 8 supporting organizations. This is blatant leveraging of the platform and access to people the Church has to affect the State. It’s insidious and powerful and yet…they are losing.
The non-movement against gay marriage is losing ground and everyone behind it is growing panicked. Progressive states in the Northeast and California are closer than ever to pushing legislation through allowing unions between same-sex couples, and once they do, like most trends that originate on either the East or West Coasts and then trickle inland, the middle states are sure to follow. The tide is turning and increasingly there are more and more prominent businesses headed by gay or gay-friendly executives. The distribution of power (money) is changing, and those on the side of tearing down Proposition 8 are growing savvier with their strategies in wielding this power.
Consider Tim Gill, Quark founder and Colorado-based philanthropist taking a new approach in affecting the movement for equal rights for gays.
“Gill formed an alliance with three other major donors (two of them tech moguls, one of them gay) to find a way to moderate the state’s politics and loosen the grip of Republican social conservatives. Working in conjunction with progressive groups throughout Colorado, “the Four Millionaires,” as they came to be known, built a kind of information-age political machine that enabled Democrats to outspend Republicans for the first time in years.”2
What Gill is doing is influencing donors nationally to spend their contributions differently. Rather than what he dubs “glamour giving” in the March 2007 article in Atlantic Monthly, the kind of giving that makes a person feel tied to celebrity champions of gay rights who don’t necessarily need the contributions as desperately (like Obama) he encourages gay-supporters to give smaller amounts, distributed to the smaller-scale state and local candidates that he and a Rove-esque strategist have identified as being close to toppling their anti-gay-rights opponents. In 2007, 50 of the 70 political races that Gill helped direct money toward were swayed in the pro-gay-rights direction. He contends that the kind of sweeping changes that can be attained by this more systematic, swarthy installation of key candidates in the smaller venues is more integral to the cause than the small and hard-won changes that can take so long in the nationwide arena. Looking at the protracted effort of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” by the Obama Administration, it is easy to see Gill’s logic. He doesn’t aim at Republicans exclusively; he also took aim at a Democratic candidate for Massachusetts who vowed to repeal gay marriage legislation in the state, and enlisted the help of a former mentee of Karl Rove’s. The fight to institute rights for gay Americans has become nonpartisan, an indication that this era is coming around to acknowledging homosexuality as a valid life choice.
Speaking of nonpartisan, consider the American Foundation for Equal Rights, whose Ted Olson and David Boies have tag-teamed to take a case filed by two gay couples denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8 and try it before the U.S. Supreme Court3. What is remarkable here is that Olson, as former U.S. Solicitor General under the Bush administration, and Boies, as legal counsel for Al Gore in the 2000 elections recount litigation, were rival counsel in the recount contest. In spite of their diametrically opposed positions in that circumstance, they have both come together to fuse their prowess as litigators to affect a major change in something they agree on; the tenet of equal rights for everyone.
Finally, consider Fred Karger, a former political strategist for Republican candidates and tobacco interests that has made it his mission to out the Mormon Church’s specific funneling of money into the anti-gay marriage fight. Mother Jones’ April 2010 issue covers Karger’s mission in-depth.4 As a talented campaigner, Karger never experienced difficulty in the Republican circle with his openly gay lifestyle. He is using those talents and his well-practiced experience in political maneuvering to affect change and mobilize forces to neutralize the efforts of the Mormon Church and NOM.
These are just a few examples of how the power is being redistributed and how the way the game is played is being turned on its head. There are many more renegades and champions working behind the scenes and doggedly pushing toward a day when men and women everywhere are free to enjoy the same tax, healthcare, and death benefits whether they are hetero- or homosexual, not to mention just the sheer natural right to just be considered a regular citizen under the eyes of the law. Regardless of whether their efforts are fruitful this time around, they are harbingers of glad tidings that this struggle may soon be settled once and for all.
1 http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/dishonor-roll/#knights
2 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/03/they-won-8217-t-know-what-hit-them/5619/5/?
Related posts:
Discussion
No comments yet.