Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Neff: Tuning up the gay rights movement
Sometimes I feel like our movement operates on a manual transmission, with sticky gears and a stiff clutch.
Can you feel the jerks when the gears shift?Can you sometimes hear the transmission grind?
Some years back, when achieving marriage equality seemed like a distant dream, like a concept car of the future, we fought for partnership registries and partnership rights. And we fought hard, knowing that we were struggling for separate and not entirely equal, but that we had to protect our families, we had to take incremental steps.
With the marriage victory in Massachusetts, we had to shift gears. Downshift. Upshift. Rev the movement machine. Change the direction to our finish line.
Two reports released last week suggest we need a movement tune-up, not an overhaul, but some adjustments.
For years we have pushed the argument that legalizing same-sex marriage will not require religious institutions to recognize gay unions. And that is a fact that we must continue to convey — the Catholic Church need not recognize a civil same-sex marriage in Massachusetts or Iowa or New Hampshire.
We pushed this argument because one, it is true, but also because it seemed the best weapon as we engaged in a fierce battle with the religious right, our most wealthy and influential adversaries, who reach the devout during sermons and the masses with pricey ad campaigns.
The religious right has framed civil marriage as a religious matter and has argued that civil same-sex marriage threatens religious freedoms and doctrine and a faith-based way of life.
We have argued there is no way government recognition of our relationships threaten religious institutions and freedoms and teachings. We have focused on secular arguments, on civil rights, equality and justice.
We have not as a broad movement — credit must go to several national and grassroots LGBT groups that have worked long on religious issues — done enough to fight our faith-based adversaries with faith-based teachings and religious principles.
Center for American Progress researchers Jonathan Duffy and Sally Steenland studied the ballot initiative fight in Michigan in 2004 and passage of a constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex marriage in a state that already had two anti-gay marriage measures on the books.
Michigan’s faith-based communities rallied to place the initiative on the ballot — collecting signatures before and after church services. Michigan’s faith-based communities invested heavily in getting it passed — $1 million from Catholic dioceses and sizable donations from a number of Christian rights groups. And Michigan’s faith-based communities campaigned inside and outside houses of worship.
“From the beginning of human memory, marriage has always been understood as the union of one man and one woman,” Cardinal Adam Maida said in a video distributed to parishes prior to the vote. “Let us do our part here in Michigan to preserve that sacred understanding and definition of marriage.”
On election day, the measure passed. Exit polling by CNN on the ballot initiative showed that more than 60 percent of protestant and catholic voters supported the amendment. About 82 percent of those who said they attended church more than weekly voted yes compared to 35 percent of those who did not go to church.
Duffy and Steenland concluded that we cannot allow the religious right to frame fights in the states or at the federal level as moral values vs. secular rights.
They wrote, “Religious values are on the side of LGBT advocates as well. The importance of a campaign staying on message must be balanced with the great worth of voices from various faith communities highlighting the moral and social justice aspect of marriage equality. A related lesson is that when anti-gay religious communities use biblical texts and teachings to argue their case, LGBT advocates should have their own religious messages to counter opponents’ claims.”
Amen.
The researchers also wrote, “Advocates should not write off certain religious communities as impossible to win or overlook any ‘unlikely’ allies, be it the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church, or African-American churches. While some communities may have official pronouncements against same-sex marriage and campaign against it, almost always there are members within that community who by conscience have different views.”
Amen.
A second study released last week, “A Time to Build Up” from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force National Religious Leadership Roundtable, analyzed the Proposition 8 campaigns in California, where the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints played substantial roles in the passage of the anti-gay amendment.
The study author, the Rev. Rebecca Voelkel, summed up the lessons of the campaign:
• “Religious opposition requires a religious response.… It is naïve to believe that rights-based arguments can trump the value-based arguments of conservative religious leaders.”
• “Secular-religious partnerships are critical to future success.… There is an urgent need to establish alliances, cooperation and coordination.”
• A narrow political campaign frame hinders GLBT religious work.… “The Proposition 8 campaign goals focused on political change, were narrowly focused, and quickly defined faith-based communities as expendable. The initial strategy deliberately chose not to engage with religious-based opposition and, subsequently, minimal resources were dedicated to outreach and education efforts focusing on communities of faith and communities of color.”
As someone whose church-going experience was the equivalent of driving a lemon, my engine is choking a little as I think about taking this course, about challenging religious opposition with a religious response.
But I see the logic in these lessons and I know our push must include this route. Somewhere, back in the days of my catechism classes with the sisters at St. Anastasia, I recall a lesson from Genesis on equality. I never thought to take notes.
Probably none of us reading this website wants to see separation of church and state go away as a constitutional rule. But yeah, we need to reach more faith-based voters, not to put religion into our laws, but to explain why religious teachings support human rights, civil rights, good neighbor to good neighbor.
Yes, I wish I had taken better notes in Sunday school. But fight fire with fire, so to speak.
There is no way to keep people from voting based on what they believe, so those negative religious beliefs must be challenged. (Equal rights should not be subjected to a vote, but the fact is, they are for gay people, so we must change those negative beliefs.)
Marriage has not always been one man, one woman, as some religious leaders would have you believe, but has taken many forms, and has changed over time, with the bible giving us 8 different forms. Gay relationships have also been accepted at various times and places, back to the ancient Egyptians, and even among some Christian groups.
Mel White’s “What the bible says, and doesn’t say about homosexuality” is a must read for anyone interested in countering the religious Reich’s arguments but only a starting point. The challenge is that many more straight people read and study the bible than gay people, and there are simply more of them than of us. That is why it is so important for gay people of faith to speak out and challenge the lies and misinformed opinions being presented as fact. It is also important to point out that there are many different interpretations of the bible, and that no one interpretation should be used to make laws which undermine the foundation of equality the constitution was intended to secure for all citizens.
Now how about if we start our own movement to allow religious cults to issue their own marriage licenses without any access to federal or state benefits, in that way, they’d have to submit to a civil marriage and then its up to them to decide if they want it solemnized in their places of worship. That would surely piss them off. Why should state governments issue secular state marriage licenses to people who no intention having a civil marriage?
First: stop writing “religious right” and start writing “Irreligious Wrong,” “Irreligious Reich (sic),” or “Terrorists of the Irreligious Reich (sic).” We need to stop pussyfooting around and call them what they are: domestic terrorists. The murder of Dr. George Tiller occasioned the (true) comment that anti-choice AND anti-gay terrorism WORKS. Republicans are anti-gay domestic terrorists, PERIOD. Those deluded GLBTQAI people who remain in the Party are lying down with terrorists; they’re getting up covered with blood, both rhetorical and real.
Where we NEED to be engaging the Irreligious Reich (sic) is in the COURTS. WHY isn’t the ACLU using racketeering and conspiracy laws against the churches? They ARE conspiring to take AWAY *my* CIVIL rights, which have nothing to do with THEIR right to practice and teach bigotry within the walls of their “churches.”
For that matter, why haven’t the conspiracy laws been invoked against the Catholic “bishops” who CONSPIRED to conceal the whole ugly paedophile scandal?
Dr. Tiller’s family and his patients need to fil a WHOPPING civil suit against Operation Rescue and Bill O’Reilley.
We should be doing the same against the Catholic “church,” the Mormon “church,” and anybody ELSE who conspires to take away (or not grant) our civil rights.
As to President Obama … well … he’s better than McCain would have been … not MUCH better, mind you … but a LITTLE better. Somebody needs to remind him that saving the world includes US, and that Dr. King said, “IF NOT NOW, WHEN?”
DON’T *REACT*, *ATTACK*!
It’s an old argument in the church. And surprisingly many Christians, once they’ve learned that there’s more than one way to interpret Biblical passages against us, will come down on the side of love.
Of course we shouldn’t abandon what we’re already doing. We should simply add another dimension to it. Even if it only changes 10% of the population…that would have been enough to change the outcome of Prop 8.
Unfortunately, having grown up in an uber-conservative Christian family, I don’t believe any amount of logical or theological arguments are going to change ultra-religious opinions on same sex marriage. Most folks that adhere to this type of religion are lemmings, don’t investigate or question what they are taught, blindly follow what their leaders tell them, and turn a deaf ear on anyone who disagrees with them. They are conditioned to do so or be in danger of the “fires of hell”. Until a crisis hits their lives where they have to question their beliefs, people are very reluctant to be open to changing them.
I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be confronted, because having grown up in that environment and knowing the Bible better than most, I’ve done my share of confronting. What I am saying is that strategically, I don’t believe anyone who is as close-minded as they are will be convinced to change their mind.
This bigotry is a sociological phenomena as much as a religious one. A common enemy binds people together and populist ultra-conservative religious leaders know this all too well and use it to their advantage to garner support. Gay people just happen to be their target of choice at the moment to bind their groups together. In time, that will change as they move to another group.
I believe a better tactic is to continually hammer through the courts on equal rights (much as the civil rights movement did) emphasizing seperation of church and state, and count on the on-going erosion of bigotry in future generations as those generations see the injustice caused by marriage inequality.
Marriage equality will become a reality. It’s just a matter of time as long as we don’t give up working for it. Until then, I’m going to focus on being happy and having a productive life to prove that their assertions that being gay leads to destruction are way off base.
The fastest way to advance the GLBT rights movement is elect more and more and more experienced and qualified GLBTs to many public offices as possible in every town, city, coiunty and state of this land.
And advancing this country also means engaging fair-minded people of faith both gay and straight, instead of insulting and hating even the fair-minded ones who are very willing to help advance our rights. At my church, each Sunday, I see in one glance many open-minded people.
Like many gay folks, I understand why the civil right to marry is being pursued. However, it is difficult to understand why this became such a priority, given that we lack protection from discrimination in employment, housing, education, etc., in so many places in the USA. I support my gay siblings’ efforts to procure marriage rights, but I would fight harder if we were pushing for universal civil rights for all Americans.
It’s important to bear in mind a major difference between Catholicism and Protestantism: For Catholics, the clergy — and ultimately the Pope — is the authority when it comes to interpreting the Bible; for Protestants, people can read the Bible themselves and interpret it freely.
At the same time, however much you talk about what the Bible “really says about homosexuality,” you’re going against more than 1,000 years of tradition. Same-sex activity between men has been criminalized and those who partake in it have been brutally persecuted since the Byzantine era based on interpretation of the Bible, and gay men continue to be persecuted in the Islamic world based on interpretation of the Koran and the Old Testament.
I agree with what some people have already said: We need to be working to reinforce separation of church and state and negate the idea that Christians have some prerogative to turn their religious beliefs and ideas about tradition into laws that the rest of us have to follow.
in regards to separation of Church and State. We are not fighting for same sex marriage, we are fighting for Marriage EQUALITY for sames sex couples! Churches don’t like it when government gets up in their business. Why are they getting up in Governments business. why are clergy allowed to sign marriage certificates which determine tax status and award all those 1400 rights that government grants to married different sex couples.
Neff makes a good point when it comes to religious arguments/viewpoints used as an opposition to gay rights.
While we should not become embroiled in a vitriolic dispute, the weight of religious argument should not be ignored or downplayed. In the minds of many of our opposition doctrine trumps the secular.
It is high time that we have a vocal response to doctrinal stances against our rights. It may not be enough to just have equality-minded religious leaders “stand up for fairness.” We need strong religious leaders and scholars to stand with us and say, “Here is an opposing, valid doctrinal view.” While we may not move the far-right, we can have and effect on those in the movable middle who hold religion dear.
As well, by ignoring/disregarding these religious debates, we are essentially telling any who hold religion dear that their beliefs systems are invalid and inconsequential, i.e. not worth investing with our time/energy/minds. Sending this message could actually alienate those we need to reach even further. Do you want to dialogue with someone who consider an integral part of who you are as invalid or inconsequential?
Many in our community don’t seem to be aware that there are decades-old theologically sound interpretations of those few seemingly anti-gay Biblical passages that totally contradict what we were taught as kids.
There is no sound reason to simply ignore these interpretations and cede the ground to uber-conservative Christians. It’s about time they heard what the Bible REALLY says about homosexuality.
Religious bigotry is the basis of ALL the anti-gay rants and ramblings of the Right. We have the tools, so let’s take them on. Religion should be on OUR side in this debate. Let’s tell them why.
Separation of church and state. It’s the law. How bout we push to enforce it instead?
Grrrrr!
Part of me believes you assessment to be true in terms of gaining equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, but another part of me is unsure.
I’ve always believed we should be fighting as hard as we can to remove religion from the government entirely. It’s imperative not just for the GLBT, but for women’s rights and countless other progressive movements.
I think you’re right that religious arguments would help us in the short term, I can’t help thinking they’re bad for us in the long term. And when I say “us’ I don’t mean gay people. I mean everybody.