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.
I think its sad that the Catholic Church chooses to exclude the fact that there have ALWAYS been marriages between two men and two women! In fact, two Catholic Saints were gay men who were legally married under the Catholic Church. Too bad they’ve forgotten about Sergius and Bacchus, because they’re giving up Saints to deny other people rights, and I don’t think they realize that it’s an abomination.
Why not let all the religious,straight people be “joined in Holy Matrimony” and let gay people get married?
After all,it’s the religious zealots who say that gays are trying to change the
definition of marriage.
Why not let them change it and we’ll all win!
having read your column,ms.neff, I
find your relegeous arguments specious
at best, fallacious at best. Are you going to tell me that should gay marriage
become the law of the land, and federal laws get passed that oulaw all discrimination against gays and lesbians
that there won’t be gay activists filing
lawsuits against pastors ,priests, ministers, etc. that refuse to marry them? Of course there will be. The
reasoning behind the lawsuits will be:
how can gays and lesbians be totally
equal with heterosexuals if they can’t
be married wherever heterosexuals can?
Bottom line? you and your fellow
activists can give us all the assurances
you want, but I know better.
And here is the crux of the problem:
“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.”
Christian-based religious groups persist in spreading this myth. There is no doubt that Christians and other religious groups have co-opted the concept of marriage to restrict it to a union between a man and a woman, but marriage in its original form was never intended to be so.
Marriage was originally a property contract in which a man took OWNERSHIP of a woman or women for purposes including procreation and domestic slavery. I know Christians have a fondness for rewriting history, but they’re really taking the piss now.
Since Christians adopted the concept of marriage and integrated it into their faith, the union has NORMALLY been between a man and a woman, though some Christian faiths have in the past, and continue to, supported polygamous unions. However, I will accept that the Christian concept of marriage is a “sacred union” and will allow them to restrict their brand of marriage to between a man and a woman.
However, they do not have the right to claim dominion over marriage. They can set their rules for the followers of their faith and their followers only, not for the rest of us.
Religious opposition does not require a religious response, particularly when the religious opposition has no moral, legal or rational foundation. Marriage does not belong to Christians or any other religious group. Simple as that.
Bugger arguing with them. They have taken something that does not belong to them. It is time for us to take it back.
Civil unions should be the vehicle for bestowing legal rights to couples, regardless of their sexual identity. Marriages should be a ceremony performed by a religious institution that does not grant any legal rights. That is the ONLY answer!!
GO VERMONTER: You so have it right!
“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.”
Get Bishop Gene…and HRC’s faith group…and give them $$$$ to make them loud, Louder, LOUDEST… if possible.
Especially because to ‘devout’ Christians their ‘FAITH Values’
DO mean more than Equal Rights for ALL.
“This is called Christian love??”
Yes, it’s viewed as being ‘tough love’.
“I recall a lesson from Genesis on equality”
Nah, if you look in the Bible the idea of equality doesn’t really exist.
Religion? What a sad waste of human thought. Most who have a background in world history will tell you that most of the worlds civilizations problems can be found to be rooted in religion. It is religion that is used to control populations by using its most effective weapon – FEAR. If you apply enough fear you kill the ability to think and question. Case in point: the position of women in the Islamic religion.
I have followed Scot’s many messages and I agree with his analysis of religion. I would like to see each tacked to the front door of every house of worship for its congregation to read.
“always been one man and one woman” That made my jaw drop. Even readers of Genesis know Jacob Israel had no fewer than four wives: Leah, Rachel, Zilpah and Bilhah, and had thirteen legitimate children by them: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun and Dinah by Leah; Dan and Naphtali by Bilhah; Gad and Asher by Zilpah; and Joseph and Benjamin by Rachel. “always been” seems to really mean “what cultural dogma says”. It’s hard to take someone seriously – especially when they practice something like sola scriptura (scripture alone) – when they don’t even pay attention to their own scripture.
Now, that incredulity aside, there are plenty of gay-affirming religious people who not only don’t take those passages in a homophobic way, but also don’t necessarily believe in something like sola scriptura. It could be said that parts of the Bible contradict each other, but it may even be better to say that parts of the Bible correct or amend each other. If one is to believe in Jesus, they should give credit to his great mercy and compassion, instead of invoking Leviticus to make him seem irrelevant. They should also not necessarily treat evangelists like Paul as all-knowing and all-powerful for stating their opinions. Would one as quickly lend such broad capricious veto power to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson just because they are well-known evangelists? They’re human beings too, with flaws. That’s why personal conscience and personal reflection are so important, and they are important to your own life, and are not always the right thing for someone else you’ve never met in your life. Personal answers are personal, and they require a great deal of personal thought and reflection. They cannot be come to without thought, and especially not with laziness like “just do what he says at the pulpit”. To say “I know everything right for the whole lot of you” without even a pretense of checking yourself, is sheer pride/vanity/hubris/arrogance.
Anyway, it is true that you cannot ignore religious argument with purely secular reasoning. You have to speak with people in ways they understand – challenge their theology when it has such a detrimental effect on us. And it’s not just that. There are a great many LGBT people who actually live and grew up in those religious communities, and are not magically atheists by virtue of accepting it’s perfectly okay and natural and wholesome to be gay. This is especially true here in Utah. If you want to find a well-worded well-organized LGBT support group with roots in the community, you find a group like Affirmation, which is a positive LGBT-affirming support group for LGBT Mormons and their friends and families. They are very spiritual and very concerned with matters of LGBT dignity, and also just as at odds with the establishment as large as nearly any other LGBT group by virtue of opposing the religious establishment’s hardline against LGBT issues. But they are still relative cultural insiders who can speak in terms that resonate with their neighbors far more than arguments like, “Your faith is stupid. Leave your community. We know everything that’s best for you.” Sound familiar? You can’t answer arrogance with more arrogance. And you can’t tackle religious opposition without addressing the spiritual issues on levels they can understand.
To engage in the debate about religion, morality and gay marriage is precisely the wrong strategy. The vast majority of people who oppose marriage equality based on their mystical beliefs will not be swayed by theological or rational arguments. Whatsmore, to engage with the extremists on this topic when we seek only civil and not religious recognition, allows the bigots to further blur the lines between church and state. In the final analysis, our task is to convince the middle of america where religious beliefs are trumped by patriotism and reason.
It is pointless and a waste of time to pretend that we could eliminate the role religion plays in our society. Religion is deeply embedded in American culture and so people who argue that we should try for greater secularism are barking up the wrong tree. A clear majority of Americans are religious and it is stupid to think that’s going to change.
However, being religious does NOT equal being conservative. For example, I have a large extended family that is almost entirely Catholic. Most of them lean noticeably to the Left, and most support gay rights. So why I should I endorse an effort to debunk my family’s religious beliefs, especially when I myself am not an Atheist?
Our problem has been, as Lisa notes, that we have been very ineffective at dealing with religious questions. During the Proposition 8 debacle in California there were anti-gay activists openly lying and telling people that legalizing same-sex marriage would result in priests and ministers being arrested for refusing to perform such weddings and churches being closed for preaching that same-sex marriage in incompatible with their denomination’s doctrine.
These were bald-faced lies but we did virtually nothing to counter them. Instead we focused our arguments on US, and how WE would benefit from marriage equality. This left a lot of people with the misunderstanding that anti-gay pundits were being truthful in claiming that we cared only for ourselves and that we were out to get their priests thrown in jail.
We often lose sight of the the reality that straight America doesn’t study this issue the way that they do. They barely understand how marriage works in their own cases! Many don’t even realize until they’re told that they need to apply to the state for a marriage license regardless of whether they have a minister lined up to perform the ceremony.
Finally, trying to dismiss religion makes us look arrogant and condescending. It creates the sense that we are, as conservative pundits claim, trying to impose our own will and beliefs on other people, including trampling on other people’s religious beliefs simply because we don’t like them. It’s not an image that helps our movement.
You’ve so missed the point. Religious freedom also means that the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Church have the freedom to perform same sex marriages. We’d win the religious argument if only our leaders would wake up and publicize the fact that banning same sex marriage infringes on the religious freedom of those denominations that bless same-sex marraiges.
(Quote):”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.”>>>>
Very true. CA faith-based communities “officially” sang as one voice in favor of prop 8, yet nearly half the actual people in those communities voted against it.
Thank you for addressing this. We definitely need a new approach.I just wish we knew what that was. Is it really moral to openly discriminate against others and deny them rights you have? This is called Christian love?? This is a very difficult nut to crack.