Noah Baron, Associate Editor
Ideology: Religious Progressive | Writing from: Princeton Junction, NJ
In the lead-up to the vote on same-sex marriage in New Jersey yesterday, I got into a discussion with one of my friends about gay rights. He told me that while he’s all for marriage equality, it’s not what we need to be working on right now – instead, we should be working on non-discrimination laws. I disagreed with him, saying that once we achieved marriage equality, all that would come easily, but in the back of my mind I knew I was wrong.
We are in the midst of one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. Despite some recovery, Americans are still losing their jobs, struggling to make end’s meet, and pay off their mortgages. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in many states already have trouble keeping a job or their housing while trying to live a normal life. That’s because in thirty states, there is no anti-discrimination legislation in place to protect gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgendered people from being fired or kicked out of their home based solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Now more than ever, it is wrong to allow such discrimination to continue – especially while the gay rights movement focuses on marriage in fairly liberal states which already have anti-discrimination laws in place.
Indeed, the locations of latest marriage equality battles – California, Maine, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and, yes, even Iowa – all have second-parent adoption, job antidiscrimination, housing antidiscrimination, health benefits for same-sex couples, and hate crimes protection on the books (and all but New York have civil unions). The same, alas, cannot be said for fourteen states which offer none of these things, and another ten states which were kind enough to deign to include gay people in their hate crimes legislation. (Source: Lax and Phillips 2009, “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness,” American Political Science Review).
Yet bizarrely the vast majority of these initiatives routinely receive far more popular support than same-sex marriage does. Even in Alabama, where fewer than one in four people supprt same-sex marriage, and fewer than 35% of people support civil unions, the idea of extending health benefits to same-sex couples, instituting job and housing antidiscrimination laws, and extending hate crimes legislation to include gay people all garner much more than fifty percent. In fact, housing discrimination, the most popular measure in Alabama, weighs in between 65% and 70% support, and job antidiscrimination, the least popular, ticks in around 53%. This pattern remains true for nearly every state (the exception being Utah, where only hate crime legislation and housing antidiscrimination make it past fifty percent – yet nonetheless receive the support of more than 55% of the population). (Source: Lax and Phillips 2009)
So the question I pose to gay activists anywhere is this: how important is it to invest blood, sweat, tears, and millions of dollars in trying to achieve marriage equality in liberal states, when the effort to gain all of these other measures could do so much more good, make a greater difference in the daily lives of more gay people, and, importantly, be much easier to accomplish? Why not, for now, at least, set aside the goal of marriage equality for those of us who already do not have to worry about being fired or evicted when our boss or landlord finds out about our boy- or girlfriend, for those of us who are covered under the health insurance of our partners, for those of us who can adopt our partner’s child, so that those of us who can’t might be able to someday soon?
The problem, as I see it, is that we are investing millions of dollars in referenda and lobbying to achieve marriage equality in the Northeast and West, and often losing in the process – and at the same time, we are leaving gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in the mid-West and South behind, without assurance that they won’t be evicted the next day, without confidence that they’ll have their job for another week, without so many rights which we take for granted in our daily lives.
Noah, I knew you could do it. Reasoned, well thought out, no invective, no derision. Nice article
Noah, I agree and disagree at the same time.
From a practical, political strategy standpoint I agree. Activists should be accomplishing the basic rights first, marriage second. The main problem is that the country is so unevenly divided on the issue, over (or near) 50% support in some Northeastern states, and below 25% in some southern states…essentially the problem is that on this national issue, activists *cannot* have a national strategy, thus “Equality Alabama” should focus on housing and “Equality Maine” was right to shoot for Marriage.
From a societal standpoint, I must disagree. The fight must be fought. On every news-stand, barbershop and convenience store across New Jersey right now (and even on my kitchen counter) sits a glaring, bold headline: “GAY MARRIAGE LOSES.” This is what children growing up see, this is what people who haven’t made up their minds see, this is what “bandwagon” politics sees. When Children grow up in a state where gay couples are treated differently, on the most identifiable issue: marriage, they WILL be treated differently no matter the hate-crimes laws, discrimination laws, or housing policies of their state.
Conor –
Basically what I’m suggesting is applying the same principle to legislative efforts as we apply to our legal challenges. The more frequently we lose at the voting booth or in legislatures, the more “precedents” we have stacked against us, and the harder it’ll make it to win the future. As you noted, when politicians see “GAY MARRIAGE FAILS IN NJ SENATE” on the front page of the newspaper, they’ll think twice about supporting not only gay marriage, but also other gay rights as well.
What we need to do is work achieve what we can where we can. Obviously, same-sex marriage is going to be quite a bit of a reach regardless of where we try to achieve it in the country, but if we poured all the money, time, and effort we put in to trying to get marriage equality into getting these other basic rights for gay people elsewhere in the country, there will be a greater sense that support for gay rights is gaining rather than waning.
Noah and Conor,
I agree with both of you, but I struggle with the arguments altogether. Ok, this is long.
Given that I am against marriage as a political institution, I can’t help but feel hopeless and exhausted by all of the lobbying and protesting for marriage equality rights. But let’s pretend for a moment that my marriage politics are not as they actually are. In such a case, I agree with Noah–there are so many other fights to fight before we should consider marriage equality rights. These fights, I say, are far more important because they are BASIC human and civil rights that are being denied to the LGBTQ community.
At the same time, though, I absolutely agree with Conor in that we must always be shooting for the moon. (And Conor, I 100% agree with your Alabama/Maine bullet; ME did the right thing by going for marriage while AL still needs to make some baby steps.)
My personal and political qualms with the issues? I realize that we always must be thinking about the practical and ideal simultaneously. Even though I disagree with marriage legally, I understand that in our society marriage equality is THE quintessential marker (or one of the big ones) of gender and sexual equality. While I would rather expend my energy fighting for more tangible and affecting policy, I know why marriage equality is important theoretically.
I’ll use an analogy that I struggle with much more on a day-to-day basis: gendered language and rhetoric. Personally, I do not say/write “him or her” and “he or she” every time I write a paper or an article. (Depending on my audience, granted) I feel safe assuming that my readership knows that when I say “he” or “man,” I am using these terms to represent all people. Part of me thinks it is petty to have to check constantly one’s gender pronouns when we should be spending time and intellect on equal wages and employment discrimination. But, I understand why gender and feminist theory boils down to the argument that discourse is the bottom-line. If we don’t change discourse, we don’t change consciousness, and we lose. Plus, we must give a nod to the language activists before us; women were excluded for far too long, tear down the normative male hegemony, etc.
A convoluted analogy, perhaps, but I think I’m making a point. Changing discourse, however impossible it may seem, is the end-all-be-all for theorists; Likewise, marriage is that marker on the grave stone for sex and gender equality in America. No matter how unattainable it seems, no matter how lavish or meticulous the fight, it is important to do. Even if for the sake of being a gesture. Not to say that the fight for marriage equality is just a gesture, but you know what I mean, maybe…
I think you’re missing the practical aspect of this. The burden to prove discrimination is often on the plaintiff, and nearly impossible to succeed.
Employment discrimination is illegal. Many protected classes exist. But even if you were fired for being gay, your employer could just say he fired you because you showed up late on a single day, or because your performance was poor, etc. At common law, the relationship between employer and worker was employment at will. The same is true today, with one exception: discrimination law. In other words, a discrimination case is the exception to a steadfast rule that you can be fired for any or no reason.
Do you really think the Civil Rights Act helps prevent age or sex discrimination? We all hear about big cases after the fact of black women making 30% less than their white male coworkers for 20 years and then, finally winning a lawsuit. But you know what we don’t hear reported? The remainder of such people who bring suit, only to fail! Or, worse yet, the ones who never even know that they are victims of discrimination.
Discrimination cannot be remedied via statutes. That’s not an argument to stop trying, but it is one to suggest that the intended outcome will not result from your policy. Legalizing gay marriage (calling it “marriage equality” doesn’t change anything) is likely to do far more to encourage acceptance of gay relationships than any discrimination statute. This is a case where minds must be changed. Brute force to encourage social change has always been met with opposition, and is far less likely to be successful as a result.
Personally, I think the gay rights movement jumped the gun by about five years or so – but they kind of had to in response to prop 8. Do you know if places like New Jersey and Maine can just re-vote in 5-10 years when the climate should be much more favorable?
Kelly — I’m not sure about Maine, but both New Jersey and New York can re-vote at any time. The only consideration will be whether they have a liberal Democratic majority (because the party with the majority controls the agenda) and a liberal Democratic governor (because if the governor vetoes it, it’s very unlikely to pass).
I don’t think Noah acknowledges how politically unpopular gay marriage is even among the democratic base. The reason gay marriage fails by democracy is because it is vastly politically unpopular. The only people who support it are gays themselves or people who are sufficiently libertarian to accept their discrimination/equal protection arguments such as myself. The rest–the overwhelming majority–disfavor any “social” acceptance or even tolerance of homosexuality or homosexual relationships.
Tim –
While a significant majority of Americans overall do oppose same sex marriage, I think it’s important to take a look at actual polling data and trends. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/Majority-Americans-Continue-Oppose-Gay-Marriage.aspx)
First, 75% of those who consider themselves “liberal” support same-sex marriage, and 50% of those who consider themselves “moderate” support same-sex marriage (compared to 46% of “moderates” who oppose same-sex marriage).
Second, 59% of those in the 18-29 year-old cohort support same-sex marriage. As older cohorts shrink over time, the proportion of those supporting same-sex marriage will continue to grow, and those opposing it will continue to shrink.
This is supported by more polling data. For example, in 2004, a Newsweek poll showed that only 45% of Americans supported the right of same-sex couples to adopt. Today, 54% support gay adoption.
Meanwhile, the acceptance of homosexuality has increased year after year (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/Americans-Evenly-Divided-Morality-Homosexuality.aspx). In 2002, only 38% of people believed that homosexuality was morally acceptable. In 2008, that number has risen 10%, to 48% of people who believed that it was morally acceptable, with an equal number of people saying that it was not.
When the question asked whether homosexuality was an “acceptable alternative lifestyle” (wording used in 1982), 57% of Americans said that it was in 2007, compared to 51% in 2005.
In sum, Tim, you are simply wrong about the willingness of Americans to accept homosexuality. True, many Americans have backward beliefs regarding gay people today, but that doesn’t mean that an increasing number of people are free of that bigotry.
I think you’re right about the trend, Noah. I also think you’re absolutely wrong about the current state of things. The key word is not “many” but “most.” Most Americans do not support gay rights in any sort of meaningful way, today. I agree with you totally that the trend is away from that, but I’m not talking about a forward looking picture. I am talking about a snapshot of today, where it should be very clear that people do not support it.
This is evident from ELECTIONS which have had clear results, unlike polls which can change from day to day, and especially over time. If you want to know how people feel, don’t just ask them a question–see what they vote at the ballot box where there is real incentive to squander their vote on the “wrong” side. A poll is and can be informative, but it certainly can’t be relied upon when the results disfavor EVERY election ever held.
Gay rights have, as of today, never survived direct democratic vote, so far as I know. That is a pretty scary and disgusting fact if you ask me.
Tim,
The trouble is that most of the gay-rights referenda — as of late — have been about same-sex marriage. The only exceptions I can think of were the Arkansas gay adoption ban (where polls indicate only 20% support for the allowing it — though 43% wound up voting against the ban) and the Washington Ref. 71 (to expand domestic partner benefits). Ref. 71 passed, actually, in the 2009 elections.
And in 1978, conservatives attempted to pass Proposition 6, which would have banned gay people from teaching in schools. Though initially it polled around 60% in favor, it was eventually defeated, with 58% of voters opposing it.
I think we’re in agreement that the long term outlook for the “gay agenda” is unquestionably good, Noah. It’s the here and now that you seem to be denying.