What price progress?

[khaosworks]

Whacking The Right Around The Head With Their Own Red Herring By Mr. Terence Chua, Glass Half Empty.

Bracing for the backlash
In Massachusetts, some advocates of same-sex marriage are asking whether the cost of progress may be too high.
By Jennifer Buckendorff

March 3, 2004 - Diane Palladino and her partner, Ellen Koteen, live in the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts. The valley includes the towns of Amherst and Northampton, and is known for its five liberal colleges. The National Enquirer once called it "Lesbianville, U.S.A." It would be an understatement to say that right-wing talk radio is not much of a factor in local politics.

Palladino and Koteen have been on the forefront of the culture wars for much of their 24-year relationship. Both have been organizers for feminist causes, like Koteen's past directorship of the Lesbian Education and Health project. And like thousands of valley residents, they were thrilled when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled last month that same-sex couples in the state are entitled to the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples. Under the court order, same-sex marriages will become legal on May 17, and they plan to be married soon after.

Still, despite the pervasive sense of joy here, they share something else with many Massachusetts gay-rights advocates: a nagging uneasiness.

The court's decision, and the decision of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to permit gay marriages, have been historic moments of liberation. But now the backlash is taking form, and some see the possibility that the civil rights victory could have a deep downside. In Massachusetts, the Legislature next week is scheduled to consider two state constitutional amendments that would withdraw marriage rights. Koteen called those amendments "frightening."

Nationally, President George W. Bush has proposed a federal constitutional amendment that could take same-sex marriage off the table for years, or generations. Some wonder whether gay marriage will be Sen. John Kerry's Willie Horton issue. One gay Boston resident explains his fears: "I'm afraid that the gay card will be thrown out there, and that in a close election, that could be enough to scare the general population into reelecting Bush, and taking us away from much greater problems that we really should be focusing on."

To this man and others, the same-sex marriage victory in Massachusetts will not necessarily have been worth the fight if it gives the world four more years of a Bush administration. "I'm more than just a gay man," he says. "I have education interests, social interests beyond the gay world, international concerns. I have environmental concerns. On the whole spectrum of my being, I want to see him defeated."

It's a fear that much of the queer community would rather not address. It's politically messy. It's emotionally messy. Even among those who acknowledge the risks of a backlash, few would be willing to say that too much is happening too fast, and that same-sex marriage is a concept that should be delayed. The issue is so sensitive, in fact, that several people interviewed for this story would acknowledge their concerns only anonymously.

"When you're under siege," says one Boston woman, "you don't want to give ammunition to the enemy."

I can see the concerns - we all know that the same-sex marriage controversy is a red herring, a way for Bush to get people distracted over the larger issues, like how even though the economy has grown there hasn't been a concomitant increase in employment; the rising cost of maintaining post-war Iraq and a body count that shows no sign of stopping or a peace that shows no sign of showing up; heightened paranoia and erosion of civil rights in the war on terrorism that still has its biggest villain at large - amongst other items on the neoconservative agenda for world domination.

Bush's endorsement of the constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage is a transparent attempt to galvanize his supporters among the Christian right and get them out into the polls - which is also why Kerry's frustrating stand against marriage but for civil unions is the only viable political option for him right now.

During last night's coverage of Super Tuesday on CNN, I heard an interesting comment - that the main problem that people have with using the term "marriage" was that it signifies approval. So while Americans don't mind being "tolerant" - which is why many are all for civil unions - they don't want to give approval to homosexuality by using the word marriage. You already know how I feel about this wishy-washy kind of hypocrisy, but on consideration, I can understand this doublethink, even if I don't approve of it in the slightest.

But getting back to whether or not this is playing into the hands of the conservatives - it may very well be, but I think that civil rights as an issue is too important to let go of. While nobody wants to give Bush any more ammo, I don't think in good conscience that anyone can keep quiet either. And, as Cindy Turnbull points out in the Salon article, if it wasn't gay marriage it'd be something else. It'd be abortion, or the Ten Commandments, or any number of hot button issues. In fact, those issues are also addressed in the Religious Liberties Restoration Act and the Constitutional Restoration Act which is running at the same time as the Federal Marriage Constitutional Amendment - not that you hear much about it in the press, because it's not as sexy.

Instead of fearing the coming together of the Christian right, liberals and progressives need to come together themselves. Instead of trembling in fear at the possibility of being attacked, the left needs to go on the offensive, and keep on the offensive. Bush is running scared. The red herring of same-sex marriages proves it. He needs to distract the public from where he's vulnerable. The solution is simple: Don't Let Him.

The left needs to show America that there are much worse problems that need to be dealt with - a rising deficit; unemployment despite economic growth; strings of broken promises; being lied to by the government; curtailment of personal liberties; the assault on the environment; the too-close relationship between government and big business; international animosity against the US; being entangled in the affairs of a country that by all rights the US should have not been there in the first place; a phony war against terror that has shown no real progress despite the rhetoric and has resulted in blatant violations of human rights.

With all this, why are we wasting time on a constitutional amendment banning people from wanting to love and commit to each other? That should be the message.

Now go forth and spread it.

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Amen!

[kaasirpent]

Very well-said.

I fear you're preaching to the choir, here, though. :)

[oxlahun.livejournal.com]

Preach it, brother KhaOS!

But you can't talk about what "the left" should do as if it's someone else's problem. If you are among the people who think that (re-)electing Prince George is a terrible mistake, and it looks like you probably are, then the problems of "the left" aren't someone else's to figure out. They're ours.

So let's do it. The election's in 8 months. It's time to go on the offensive. Media blitz--letters to newspapers and call in to talk radio? Don't be nasty or petty, check your facts, and go. What else?

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

The problems are mine to only a certain extent... I'm not American, so I can't vote. :-)

[thespian.livejournal.com]

true. though during the two elections I was in the US for (1996, 2000), I did a lot of volunteering and such. Even if the parties won't/can't let you work for them, lots of the PACs and non-profit organizations will welcome you.

[oxlahun.livejournal.com]

Okay, that's a point.

But the editorial staff at your favorite news media outlet doesn't know that. They can't prove you're not a citizen. You have an English first name; most of them probably wouldn't even suspect it.

And I readily admit that may not be the best way to spread the word. The problem is, we (as in "the left") don't have a guaranteed delivery mechanism like Baptist churches and Fox News. So we have to start somewhere; armchair quarterbacking will get us four more years of Prince George. If anyone has any other ideas, please toss 'em in. I'm up to my eyeballs in work right now, but I plan to continue this discussion on LJ and elsewhere.

When looking at the news this morning, one story had something from the Bush campaign claiming they were going to start attacking Kerry on his record, and on his actions not matching his words. A spokesman for Kerry said something like "Good; we're going to attack Bush the same way."