In an interview with Human Events, Sandy Rios of Concerned Women for America maps out the organization’s strategy on gay marriage.
Specifically, CWA believes the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban gay marriages in every state is too weak, because the antigay Alliance for Marriage was able to market FMA as if it allowed civil unions. Alliance for Marriage did this even though one of the writers of the amendment language, a Professor Robert George of Princeton University, specifically crafted FMA to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships forever in every state.
Rios claims not to be confident that FMA can pass in this Congress. Her organization’s strategy, then:
- Pass legislation barring federal courts from ordering one state to recognize another state’s civil unions
- Empower louder, more extreme antigay activists at the grassroots level
- Replace “our weaker brothers” in public office who are unwilling to legislate against homosexuals
It is interesting that Rios believes the Musgrave language does not ban civil unions. Wouldn’t “legal incidents” of marriage include civil unions? I think so, and so does the ACLU.
Civil union is not legal marriage. Only legal marriage is legal marriage. As the Supreme Court said in the Loving case of old, separate but equal is not equal. The fight for same-sex marriage is nothing more than a fight for equality for all under law. Civil union — “marriage-lite” — is not equality, no matter how many times Howard Dean and moderate progressives repeat their vile and mendacious mantra. It is new millennium Jim Crow, nothing more.
Natalie, while I appreciate your often levelheaded and clear thinking on GLBT issues that you express here, I do have to take issue with the terms “vile and mendacious” in reference to civil union legislation. There are a number of GLBT people, myself included, who support civil union legislation.
Personally, I think the GLBT community’s major push for marriage rights is a serious tactical error. Politics is a game of inches, and you can’t get what you want in one fell swoop, especially with an issue as emotionally charged as marriage. Here in California, politicians have gained equal rights for GLBT people over a period of years, and as of January 2005, domestic partners will be granted all the important rights that married couples have–and this, in spite of the passage of Proposition 22 which defined marriage as “solely between a man and a woman.” If full gay marriage rights would have been pushed for all at once, it would have backfired, nothing would have been gained, and most significantly, the opposition would have been emboldened into more blatant attempts at repealing already hard-won equal protection rights. Rather, each fundamental right (hospital visitation, adoption, shared custody, community property, medical benefits, etc.) was argued on its merits one at a time, and that was the key to winning over minds and hearts of other legislators who voted for these bills.
Nationally, I fear a major backlash against GLBT people because of this heavy marriage push. Yes, the concept of civil unions smacks of “separate but equal,” but I think it’s important for the majority of people to get comfortable with that concept over a period of time before we make the final push for full marriage recognition. I’m not interested in attempting to win over right-wing conservatives–they’ll always be against us, so that would be a wasted effort. Rather, I’m more concerned with convincing those in the middle, who don’t have a strong opinion either way. If they can see, over a period of years, that gay couples in civil unions are no threat to their way of life, and no different than they are as people, I think the final hurdle will be much easier to overcome, since people will have grown comfortable with the idea of state-recognized gay relationships. And I’m not the only GLBT person who views the fight for equal rights in this way.
If I believe it is vile and mendacious — and clearly I am offering my own opinion — that is what I will call it.
If some (IMO misguided or worse) GLBT people support it, does that mean I must march in lockstep with them on anything, much less on something I consider vile and mendacious? Or stay silent? No — on both counts. It is my duty to speak against Jim Crow in all of its forms.
There wasn’t a single intimation in anything I wrote that asked you to “walk in lockstep” with anything. In fact, while I voiced disagreement with your position on this issue and gave reasons why, I never once stooped to tossing insults as you did, calling those who agree with my position as “misguided or worse.” (I’m really fascinated to find out what the “or worse” means.) While I may not agree with your position, I have no desire to use terms that, by extension, paint those who hold that position as “vile and mendacious.” [i]That’s[/i] where I take issue with what you said.
Because this feedback forum is not designed to debate this issue in depth, I’ll just say this: in every hot-button issue, there are always two groups of people that I refer to as the True Believers and the Pragmatists. Both seek the same ends; they just have diametrically opposed ways of achieving those ends. What usually happens is that True Believers accuse Pragmatists of “selling out” or “being in league with the enemy,” while Pragmatists respond that True Believers are “hopelessly unrealistic” and “overly idealistic.” Usually, the dialogue is much more poisonous. I won’t be pulled into such a negative exchange.
So, Natalie, fight for your position all you want. Just leave the name-calling out of it.
If I believe the Jim Crow that is civil union is vile and mendacious — and I do — that is what I will call it. I will not be censored. And I did not call you any names.
Why is it that whenever someone cannot address the issue at hand, they scream “censorship”? Please, Natalie, I expected a more thoughtful response from you than that.
Since you seem content to only respond to manufactured points that I never raised, there’s really no hope for dialogue here. Sad.
With all due respect, I did not scream, and in fact, I did address the issue at hand. You didn’t like what I said so you demeaned me by saying my statement was not thoughtful. IMO, that is sad.
Fact: You’re telling me not to describe Jim Crow as “vile and mendacious” when I believe it is fully so. Sounds like a textbook example of censorship to me.
Fact: I have not told you what you can or can not say.
Fact: I have not said or intimated that Jim Crow’s supporters are “vile and mendacious” — that idea came from you.
Fact: I have no intention of arguing with you; my only intent is to stand up for speaking honestly. There can be no dialogue if people can not be honest and/or if one side has to amend its language in deference to the other. I can not and will not do that, and refusing to demean myself thusly does not make me a bad person or poster deserving of a scolding.
Sigh. “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
No, Natalie, you have not addressed any of my main issues at all. Instead, you have “responded” to points I never made. In addition, you have used disparaging language against those who disagree with you. So, in the interests of better understanding, let me explain my position again:
FACT: You said, “‘Marriage-lite’ — is not equality, no matter how many times Howard Dean and moderate progressives repeat their vile and mendacious mantra.’ My issue with this statement was the fact that your use of the words “vile and mendacious” in that statement described Dean and moderate progressives as vile and mendacious *by extension.*. While it is true that I drew that conclusion, how is your statement any different from right-wing conservatives, including ex-gays, who refer to homosexual behavior as “wicked,” “an abomination,” “a threat to morality and the family,” when at the same time claim to love homosexuals as people? Both you and I know full well that *by extension* they are describing GLBT people in those terms–terms which can inspire others to violence against GLBT people, regardless of claims to the contrary. If it’s hurtful for ex-gays and other right-wing Christians to use that type of pejorative language against us, then it’s just as unfair for us to use it against other GLBT people with whom we politically disagree. To do so is hypocritical. *That* was my whole point. (Besides, you still haven’t defined what you meant by “and worse.” I’m really fascinated about that one.)
FACT: Criticism of your use of terminology is not censorship. It’s criticism. It’s “speaking honestly,” to use your terms. You’re welcome to use whatever terms you wish to define *by extension* those with whom you disagree. I’ve *never* once said you couldn’t. But that doesn’t mean I can’t take issue with it publicly by saying that I do not agree with the gay marriage argument being framed in those terms.
FACT: I want to make it clear that I have no issue with you personally, and actually have enjoyed reading your responses to many of the issues on this blog. However, I think the fair use of language is extremely important, whether it comes from our opponents… or *us*.
“Or worse” is riddled with internalized homophobia or self-hatred.
You have decided that my belief that civil union is vile and mendacious is a definition that its supporters are V&M. I have not said that and I do not believe that, so I refuse to accept that criticism as being anything remotely close to valid. And painting me as being like the Religious Right… well, that’s just typical of particular mainstreamers who wish to tar those who don’t conform to their worldview.
As for censorship, you stated a commandment: “Just leave out the namecalling.” I called no one any names, but in any case, you gave me an order as to what I could not say and all but ordered me to amend my language to suit you. That, in my book, is censorship. Perhaps I was mistaken; it may merely have been hubris. In any case, doing so would be dishonest. IMO, civil union is nothing less than vile; any talk that it is any form of equality is a lie through and through. I can not in good conscience soften that.
And of course this is not personal. It is merely an issue on which there is no room for agreement between us. You may support Howard Dean or John Kerry; I would slit my wrists before doing such a thing. C’est la vie.