The passage of prop 8 in my state makes me sick. We were right to oppose it, the only arguments made for writing discrimination into our constitution were/are religious, emotional, or outright lies. The Equality For All campaign ran a straight up, honest, and simple opposition, which I think should have been more effective. It was the right campaign to run, and the fight is not over yet. Poised as we all are to continue the fight, I'm concerned now about the anger we're all feeling, and mistakes we may make that will have short and long term impact on our communities.
I spent all day working the polls for No on 8. I worked with a woman who'd just been married. I worked with an 18 year old boy whose conservative religious parents were voting no, for him, and because they realized that prop 8 was not a vote on morality, prop 8 is the denial of civil rights. Period.
I attended two training sessions for the No on 8 campaign, each conducted by very dedicated and talented field organizers, who also happened to be lesbians, who also happened to be married to each other. One of them is a minister, ordained in the Disciples of Christ in the early '80s. Talk about a trail blazer. And the local head of the effort is a good friend of mine. So over the course of the campaign, I became well versed in the aims and focus designed to beat this initiative. It was, and is, very simple. This is about civil rights. This is not about religion, or morality, it isn't really even about marriage. We are free to disagree on all of those fronts. This is about whether we, as a people, believe that our laws should be used to deny certain rights to a specific group, based not on their actions but on who they are. Based on god-given characteristics of their humanity.
The No campaign invested in very sophisticated marketing information. Early on, phone calls were made to the base- people who are almost certainly no votes, as determined by shopping patterns or whatever. Then, the calls shifted to the middle- the people who probably had not made their mind up one war or the other, or who perhaps leaned in our direction and needed to be committed. The press of time, the sheer number of people we needed to reach was the driving reason behind the decision not to engage probable yes voters.
This also meant that we did not intentionally go into the African American community, particularly its churches, and I believe this was the campaign's sole mistake. The African American community understandably does not appreciate it when people try to equate marriage or anything else with slavery and Jim Crow. But I do believe that talking about civil rights and denial of such by law may have touched a portion of the community.
Anyway. We didn't do that, and the courts will probably have to fulfill their traditional role here. Congress could do its part by repealing DOMA. That's worth fighting for. Get used to calling Washington. I think we may even get used to Washington paying attention to us in the coming years.
It's also worth it to get out into the streets, wave your No on 8 signs and rainbow flags, vent the frustration, just mourn the wrongness. Be a presence, a witness, for justice and equality and the values of the American Constitution. Let your heart break wide open with people who share your values, and be a comfort to each other.
While we're venting frustration and seeking our comfort, though, let's not go out of our way to close hearts on the other side. Over the week I've received several suggestions that just don't work for me, and I don't believe they'll do the fight any good.
- When you're painting your signs, refrain from calling people haters and bigots. Some people will change their minds on this issue, probably after some personal experience. They almost certainly will not change their mind because someone called them a name or accused them of bigotry.
- Asking the IRS to investigate the Mormon Church, or any other church, just isn't a good idea. Firstly, churches are within their legal rights to engage in issues based advocacy, and that includes organizing, lobbying, and fund raising. Hell, my denomination has a legislative ministry office in Sacramento and a Washington Office for Advocacy. We're the good guys, and the right loves to threaten us over our tax exemption (FUN FACT! The Nixon Administration even went after us, because our Beacon Press published the Pentagon Papers.). And remember All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena? The right went after them in 2004 after the minister did a sermon on war. They also held an interfaith No on 8 service two weeks ago.
I'm not trying to pretend that churches on the right don't engage in what is clearly disallowed partisan activity. But that isn't what this campaign was. Nothing comes from these IRS attacks, because the churches probably haven't done anything illegal. Don't stoop to the level of the Nixon administration.
- Likewise please don't go marching to churches and calling everyone inside bigots. I think it's wrong when nativists protest outside United Church of Christ in Simi for providing sanctuary, and I think it's wrong to protest outside a church who disagrees with us- even when what they have done is dishonest and hurtful. The marketing decisions were not made by the people who are entering the church for some sacred space and time. Leave them be. Doing otherwise will just harden people in their fears.
- While we're at it: do we really want to attack our local business community? I mean, if they had Yes on 8 signs posted in their windows, ok, avoid that store. I will, too. But what about Lassen's in Ventura, or El Coyote in LA? Lassen's owners, who've been part of our community for years and whose presence has always been positive, happen to be Mormon. And at El Coyote, a Mormon member of the family made a personal contribution to the Yes on 8 campaign. (Jess wrote about this perfectly, please read)
But these are individual, private actions, encouraged by the leaders of these peoples' churches. Will going to war with their employers or their storefronts accomplish anything positive? In the cases of Lassen's and El Coyote, do we really want to destroy places where we experience community bonds, meeting places where we are not merely anonymous consumers? Perhaps, instead, we could strengthen these community bonds by directly addressing the issue: by al means write to the owners of Lassen's and tell them why their support of this issue concerns you. Go to Margie's lunch at El Coyote and talk to her. Provide the kind of personal experience that leads people to change their minds on this issue.
When we win this battle, we will have done so on the merits. Because it is right. Let's not leave bruised and angry churches in our wake, suspicious of thuggery and ever more convinced of some militant "homosexual agenda". It just won't work.
The Constitution is on our side. Discrimination is wrong. We can disagree on religion, morality, and even marriage, but we cannot write discrimination into our laws. It's wrong. It's unfair.
People will change. With personal conversations and experiences, they will change. Like the parents of the boy I volunteered with. People will regret their support of this proposition, like Margie at El Coyote. But not because we bully them. Because it is right.
updated this morning because this is just not a well written post, but it's very important to me.
4 comments:
I disagree that it's not well-written, but nice to see some bloggers care. I agree with the general proposition that we left of centrists, who lost the battle of Prop 8 but won the war of the election, are now faced with how to treat the opposition. Name calling, no, hate, no, listening and discussing yes. But I think that boycott as a form of protest has a legitimate place in our society. If "El Coyote Cafe," as an institution, or a majority of its ownership, had contributed, I would probably (painfully!) boycott it. A peaceful, respectful demonstration in front of LDS churches, letting their flock know directly what their neighbors think of what their leaders are preaching? I think that's fair. The point, I think, as Bly says, is to listen, talk, and keep the disobedience refreshingly civil.
For those who want the meat of the arguments, the California Supreme Court docket and related briefing is available at:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=566226&doc_no=S168047
Sometimes it takes a few days for the court website to post briefs. It does not currently show the actual brief -- the Petition for Extraordinary Relief and Writ of Mandate, but that document can be found at the National Center for Lesbian Rights website:
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/CampaignPetition.pdf?docID=4321)
I wrote before that facially the text of Prop 8 creates a patent contradiction with the language of the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution, and that such defect is probably intentional.
The NCLR brief also notes that Prop 8 substantively affects: (1) the fundamental rights to marry (determination of a fundamental right to marry was confirmed in the Prop 22 Cal.Supreme Court opinion); (2)of a suspect class (NB: gays and lesbians not being considered a "suspect class" by many other state courts); (3) that unequal application of law to limit the fundamental rights of suspect classes is reviewed by appellate courts under "strict scrutiny" -- a very high level of review that typically results in a finding of unconstitutionality; and (4) that Prop 8 is also procedurally invalid as it is a revision of the state constitution, which, unlike an amendment, cannot be enacted by a simple majority of the electorate.
This is just a brief legal summary. Any social comments I have are in line with Bly and Jess, and while I agree that use of the term "hate" might be counterproductive, we should keep in mind that hatred is the snake oil being peddled by Prop 8's supporters.
While the legal battle will be intense, a more civil approach in the social battle may be more effective.
Hi Jess:
I agree that boycotts have a place: where you drop your buck really does matter. As you said, it depends on whether the if the support was institutional, it would be appropriate. Personal decisions by employees? Not so much, not for me.
Ditto the churches- it's just a much easier place to get into trouble. But that doesn't mean I would stand in the way of a peaceful protest.
And Scott: this is a three-pronged fight. The courts will be vital, as will legislative action. In addition to all of that, there is the peaceful, civil interaction.
Four prongs. Let's make it four prongs: (1) judicial; (2) legislative; (3) civil interaction/civil disobedience, boycott; and (4) T-shirts.
A T-shirt with a snappy logo goes a long way.
Post a Comment