 |
The Church Is Still At War Over Gay Rights, But The Nation Appears To Be Moving On |
 |
In 2004, initiatives to ban gay marriage appeared on the ballot in eleven different states, and all eleven passed. The increased voter turn-out from these initiatives helped propel Bush to victory, and talk of a Constitutional amendment was rampant in conservative circles. It seemed that the evangelical church might successfully push its anti-gay agenda on the nation as a whole.
In 2006, however, only seven such initiatives passed, and their drawing power was minimized as the Democrats took back both houses of Congress. This year, in what is shaping up to be a strong Democratic election, only three states are trying anti-gay initiatives, and the movement for a Constitutional amendment has sputtered. In addition, the state of California legalized same-sex marriage in June and other states are sure to follow suit. It seems that in the political arena, the tide has turned and that the struggle for gay rights is headed for victory - even though there is still much work to be done.
Things couldn’t be more different on the religious side of things. Last month, the national governing body of the Presbyterian Church (USA) passed two controversial resolutions - one that overturned the ban on ordaining active homosexuals, and the other that rescinded the official policy that homosexuality is a sin. That sounds encouraging, except that the resolutions are not binding until a majority of lower governing bodies approve them - a turn of events which is not likely to happen. What we can expect is a bloody conflict over the course of the next year and the departure from the denomination of even more conservative congregations.
It’s huge news for us Presbyterians, who are starting to brace for schism, but very few people outside the denomination seem to have even noticed. Major media outlets have failed to pick up the story. In the past, mainline Protestants tearing each other apart over gay rights has been welcome fodder for the front page. What has changed? Why is the religious side of the struggle going so poorly as the civil side goes so well? And why does the public suddenly seem disinterested in the whole affair?
Here are some quick theories:
1) There is a fixed shelf life for scandals and controversies. The public can only stay interested in a story line for so long. Churches bashing gays and ripping themselves in two is yesterday’s news.
2) It’s quiet. Almost too quiet. The anti-gay forces have retreated somewhat on the political and media fronts, realizing that there are too many other issues in play this year to make their move. They also realize that McCain is a probable loser and is not really committed to their cause. They are rebuilding their forces for an all-out assault on the Constitution in a couple of years. Meanwhile, they’re keeping the heat turned up on the ecclesiastical front.
3) (This is one I think is most likely) The church is simply becoming more and more irrelevant in society and in politics. The fact that the majority of churches still condemn homosexuality is of less consequence in the public arena than it was in the past. No longer the backbone and the basis of our society, the Christian church is now just one among many demographic segments. Just look at our popular culture with its tacit acceptance of homosexuality, and its clear that the church and its conflicts are being pushed to the margins.
How important are gay rights issues to you in this election? Do you think they will affect the presidential race at all?
as a straight guy working at a gay and LBT rights organization, I have kind of a unique perspective on this!
there’s some debate as to whether the 2004 ballor measures actually drove voter turnout–I think someone posted on HuffPo about this a few weeks ago, pointing to evidence that the amendments didn’t actually put Bush back in the WH (I think Harvard also did a study on this that concluded the same thing). In 2006, AZ became the first state to defeat a proposed anti-marriage amendment at the ballot, though AZ voters will decide the same issue again this fall. As you mention, CA and FL will also have anti-marriage amendments on their ballots–an attempt to end marriage equality in CA just as it begins. The FL measure requires a 60% vote to pass. AR might also have an anti-adoption measure on their ballot–signatures are still being collected for a proposed statutory ban on adoption by “unmarried cohabitating sexual partners”. McCain just said the other day that he doesn’t “believe” in adoption by same-sex couples, though he is trying to back track a bit, saying it’s a question for the states.
In any event, interesting post. I am not as tied in to the religious community as you are, but one thing I have seen in the past few years is progressive, pro-equality clergy members speaking out in favor of marriage for same-sex couples (or “marriage equality”). As someone who is not very religiously aware, I have been surprised to see this, and it seems to be growing. as you know, of course, James Dobson and Pat Robertson don’t have a monopoly on religious viewpoints when it comes to GLBT issues.
I think the marriage amendment as political tactic is fading, in part, because so many states have already passed these amendments, or statutory bans on marriage by same-sex couples. There are only a handful of states that don’t have either constitutional or statutory bans on marriage by same-sex couples–CA, MA, RI, NM, and NY (recognizes out of state marriages by same-sex couples). RI and NM are unclear–no ban, but also no express recognition of marriage
One other thing that helps is that MA has been letting gay and lesbian couples get married for 4 years and the sky hasn’t fallen. I think this is becoming less of a big deal–and for younger people under 25 who grow up knowing openly gay people, it is is even less of an issue–they tend to have no problem with equal rights.
Finally, as you suggest, there are much bigger fish to fry. When people have to worry about their mortgage, putting food on the table, the war on Iraq, these anti-gay ballot measures look more and more like the distraction they are
I actually think that this issue should help Obama, if anything. McCain has claimed he’s a moderate, but his views on these issues are extreme. He says he “doesn’t believe in gay adoption”–more than half of Americans have no problem with qualified gay parents adopting kids who would otherwise have no permanent family. He supports the proposed anti-marriage amendments in AZ and CA. That puts him on the same side as Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and other extreme religious right groups. Virtually across the board (he did vote against the federal marriage amendment though he supports state amendments), McCain’s views when it comes to equal rights for gay people align with the extreme religious right and undermine his claim to be a moderate.
McCain will have a problem claiming he’s a moderate while he’s also trying to energize his allies on the extreme religious right. This issue could end up causing more trouble for him than anyone.
hey chris,
very articulate comment. it’s usually the youth who are more accepting of people “on the fringe,” and then those youth grow up, and the people in question are no longer “fringe.” it happened with african americans and other minorities (racism is still an issue, but the youth tend to be pretty liberal on it). glbt will have their day.
you seem to have a very unique perspective on this. i go to this website called opposing views, and they currently have a debate up on whether
same sex marriage should be allowed. your perspective could be a valuable contribution in the discussion. check it out if you have the time.
coincidentally, McCain is spending some time backtracking from his adoption comments today–he’s “clarifying” his remarks and trying to emphasize that this issue should be left to the states. he’s trying to thread the needle between extreme religious right groups, which thinks gay people and gay parents are an abomination and mainstream America (including many religious people) who think gay parents are a-ok
Thanks for the info, Chris. I obviously am coming at this from the religious side of things and don’t know enough about the political side. Honestly, I wish the church could start to move on, too.
I like your post and think you raise good questions…maybe you can continue to push your church in the right direction–I know some churches (e.g. UCC, UU, MCC, United Methodists, and others) are expressly in favor of equality for GLBT people. I have seen a bunch of clergy members testify in favor of equality before state legislatures…so there is encouraging news
Honestly, I’m conflicted over this. I’ve watched my denomination (Presbyterian USA)tear itself apart for twelve years over this - and we’ve neglected other important issues such as poverty and human rights. I want a church that is fully inclusive of GLBT, but I don’t us to destroy ourselves trying to get there.
Don’t forget to check out MacPherson’s “Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right” on Yahoo ! Jon
In some denominations such as The United Methodists the best explanation I’ve heard for the silence on gay issues right now is that anti-gay advocates are holding their fire and awaiting the added votes that come with the inclusion of Africans as voting delegates to general assemblies, etc. Generally, African delegates oppose gay rights. When a critical mass is achieved anti-gay advocates will press for even more restrictive and exclusionary policies in general assemblies as has already happened in the Episcopal Church. They may even try to purge the church of those who favor inclusion, which has also been attempted in the Episcopal Church.
All of which points to schism and ugly battles over property rights.