Gay marriage is the gay political issue these days. But it wasn't always that way, and only 10 years ago, the focus was on other issues, like employment discrimination and adoption. Then marriage came along and in its wake left a movement disorganized and divided—and ineffective, as November's 11 state gay marriage bans show. The gay activist community is facing a period of readjustment, and in order for it come out stronger and more focused, it's time to drop marriage, says veteran activist Greg Reisher.
Greg Reisher is a veteran gay rights activist who worked at Human Rights Campaign and the L.A. Gay and Lesbian Center in the 1990s.
The gay rights movement is at a crossroads. In the 35 years since the Stonewall riots—the birth of the modern-day gay rights struggle—the movement has covered a lot of ground. Lately, however, the movement seems to have run aground. Marriage dominated the gay political landscape to the point where it is holding back progress on all other gay and lesbian equality issues. Poor political planning on the part of the major gay and lesbian organizations and misdirected priorities on the part of gay people as a whole has led to a need to re-evaluate our failures and figure out how to achieve some real successes.
So how did we get here, and how do we move forward?
A Burgeoning Movement
As a young, eager activist, working in my first, real post-college job, I was impressed by the dynamic world of gay politics. I saw so much possibility. In 1994, Human Rights Campaign launched an employment project. Our first goal was to get as many members of Congress as possible to sign voluntary anti-discrimination pledges stating that they would not discriminate in hiring their staff members on the basis of sexual orientation. An overwhelming number of members signed the pledge, and on June 23, 1994, HRC—with the support of most of the other gay and lesbian organizations—introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) for the first time.
At the time, ENDA was polling at upwards of 80 percent support. Fair-minded Americans overwhelmingly supported the need to have federal protection for employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. And it wasn’t just employment discrimination—AIDS funding was topping record levels, and support was growing for issues like adoption, parenting and adding sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. And then came marriage.
An Issue In The Making
The same-sex marriage crusade began in 1993 when Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund took on the case of Baehr v. Lewin (later Baehr v. Miike)—a Hawaii case that set the stage for today’s marriage battle. To keep community and activist momentum up as the case moved through the courts, Lambda Legal Defense needed to pull the other national and state gay-rights organizations on board to their marriage strategy. It wasn’t until this point—with the case already underway and publicity mounting—that groups like HRC and the Task Force began the essential legwork of political polling, educating people and establishing a message to gauge the country’s acceptance of same-sex marriage.
In 1996, the Hawaii trial court handed the gay rights groups victory when it ruled that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is not justified by any reason—much less a compelling one—and that these couples should therefore be allowed to marry. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Romer v. Evans, which overruled a Colorado statewide initiative outlawing the state or any political subdivision from passing laws protecting sexual orientation discrimination. The “Ellen” coming-out episode began its very lengthy process of approvals in 1996 before the episode aired in 1997. And, most importantly, the two biggest “gay” votes in the United States Senate’s history took place back to back. The first vote was on the Defense of Marriage Act—which passed overwhelming, 85-14—followed immediately by a vote on ENDA, which failed by the smallest of margins: 50-49.
With the outcome of the Hawaii Baehr case seemingly sealed and a pro-same-sex marriage decision expected any day, the citizens of Hawaii stopped the court case in its tracks when they passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage in Hawaii as a union between a man and a woman. It was a severe setback for the gay community. But the publicity surrounding Baehr seemed to pay off: ENDA—which received more support than any other previous gay rights bill—never could have gotten to a vote in the Senate if it weren’t for the politics of marriage.
The Backlash Begins
With no coordinated political strategy from the onset of the gay marriage campaign, nor any early synchronization among the gay and lesbian organizations, the marriage backlash had officially begun. The Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was the first of many. Last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court overruled a 15-year-old decision criminalizing same-sex sodomy, the headlines in the papers read “Supreme Courts Overturns Sodomy. Is Gay Marriage Next?” Without fail, this is the question that arises whenever an issue of gay rights or equality comes into play. No politician wants to touch gay issues—even the most benign—because it always comes back to marriage. Hate crimes legislation? How will this affect marriage? Employment discrimination? But what about marriage? I want to visit my sick partner in the hospital? Can’t talk about that— that’s a marriage issue!
The marriage-question jitters don’t just affect politicians. Gay rights groups are scrambling, too. Human Rights Campaign led the Marriage Project this past election cycle and was unsuccessful in defeating any of the 11 anti-gay-marriage state ballot initiatives (though the group was able to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment). A look at HRC’s Senate scorecard for the 108th Congress shows that 67 percent of those issues “scored” were co-sponsorship of legislation—not actual votes on legislation. Just recently, the organization announced that Cheryl Jacques, HRC president, resigned her post after less than a year at the organization. The group is now trying to figure out how to “reintroduce the gay community to the American public.”
Refocusing The Fight
In defense of HRC and other gay-rights groups’ agendas, there cannot be a vote on legislation that never makes it to the floor, and with the current Republican leadership, not many gay rights issues are getting floor votes. And the marriage debate is not totally for naught. The discussion of gay issues and gay culture has grown exponentially—much to the credit of the exposure the marriage issue has received. And while there have not been any clear legislative gains, more and more people are living open and honest lives without the fear that we saw even 10 years ago.
So what should we do now? First, we must abandon marriage. We should settle for “separate but equal” when it comes to marriage and civil unions. Such a concession—at least for now—will create huge challenges within the gay community. The gay organizations must figure out how to retreat and refocus on the legislative, political and “personal” fronts. Second, we must figure out how to explain to the “masses” that we, as a community, are moving on to issues that are more “winnable” and have more support throughout both red and blue states. And, finally, we must find a way to bring together the major gay and lesbian organizations—HRC, Lambda Legal Defense, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Victory Fund—to create a “governing board” where we can have one coordinated, synchronized and coherent strategy for achieving equality. No longer can we allow one issue or one organization to co-opt the entire movement. We should take a lesson from the civil rights struggles of the past: Come together to build one cohesive strategy and let each of the organizations do what they do best to achieve it.
