Next time anti-gay groups launch a public referendum to strip same-sex couples of their civil rights, I’d like to see a television ad like this as a response:
Two married women and their young children are happily raking leaves in front of a cozy, suburban-style home, laughing as one of the kids leaps into the pile.
Suddenly (cue ominous music), a 40-something man in a business suit, revving up a chainsaw labeled “National Organization for Marriage” steps in front of the house.
He raises his chainsaw, and with a mad leap and a dash he barrels toward the terrified family, then past them toward the home, breaking through the front door with a powerful kick.
The family helplessly pursues, and the camera follows the attacker in to document his rampage: “Say goodbye to your partner’s health benefits!” he shouts as he obliterates the sofa.
“And this is your power of attorney,” he screams, sending the china cabinet crashing to the floor.
“Here’s your hospital visitation rights,” he shouts as he takes on the kitchen cabinet, boxes of Instant Rice and canned peas flying left and right amidst splinters of wood.
“Your joint adoption” (a child’s toy box) are gone, “wrongful death benefits!” (the kitchen table) is next, and the list goes on. The children are screaming, in tears. Their parents look on in shock, cradling the younger one in their arms.
As the crazed attacker moves off, the voice-over comes on to examine the damage.
“Question 1 and the National Organization for Marriage want to rip families apart. Families that only want to provide for their children and each other using the same rights heterosexual couples have. Vote No on Question 1 this November and protect marriage equality for same-sex couples.
Extreme? Maybe. Emotional? Yes. I’m a fan of nuance, but this shit isn’t fucking funny anymore.
Maine, one of the most liberal states in the country, voted yesterday to reject a pending law that would have allowed same-sex couples to marry. The effect of Maine’s Question 1 mirrors California’s Proposition 8, passing by a similar close margin and stripping same-sex couples of rights already promised by the state. Once again, it’s personal, once again we didn’t expect it to pass, and once again, Big Church and wealthy religious donors from all across the country injected themselves into the private lives of same-sex couples in a state they don’t live in with the goal of tearing families apart.
The main argument coming from the anti-marriage campaign was based on a lie, insisting that “gay marriage will be taught in schools” if same-sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples, which the state education commissioner denied. Since schools don’t busy themselves about “teaching marriage” in the first place, the entire premise that they would teach gay marriage is bizarre and absurd, revealing that the anti-gay groups have nothing but typical Right-wing scare tactics to stand on.
There are a few factors in Maine that contributed to the painful passage of Question 1, like the fact that young people — who are most likely to support gay marriage — are notoriously bad at turning out to vote in odd-numbered years, and yesterday’s vote was no exception. Maine saw 40% fewer votes cast yesterday than in the presidential election of 2008. The same absence of a youth vote materialized in yesterday’s gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where Republicans won in states that are normally Democratic.
There are three things I will take heart in after Tuesday’s elections, but none of them are from Maine. First, the ultra-conservative, anti-gay third party candidate who muscled a pro-gay Republican out of the race in New York’s 23rd Congressional District lost to the Democrat in an exceptionally high-profile contest, proving that purging moderates from the party is not a winning strategy for the GOP.
Second, an openly-gay candidate for mayor of Houston, Texas led the preliminary vote tallied last night and will proceed to a runoff election.
Third, a statewide vote for domestic partnerships in Washington State is, as I am writing this, narrowly winning, with half the votes counted and Seattle’s gay-friendly precincts yet to report.
But Maine stood the chance of being the very first state to support gay marriage with a statewide popular vote, so our defeat has a special sting. The LGBT community’s cries of “it’s time to get serious” will ring out once again, though we’ve been hearing the same comments with every punishing defeat we suffer and no grassroots movement ever seems to materialize.
Still, let me leave you with this final thought on what we ought to do upon waking up today and the next day, when different political interests will be busy spinning Maine’s story.
What are the most memorable events in the history of the LGBT rights movement? Most would have the Stonewall Riots high on their lists, far exceeding the formation of the Human Rights Campaign or Mattachine Society. When Harvey Milk became the first openly-gay person to achieve elected office, was his win due to good public relations consultants and out-of-state funding from wealthy donors, or was it, rather, an expression of populist anger, and grit among working-class San Francisco gay men?
The advantage we will always have over our opponents is that our movement is about us and their counter-movement is about somebody that they have no reason to bother. We have a legitimate reason to care about our place in the world, while they have nothing but condescension and disdain for who they see as passing strangers. For that reason, we will always have more passion and credibility than they do, and in the long run that’s what makes the difference.
I hope we find ways to let that passion show. Many of us expect our elected officials, voters in some far-off state, or progressive commentators run campaigns and represent our movement. I would ask anyone who criticizes the government or electorate for moving slow on LGBT rights to back up their words with action, attending a protest, writing a congressman or getting into angry shouting matches at City Hall. Volunteer for a pro-gay politicians campaign or run for office yourself. Use the anger that Tuesday’s announcement in Maine makes you feel – that we are all feeling – because it isn’t patience but justice that is our greatest ally.
The truly sad thing is that the “No” ads featured actual people whose lives are legitimately affected by this, while the “Yes” ones resorted to actors, all manner of corporate shills, pulled-out-of-the-ether bullshit, and the idea that Scandinavia is a country (really?) in order to influence. A vote for “No” was about what really is happening; a “yes” just hinged on nightmare scenarios dreamed up on the pulpits.
We need to just keep the push until it finally becomes a higher court issue that’s legalized and instrumented across the board on a Federal level. It’s ridiculous to leave something like civil rights up for a state-by-state vote. If it comes down to equal rights being a popular issue, let’s face it, we’d still have human beings being owned, separate drinking fountains, and women being banished from the tent because they’re menstruating in 21st century America.
Big tip of the hat to Jesse Connolly and the people at Protect Maine Equality. They pulled out the stops in a valiant effort, which proved that all the information, diplomacy, bipartisanship (sick of that lameass word yet?), and good will are lost on a people who long for the days of witch-killings and stonings.
The folks over at The Corner, part of the National Review Online, put it best:
Guilty confession: My favorite part of last night’s election coverage was watching Rachel Maddow’s demeanor go from exuberant, to smug, to infuriated over the results of the marriage referendum in Maine. And then she seemed to lose interest.
Yes, it’s just HILARIOUS watching someone you hate for being a lesbian comprehend the fact that her personal life has once again been deeply assaulted by bullies.
Tell me, sir, do you also sit outside of hospital emergency wards and masturbate as doctors give the family members the news that they couldn’t save their father?
The mean-spiritedness of the Right on this issue is telling. Maybe we should let the author, Thomas Peters, hear from the people he takes such joy in humiliating.
Go get ‘em, Matt!
Sounds good to me. We need this kind of in your face example.
Perhaps also a version where it pauses and says, “think this couldn’t be you?” and then repeat some key scenes with a “mixed race” straight couple. “It wasn’t so long ago when the color of your skin could prevent your marriage in some states. Separate is never equal. These aren’t gay rights, they’re CIVIL rights.”
A shame that an advertisement such as yours couldn’t have been seen as a follow up to all the Anti-Gay Marriage television spots that ran in Maine. People of a certain sort tend to be mindless chattle, for the most part, until confronted with something that either hits home or directly affects their pocket books. Whilst it’s nice to appeal to higher notions of fair play in society, let’s be honest; fair play is lost amongst those who’ve no concept of such, much less any sound idea that the civil rights that are being fought for shall perhaps have an effect upon those who wish to see said civil rights relegated to a separate but lesson than equal playing field. Ughh.
You know, I am a young gay man. I live in the shadows of a gay world post AIDS entry and post Stonewall. I live in a world where fag hags are the norm and people like Rachel Maddow are grand celebrities. And a world in which Ellen brings her wife on tv and it looks so normal and pretty.
And yet…underneath it all is something I often wonder. What if I had been born into a world before Stonewall? What if I had lived in San Fran the year Harvey Milk tried to get elected? What if I lived in a country where having a pride parade means getting fire bombed by the police?
I don’t know the answers to those questions. When I go to Pride festivals and I think about all the gay people all the world over who live in fear of death, what am I supposed to say? I guess I could say that I am from Washington and my hollow half-victory that didn’t even mention marriage was a great gladstand for the people of the LGBT community of our state.
But I won’t say that. Because it seems unfair somehow, like its not the same dignity that my friends who had a marriage ceremony in the wine country got. Like its okay to be a second class citizen because there are so many more important things. But what about quality of life? What kind of life is it that we have in this country? In any country?
Well, I haven’t seen any gay riots. I’ve heard a lot of lips move. I’ve seen a lot commercials and a lot of calls to action. But what action? Do we sit in DC til they sign a bill? Do we riot? Do we take the image of Matthew Sheppard onto our rainbow crosses? What do we do now.
My answer is to want to fight back. But I’m young and idealistic still. Is that too much to ask? To fight back instead of running into another closet?
Has anyone thought that the marriage argument has run it’s course – if it isn’t going to happen in Maine, then where will it?
Yeah, everyone’s hateful, everyone’s disrespectful, bigoted, mean, and worse. But will getting angry change any of that? What, are you going to scare them into changing the laws?
It seems maybe a new proposal – not marriage, something uniquely useful and specific to gay issues – be introduced.
Let them have marriage – there’s room for other alternatives.
Marching in the street may be good for the soul but it won’t accomplish much. Think of the recent Harvey Milk biop. Without a politician like Milk to harness the anger of the mob and turn that anger into anti-discrimination laws, S. F. would still be Dan White country with Irish cops bashing gays and ticketing anyone else who was changing the complexion of the neighborhood.
We are, mercifully, a nation of laws. Not a democracy. Democracy = mob rule, which is what we’re seeing when the Bill of Rights (in the form of marriage equality) is put to the voters. The mob can be swayed. The mob can be frightened. The mob can be maddened into a lynch chorus.
Full civil rights, I believe, will only be achieved through the Supreme Court. We know Scalia and Thomas are committed to religious nonsense like “natural law” (translation: their nature is natural, yours not so much) and will never accept as legitimate the civil rights context of our struggle.
We have reason to doubt that Barack Obama will lift a finger to help us. Yes, the pretty speeches feel good for the soul but, to quote the famous old-lady philosopher, where’s the beef?
So this Supreme Court ruling may be a long way off. But there are ways to hasten it.
First we must find single-minded, single-issue leaders and get them into office. In the end Harvey Milk had guts–no let’s say it right, he had chutzpah. A very specific blend of pushiness and courage. And he also had charm, as demonstrated in the Milk biop when HM would speak to hostile policemen and Dan White with a knowing understanding, a willingness to work with them.
Screaming bigot would have got him nowhere. That was what the marchers were for. To keep the pressure on. We need another Harvey Milk now, a politician committed to single-mindedly securing the Bill of Rights for gay citizens. (Sometimes I hope it will be the brilliant and beautiful Rachel Maddow who steps forward, leaving the anchor desk at MSNBC for a high-profile political office.) Without a Milk to harness the marchers’ energy and turn it into something substantial, to put his life on the line for the issue, we would still be corralled into paddy wagons at the end of the evening, and if we talk back get our heads kicked in as happened this very year–on gay pride day, in fact–in Fort Worth, Texas. (Surprise. The police just released an investigation of the raid and found they were guilty of no wrong-doing whatsoever, through one patron had to be hospitalized for a week!)
I think instead of marching on Washington, it would be better to swamp the courts with lawsuits that point up the discrepancy between our civil rights and everyone else’s. That’s the kind of pressure that would really count. Judges and lawyers should be able to see the issue clearer than the mob. If we have to wait for voters to authorize our lives — well think about it. If it wasn’t for the Supreme Court, we’d still have segregation in this country, depending on what state (translation: of the South) you were in.
John, I tend to agree that protests, with their vague and often misdirected agendas, don’t always seem to be the best way to achieve a set of clear and definitive goals.
But then I think about:
The Tax Day tea party protesters
The town hall meeting anti-healthcare maniacs
The 9/12 protesters
Massive Barack Obama rallies in 2008
Those things sure set the narrative on “a movement is brewing” which is the best way to get media attention and convince those on the fence – who tend to want to be “right” in the future and will choose the side they think is going to win – to jump in.
I know the anti-healthcare maniacs derailed the Public Option (even though 60% of the population supported it) and we would not still be bickering about it in congress had the rarer opponents not been much more vocal.
When it comes to LGBT rights, I think that the protests would have an additional effect of motivating those on the Left. The Daily Kos crowd is very focused on healthcare, but they’d be absolutely with us on LGBT rights if we convinced them that now is the time and the progressive movement is hinged on this.
Besides, I’m fairly convinced that the tide has turned right now and Republicans still lose when we force them to talk about gay rights. It baits them into saying derogatory things about gays human beings – rather than just their right to marry – and the parallel between today’s anti-gay forces and cranky white segregationists becomes painfully clear.
Plus, making aggressive and solid demands for gay marriage give politicians like President Obama room to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and DOMA and just seem “moderate.”
I would have come up with a totally opposite conclusion even just 4 years ago, but at this point I’d say that being out and vocal is just good politics.
“The Tax Day tea party protesters
The town hall meeting anti-healthcare maniacs
The 9/12 protesters”
These all just happened to have untold million in corporate funding and a propaganda network sponsoring them. $$$$=effective. Civil rights are not just profitable.
What I don’t understand is if they are trying to “protect” marriage, why don’t they outlaw infidelity and those types of things.
Oh yeah, just figured it out; then 3/4 of the law makers would be breaking the law.
I think that commercial would be really effective!
But pro-gay groups are a bit timid I think.