Why gay marriage is such a big deal; or, stuff I wish I’d written.

I ran across this yesterday.

Short version: Y’all goofed, and continue to do so.

Here is the glib, defensive, and condescending message quoted in the above link:

1. An email went out asking activists to make calls to New Jersey. It was insensitive not to omit Mainers from that email. I apologize that no one thought to do that. I can’t imagine it could have cost No On One even a dozen votes, but I still wish someone would have thought of this in time to catch it. Mistake noted.

2. A different email went out to Mainers urging them to vote. As the only thing of substance anyone was voting on in Maine was Question One, and as Democratic activists vote our way, this was a small but positive effort to be helpful.

I would have liked to see that email discuss No One One directly, in case there may have been an email-enabled Organizing for America activist someplace in Maine who did NOT know where Maine Democrats stood on this issue. (Out of the country without Internet access until the night before the election?) But I’m told there was concern that advocating specifically for a ballot initiative, whether LGBT or otherwise, would set a precedent for every other ballot initiative. Bureaucracies are nervous about setting precedents.

No, listen. Seriously.

The “mistake” is not that you neglected to omit Mainers from the New Jersey email. The mistake is that the second email didn’t also urged Mainers to call five people IN MAINE and ask them to vote “our way.” The issue is not that some OFA activist might have been “out of the country without Internet access,” but that someone (or, one hopes, several thousand someones) might have had parents or relatives or friends somewhere in the rural areas of Maine that went overwhelmingly for Question 1. If the governor’s race in New Jersey was important enough for them to make phone calls, surely Question 1 was at least as important.

The nervousness of bureaucracies is well-suited to maintaining the status quo. That’s all fine and dandy for the Republican Party, but you’re not the Republican Party … are you?

Also, again, the DNC got involved in the campaign to stop Prop 8 in California.

In other words, you’re making excuses, and they’re not very good ones.

As the author of the blog post linked above writes:

But regardless, why does the DNC (and the White House) have a problem getting involved when a core Democratic constituency is having its civil rights taken away by the far-right base of the Republican party? We were promised that this administration would be our fierce advocate. Now all we get are excuses.

And the DNC and the White House wonder why they have a growing problem with the gay community.

Perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate. Or maybe you really just don’t care about the LGBT community–except for our money and votes.

This does not make me feel warm and cozy.

I’ve just sent this to the White House:

A few weeks back, I was very impressed by President Obama’s address to the HRC. That he spoke at such an event, all on its own, was a major step forward. I thought that the harshest criticism expressed at the National Equality March was mostly baseless.

But now, after what happened in Maine…

I sincerely doubt that President Obama could have done much to change the outcome in Maine. I understand that his stance has always been that marriage equality is a state-by-state issue.

But I also know that the No on 1 campaign asked the DNC for support and was ignored. Such support would not have been unprecedented, because it was (reluctantly) given to opponents of Prop 8 in California.

And I also believe that the president’s silence on this issue was an enormous mistake. The LGBT community already feels that the White House has not done enough and has not followed through on certain promises. The handling of this issue only serves to reinforce that impression.

We are told that the president had “no opinion” on the issue, which beggars the imagination. When asked “what is your opinion of same-sex marriage?” some number of people may say “whatever, I don’t care.” When asked, “what is your opinion of the particular ballot measure that would reject the same-sex marriage law in Maine in November of 2009?” I sincerely doubt that many people would say, “I have no opinion,” unless they really mean, “you probably don’t want to hear my opinion.” And given that it is, in fact, a matter of public policy, I think the chances that an elected official would genuinely have “no opinion” are vanishingly small.

But even now, the silence continues, deafeningly: this morning, I read that “The White House, asked about the criticism, had no immediate comment.”

Let me boil it down: We ask the White House, “Will you help us?” In response, we hear crickets chirping.

President Obama claims to support equality. He claims to understand that we don’t want to wait for our civil rights. In this case, we were given certain rights, only to have them taken away. There is simply no other way of looking at the situation but this: Yes on 1 was a vote against civil rights, and No on 1 was a vote for civil rights.

If the president wants us to perceive that he supports full equality, then he simply can’t remain silent on this issue. I believe that we in the LGBT community have given more than enough money, time, effort, and support over the decades, only to endure silence in return. The time for that has passed. There is talk now of withdrawing our support from any organization or candidate who declines to stand up for us.

The president has stood up for us. There has been progress. But it’s not enough. I’m sorry to say, it’s just not enough.

We’re sick of hearing the crickets chirping, chirping, chirping.

As I wrote this, I was totally in love with that closing line, but now, looking it over again, I wish I’d spent a little more time on the whole endeavor. Or maybe I should have written the letter here and pasted it there, rather than the other way around. In any case, I think I tripped over my own feet, so to speak. The penultimate paragraph is intended to give credit where due, but it also undercuts the last paragraph.

I don’t mean to underestimate the very real support the president has given us. But I do want to urge him to put a little more political capital on the line for us when we need it, when we think it counts. As I see it–and I don’t think I’m wrong about this–our community has been a very important constituency for the president in particular and his party in general. It didn’t take Maine to demonstrate that we’ve been taken for granted, of course, but it’s piled a whole handful of straws onto the horse’s overburdened back.

Also, I’ve discovered that the president had “no position,” which is somewhat different from having “no opinion.” Had I remembered that correctly, the sixth paragraph would have been somewhat different. Ah, well, post in haste, repent in leisure.

Almost anyone can get married.

I read this, and then I wrote this to the DNC:

For some people, marriage is a dream and a goal. For others, a foolish and antiquated institution. For my partner and I, it is–quite simply–a legal impossibility. We live in South Carolina, one of many states that have voted to preclude us from marrying. As of yesterday, as you well know, Maine became the 31st such state.

In all of my adult life, I have voted Republican only once. I have supported Democratic candidates and causes with money and volunteer work. I’ve watched the word “liberal” become so tainted that many refuse to use it, preferring “progressive” instead, but I have always been proud to call myself a liberal Democrat.

But today I read that the DNC sent out an email blast to Mainers, urging them to get involved in yesterday’s election–in New Jersey.

If the DNC’s express intent had been to convey the message that the LGBT community is second-rate and second-class, I cannot imagine how you could have done a better job of it.

I cannot help but feel that the Democratic party is only too happy to have my support and my vote, to stand up for time-honored Democratic values such as civil rights, as long as I am only too happy to be quiet about my own rights.

It was all well and good for President Obama to address the HRC a few weeks ago. The mere fact of his presence in that setting was a major step forward. That he referred to DOMA as the “so-called Defense of Marriage Act” was most heartening. But Maine’s Question 1 was an opportunity for real progress, and I cannot see any sign of either the president or the DNC lifting a finger to help.

A year ago, I enthusiastically voted for “change we can believe in.” Today I feel that the slogan should have been slightly different: “change heterosexuals can believe in, and a lot of empty talk for the rest.” Maybe the original version was just so much … catchier.

Until I see the Democratic party show some genuine support in the area of equal rights for the LGBT, I’m afraid I’m just going to sit it out. No cash. No votes.

Issue 1 won. Equality, humanity, and decency lost. Par for the course.

Last night someone pointed out that gays and lesbians probably account for five percent of Maine’s electorate: ninety-five percent of the electorate decides an issue affecting only five percent.

The only argument against same-sex marriage that makes a lick of sense is “the Bible’s aginnit.” (Mind you, when I say that it makes sense, I mean only that it adequately explains the way people vote–and certainly not that I think it’s a valid argument in our secular nation.) Since people vote against marriage because they think the Bible tells them so, and since as we all know the Bible also says that we should do unto others as we’d have done to us, I can only assume that those who vote against marriage welcome the experience of having voters modify their behavior and rights willy nilly.

As such, I propose the following.

Henceforth, every November, there will be a ballot measure in each state. Voters will be asked if they would like to remove a common right from a small minority. We’ll randomize and shuffle the rights and minorities each year, so that over time everyone will have the opportunity to experience the election-night roller coaster.

For example, next year, we might ask Alabamans if they’d like to reject the right of redheads to own property. We might ask Alaskans if they’d like to reject the right of persons with unibrows to open bank accounts. Arkansans will decide whether those with baby blue eyes should be permitted to vote. And so on.

If you aren’t affected by one of the first year’s ballot measures, don’t fret! You’ll be included eventually!

Conversely, if you are affected, and you don’t like the outcome, tough! You shouldn’t have been born a redhead! Now give me your house!

Haha, no, I kid. What I was really going to say is that, if you don’t like the outcome, you have three options. One, you can “pass”–color your hair, wax your unibrow, get a pair of colored contacts. Two, you can wait for the populace to understand that the success of a democracy is measured in part by how well it protects its minorities. Three, you can wait for the courts to decide that no amount of arbitrary prejudice gives voters the authority to remove a basic constitutional right from a minority.

At the moment, in the marriage question, I’m pinning my hopes on the third option. I’m also ready for some other group to enjoy the election night roller coaster.

Those who’ve been kind enough to put marriage on the ballot year after year just don’t understand the kind of suspense and excitement they’ve been missing. There’s always next year.