Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
Post Office Box 1231 • Manassas, VA 20108 • (202) 216-9430 • Email: info@imapp.org


WWW iMAPP

Support iMAPP
Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

Join the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy mailing list
Email:
Weekly Archives

Blogger!



Thursday, November 18, 2004

NEW GAY POLITICAL STRATEGIES: James Driscoll

The big losers in the 2004 election were Democrats and gays. Constitutional bans against gay marriage in 11 states have set back gay rights across the country. Gay leaders bet the ranch and lost. What went wrong and why? How can the gay-rights movement find smarter strategies, tactics and timing that will get better results? Two years ago gay marriage was a low priority. The slight drop in George Bush's 2004 percentage of the gay vote, from 26 percent to 23 percent, indicates that for grass-roots gay voters marriage remains a low priority. Had Mr. Bush said gays should not be allowed to teach in public schools, or work for the federal government, his gay vote would have fallen to single digits.

Where gays have the right to marry, e.g. Canada, few have married. Indeed, straight couples are choosing marriage less often: Divorce is costly and traumatic; couples have fewer children; women work in careers; and people live longer and opt for broader experience over lifelong security. Straights are becoming more like gays; only self-hating gays think this is a bad trend.

So why was it necessary to wave a red flag before religious conservatives and give ammunition to the far right by backing a sensational split decision from one of our most liberal state courts? Timing is everything in politics: In America in 2004, gay marriage was not an idea whose time had come.

The gay movement's haphazard embrace of gay marriage seems reactive and media driven. Too often gay-rights groups measure their success in volume of newsprint and minutes on prime time, rather than in numbers of openly gay people at the tables where decisions are made.

Instead of gay marriage, our strategic priorities for 2004 should have been: 1) allowing gays to serve in the military without hiding who they are; 2) eliminating employment glass ceilings for gay people; 3) getting our place at the table, which means openly gay representation in government and both parties in rough proportion to our numbers and talents; 4) civil unions.

more

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

home | marriagedebate.com | resources | about imapp | contact

Copyright Institute for Marriage and Public Policy