Is it really a dichotomy?

[andrewlittle]

There is likely to be nothing new in this post, but I am pondering the process of engaging in dialogue about the issues that are critical for the folks at Soulforce.

One of the situations I have noticed out in the big, wide world is also true here. We sometimes have a tendency to polarize issues. It’s easier to do, I think, because our society tends to gravitate towards “soundbyte” debate.

A few threads in recent memory, which is all I possess anymore anyway, have attracted a lot of attention and posting because, I think, they displayed more than two sides of an issue. Eventually, however, these came down to dichotomies as well, mostly Conservative Christian vs. Liberal/Progressive/Whatever.

When I led seminars on conflict resolution years ago, the concentration at that time was on “healthy debate”, if there is really such a thing. A favorite tool, of mine and many other presenters, was switching roles in an effort to try to encourage people to see from the other perspective. It was at times very successful, at others moderately so, but most of the time exercises like this were pretty much mental masturbation. We many times ended up with the same old stereotypical diatribe coming out of different mouths.

Conflict management, now, centers on community building and dialogue – well, really “polylogue” – and begins with efforts to reframe the issue in ways that make dichotomy darn near impossible. This requires studying the issue to come up with a minimum of three, but preferably four, primary stands on the issue up for discussion.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, for instance, beyond the two primary arguments that
a/ it’s a civil rights issue -or-
b/ it’s an abomination issue,
what are other stands on this issue?

Are there dialogues going on that address, as we call them here, moderate CC’s or centrist liberals? These folks, in fact, make up the majority of the voting public and tend to be swayed by one or the other of the primary arguments. Let’s face it – if the polls are even remotely accurate, it’s not the pro-GLBT marriage argument by which they’re being influenced.

How do we – or how have we – encouraged polylogue?

Considering the MA situation that is being discussed on another thread, as well as GLBT issues in general, are there opportunities to open up the conversation to other people?

These are questions – not hard and fast assumptions, BTW. They come from a particular interest in facilitating Christian conversation about the issues that divide us.

[Daniel]

Andrew! What a meaty post. A lot to chew on here.

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Conflict management, now, centers on community building and dialogue – well, really “polylogue” – and begins with efforts to reframe the issue in ways that make dichotomy darn near impossible. This requires studying the issue to come up with a minimum of three, but preferably four, primary stands on the issue up for discussion.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, for instance, beyond the two primary arguments that
a/ it’s a civil rights issue -or-
b/ it’s an abomination issue,
what are other stands on this issue?

How about these?

c. political issue (pawns used for power)
d. sexuality (ick factor always lurking behind b)
e. parenthood (growing segment of same-sex 'culture')

How do we – or how have we – encouraged polylogue?

Considering the MA situation that is being discussed on another thread, as well as GLBT issues in general, are there opportunities to open up the conversation to other people?

These are questions – not hard and fast assumptions, BTW. They come from a particular interest in facilitating Christian conversation about the issues that divide us.

My understanding is that the methods of nonviolence, as such, open up avenues for 'polylogue'. That is, if they can be adhered too. If one isn't reacting all the time out of one's own particular viewpoint, much can be gained, can it not?

The problem as I see it, is that, both 'sides' have to be willing to discuss matters in the way you describe. One sided willingness won't get us very far.

[andrewlittle]

... if we could reasonably identify two other groups of people and their primary concerns/probems over the issue(s), could we not have a three-way "polylogue" even with the one extreme group abstaining?

Let's, for sake of my exploration (very kind of you to play with me, by the way), set up a scenario over the anti-GLBT-marriage debacle - oops, debate.

So, Group 1 is made up of GLBTQ folk who are advocating for full recognition of citizenry, along with the benefits like marriage, property succession rights, partner health care decision rights, etc, based on the simple argument that to deny these rights is a violation of civil rights. This group would also include wonderful, charming, and ever-so-good-looking allies like myself.

Group 2, our nefarious and ever-so-loving arch-pinheads like Dobson et al, is opposed to any recognition of GLBTQ rights whatsoever because, well, GLBTQ people just don't exist. They just think they exist in their own heads, but that doesn't make them real. In reality they are either heterosexuals with orifice confusion and/or demonicly controlled non-humans pretending to be human. A class of human can't exist that God didn't make and, as the Bible tells me so, God didn't make them that way.

Group 3 is who? Perhaps it's some CC's, like some we've had visits from, who believe there's something kind of wrong with the whole GLBT thing, but can't help feeling a little queazy over damning them all to hell or treating them like non-persons. If this group exists, what are their primary concerns once you get past the hysteria-promoting propaganda of the above named arch-pinheads. Of the two extremes, this group is predisposed to leaning towards pinheadism, but are they that comfortable there.

Group 4 could be maybe the centrist liberals who would run squealing like little girls if they ran into Dobson in a dark alley, but tend to align with his anti-GLBT marriage propaganda anyway. These people are the swing vote that has kept abortion (so far) from being a crime punishable by a slow and torturous death, and darken the doorsteps of any number of churches that hang garlic around on their front doors to keep out fundamentalists. Theologically, they tend to see the neo-conservative religious movement as being about as beneficial as a nasty case of diarrhea, except on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Before I go on, is there a group I have not insulted yet? Good, let's continue.

So what are the real concerns of people in groups 3 and 4 (assuming they exist). How do we determine their real issues with the issues and set up the possibility of a four way polylogue that only three groups will show up for?

[Zerbie]

Thanks Andrew for this one.

What one finds with a little digging is that life, and therefore human experiences/interpretations/understandings - is/are always richer than the extremely polarized Positions we appear to occupy.

There are many of us who don't fit neatly into any of those categories - labels, supposed to be a convenience, become inaccurate, sometimes enough so as to be meaningless. I can rattle off a list of names of folks who've been on this forum who don't fit neatly into any one category and/or have a foot in at least two camps (camps that are depicted oppositionally). . . me, you, Zimnah, Pablo, Awediot, and the list goes on. What matters is creating a safe and welcoming space for all of us. We are not going to agree all the time. What matters is the love we maintain for one another.

I look forward to seeing where further this conversation goes, as it's a big nitty gritty topic. Glad you raised it.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

So what are the real concerns of people in groups 3 and 4 (assuming they exist). How do we determine their real issues with the issues and set up the possibility of a four way polylogue that only three groups will show up for?

Hmmmmm.....one word comes to mind, though to utter it makes me sound like the boy scout I once was:

Fairness.

Americans love to think that they will be the next rich person, so don't mind the person who grabs all they can. But if that person gives the impression for one second that they will bar the way, or spit on others when they try to follow in their footsteps- well- that's unfair. They will tear that person from limb to limb.

Hence the tabloids. (As they say in the theatre: "You never want the same people who saw you go up watch you go down.")

We have to make this a matter of fairness and sidestep the whole morality/relgious issues. In other words, gay folk must stop apologizing for their existence and do what all good performers do: take the stage.

[BenL]

I have long worried about the polarization you talk about, Andrew, both in society and in our denominations, mine being the Episcopal Church, where lines are being drawn in the sand and people on opposite sides are portraying those who disagree with them as somehow demonic. One reason this happens, I think, is because it's difficult to stir up support and money for a cause that's not juicy enough to get the blood boiling.

The other reason, as you suggested, is that we are a soundbyte culture. If it can't be encapsulated in a bumper sticker or explained on CNN Headline News, we don't want to waste our time on it. In a world that's mostly grays, we desperately want things in black and white.

As an example of how dialogue can happen between the bitterest of foes, a quiet series of meetings occurred in Massachusetts between leaders of the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements. In the end they found out that their political opponents were not demons but human beings with deeply held beliefs and actually ended up being friends. To do this, they had to respect each other first and then find their areas of commonality. In their cases, they had to find the moderates within their own souls for a polylogue to happen. I use another hot-button issue since we sometimes can't step back far enough from our own issues to see people as human beings.

I am quoting an article from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette that ran on Nov. 6, 2006, in its entirety for those who are interested. If you don't have time to read it, just skip it, but I think it's worth pondering.

Abortion enemies met in secret: 1994 clinic shootings prompt dialogue; Clark forum held by Bronislaus B. Kush, Telegram & Gazette Staff

WORCESTER - Nicki Nichols Gamble, then the president and chief executive officer of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, vividly remembers walking into the organization's clinic in Brookline on Dec. 30, 1994, and seeing receptionist Shannon E. Lowney lying on the floor, a white sheet covering her lifeless body.
Just months after the shootings of Ms. Lowney and six others by anti-abortion zealot John C. Salvi III, a still traumatized Ms. Gamble found herself reluctantly sitting face to face with three top pro-life leaders from the Boston area.
Ms. Gamble said the meeting between leading representatives from both sides of the abortion issue, which was called for by then-Gov. William F. Weld and Cardinal Bernard F. Law in an attempt to defuse emotions, "was uncomfortable" and she viewed the individuals on the other side of the table as "crazed."
But Ms. Gamble, who, at the time was protected around-the-clock by state police after receiving death threats, said that after subsequent meetings, she and the other two pro-choice representatives found themselves drawing closer to "the enemy."
"I came to love these people (pro-choice advocates), although deep inside I violently disagreed with their position," said Madeline McComish, who was president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life at the time of the shootings at the Planned Parenthood and Preterm Health Services clinics, which killed two and injured five.
Ms. Gamble, Ms. McComish and four other prominent figures in the abortion debate in Massachusetts secretly met often over the years in an attempt to find common ground.
Those participants, joined by the two individuals who facilitated the talks, discussed their experiences at a forum last week at Clark University.
Susan L. Podziba, a mediator in the talks, said emotions were running very high after the shootings by Mr. Salvi, who later committed suicide in prison. She added that many leaders on both sides were violently opposed to the talks.
"These women got together because of their courage and curiosity," said Ms. Podziba, who has taught negotiations and conflict resolution at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and at Harvard University. "They're friends now, but those meetings were stressful. They were forced to question their assumptions."
Melissa Kogut, a longtime leader in the reproductive rights movement and executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts since 1995, originally thought the talks were a "woozy idea" and didn't think they would work.
But she said the discussions helped her overcome stereotypes of the opposition.
"I thought they were humorless zealots," she said. "That was not my experience at all."
Ms. McComish said the dialogue was important because the shootings even shocked many in the pro-life movement.
"It was terrifying to think that someone who claimed to be pro-life would actually kill somebody," she said.
Frances Hogan, president of Women Affirming Life and a consultant to the Pro-Life Committee of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said the shootings hit close to home because Mr. Salvi was a member of her parish.
She eventually testified at his trial.
"Over the years, we've successfully managed to talk over the chasm," she said of the group's discussions.
Barbara Thorp, who was director of the Pro-Life Office of the Archdiocese of Boston during Mr. Salvi's rampage, said the group didn't resolve any issues surrounding the abortion question and participants never found the common ground they were seeking.
Yet, Ms. Thorp, who is now director of the Archdiocesan Office of Pastoral Support and Outreach, which helps victims of clergy abuse, said the process proved that individuals on two sides of a question can productively talk, despite differences.
Ms. Gamble believes the talks worked because individuals didn't try to convert others to their views, a ground rule for the discussions.
"In order to understand, you have to listen and not act as a partisan," said Laura Chasin, who oversaw the discussions as the founder of the Cambridge-based Public Conversations Project.
The group now meets occasionally, either to get together socially or to prepare for forums like the one held at Clark.
Another participant of the talks, the Rev. Anne Fowler, rector of St. John's Episcopal Church in Boston and co-convener of the Clergy Advisory Board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said she hopes that a similar group can be assembled to initiate a dialogue on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Last week's discussion launched the Difficult Dialogues initiative at Clark, which is funded by a Ford Foundation grant.

[novaseeker]

This is a most excellent thread.

Just taking the marriage issue (since this is the "Broadway" issue at the moment), as an example, in my view, I think that the discussion has to be had on a few levels at once. One level is the legal level where we are discussing things like rights, equality under the law, fairness and the like. That's an important discussion, because it's the discussion that is relevant for courts and constitutions. But it really can't be the only level of discussion, I think.

The reason I think this way is that "marriage" means more to most people than a set of legal rights, obligations, duties and benefits. Yes, these go along with being married, but for the vast, vast majority of straight married people, they are not the key way they look at marriage at all, and when we speak of marriage only in terms of rights, we can convey an impression that LGBT people either don’t know what marriage really is, or don’t relate to it the way that the striaght world does, or, more dangerously, perhaps won’t treat marriage the same way as the straight world does if/when it becomes available to us. In short, I think we need to articulate why we need marriage in terms of a discourse that doesn’t relate to rights, fairness and equality, but instead relates to marriage as most straight, married people view marriage. I think we desperately need to broaden the discussion to this level, because when we use “rights” discourse, we end up talking “past” a lot of people who may be in Andrew’s groups 3 and 4. I think we need to learn how to speak in the language of the straight world about marriage and what it means to us, beyond issues of fairness and equality.

The main obstacle to this, in my view, is ourselves. By keeping the issue on the level of “rights”, we can maintain a semblance of unity in what is otherwise a very, very fractious LGBT world. When we start talking about the “content” of marriage, that semblance of unity breaks down, and we face a lot of different opinions. Now, of course, there are a lot of different opinions about marriage in the straight world as well, but for us to mount a convincing discourse with Andrew’s groups 3 and 4, we need to somehow deal with the folks on the LGBT “left,” (for lack of a better word), for example, who support marriage equality on the basis of anti-discrimination, but who see the “content” of marriage as being morally bankrupt, hopelessly heterosexist and patriarchal, and who do not support at all the idea of LGBT couples leading married lives that are similar to (the popular phrase used by this group is “lives that ape”) straight married lives. This is unfortunate, because many of these voices are also prominent in the LGBT activist community (which one would expect, I suppose), and they are often the voices that are most noticed when speaking on behalf of LGBT people … and they often are not voices to whom Andrew’s groups 3 and 4 relate to very well at all. The more fundamental issue for us, then, is how do we get to a consensus in the LGBT community regarding a non-legal-based discourse on why marriage is important/critical for LGBT people, and in the (likely) event that we cannot reach such a consensus, how do we nevertheless engage in such discourse with groups 3 and 4, for those LGBT people who can speak in a mode of discourse that these people can relate to.

Gosh, that was a muddled mouthful!

Some of these ideas have been inspired by the book that was recommended in another thread a week or so ago, and which I am now about half-way through (“A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law and Politics” by William Stacy Johnson). While I will have more to say about the book when I’m done, one thing that struck me initially about it is that the approach it takes is multileveled: theological, legal, political. Of course it helps that Johnson is both a professional theologian (and an ordained minister) and a lawyer, but nevertheless, it strikes me that this kind of approach must be the way we look at these things simply because it is what marriage is: namely an institution that is not only legal, but also theological (and spiritual) as well as political/social. Marriage cuts across all of these areas, and that’s why it’s such a thorny issue for people, and why, in the view that’s beginning to crystallize in me, we need an approach to this that addresses all of these issues, not just the legal ones.

As I said, I will have more to say about the book when I am done, but one aspect that struck me as being remarkably similar to the kind of analysis made by Andrew in the third post of this thread is the way that Johnson slices the various approaches made by various Christians to the concept of same-gender relationships. He identifies 7 approaches, ranging from prohibitionist to toleration, accomodation, legitimation, celebration and so on – and, for each one, articulates the basis of the view in its own reading of scripture (using Romans 1 as the key text), as well as its theological understanding using the familiar creation/reconciliation/redemption framework. The approach gives due time and due course to all of the viewpoints, and is extremely helpful in identifying strengths and weaknesses, as well as positions that can potentially be open to dialogue, as well as those that may not be. It’s extremely well done, and it’s the kind of thing we need to be doing more often in the discourse that we craft about marriage issues relating to LGBT persons, in my view, and how we reach and speak with Andrew's groups 3 and 4.

More on the book when I’m done with it (hopefully over the weekend).

[Daniel]

Nova- this sounds like an very interesting book. I'd like to hear more about Johnson's views and thoughts.

I think we could benefit from taking a step back and looking at this issue in global terms, so we can better see in what context this discussion is taking place.

From what I have gleaned, the United States of America is a very strange place as far as the rest of the world is concerned. It is the only place were religious and civil concerns are interwined such as they are- and to the degree that they are. Europe- especially Northern Europe- looks at marriage in a far different way than we do, seeing it in more civil/legal terms for the simple reason that the degree of religious inculcation is much less.

I'm not suggesting that we should be like Europeans per se, but hope that we can see that the discussion itself is taking place in a certain context. Moral and religious concerns are never far from our thoughts, are they? Not so in other places- at least where the light of the enlightment has been present for a significant time.

A postive step might be a discussion that takes place in terms that are more ethical than moral in scope. There are excellent reasons for gay marriage that have everything to do with ethical concerns. Moral concerns, however, are difficult, if not impossible to agree on. They always tend towards the condemnatory.

[andrewlittle]

There is some good stuff rolling around here. I am going to try to digest it well before posting again (probably tomorrow). But so far, this seem rich.

Nova - it may have been a mouthful, but it was a mouthful of very tasty morsels. Sweet.

I, too, am more interested in that book you mentioned. I'm adding to my reading list, and bumping the top books on it to make room quickly.

And Ben, great idea to use a topic from which we are a little more distant and objective. We can learn from that idea, I think.

Nice.

[andrewlittle]

Daniel said:

Hmmmmm.....one word comes to mind, though to utter it makes me sound like the boy scout I once was:

Fairness.

I should have guessed from that all-American face, the bright smile and, especially, the dapper appearance in a tux, that you were a boy scout. As a quick aside, the highest level attainable in scouting in Britain and Australia (perhaps other places) is the Queen Scout. Hmmm.

But, anyway, I digress.

I agree to some extent that fairness can be a critical aspect of the overall discussion. It will not, however, carry much weight in the initial discussion. Many people perceive equal rights for GBLTQ as inherently unfair to themselves, their values, their rights, etc. I’m not saying this is right – it just is. Therefore, it seems that discussing fairness would be one of the eventual “goals” – a concept to hold onto for future discussion.

We don’t like considering the issues that other people have with our issues, but other peoples’ perceptions are what present road-blocks to LGBTQ equality.

The article posted by BenL speaks to this, I think, when it states “the group didn't resolve any issues surrounding the abortion question and participants never found the common ground they were seeking.” They did however find themselves “drawing closer to ‘the enemy’.” Perceptions were altered while opinions on the issue may not have been.

The dialogue was helpful because the outcome undid the demonization that has existed thus far in the diatribe. Each saw the others as humans.

The meetings began, however, not directly over the issue of abortion, but over the issue of killings in the name of pro-life. Both sides were shocked. An event brought people, perhaps, unwillingly at first, together for discussion. The Matthew Shepherd murder in Wyoming brought disparate and warring parties together in Laramie out of a cultural “cognitive dissonance” that something like this could happen “here”.

God forbid that heinous events are the only things that can bring people to the table to talk openly and honestly about their true motivations. What other kinds of events can facilitate this type of dialogue?

Nova’s “muddled mouthful” conjured up all kinds of thoughts but, as yet, they are all banging around in my head, bumping into each other and making clear thoughts difficult. I think Nova is onto something vitally important, though.

Nova said,

… ‘marriage’ means more to most people than a set of legal rights, obligations, duties and benefits. Yes, these go along with being married, but for the vast, vast majority of straight married people, they are not the key way they look at marriage at all, and when we speak of marriage only in terms of rights, we can convey an impression that LGBT people either don’t know what marriage really is, or don’t relate to it the way that the striaght world does, or, more dangerously, perhaps won’t treat marriage the same way as the straight world does if/when it becomes available to us.

Marriage cuts across all of these areas, and that’s why it’s such a thorny issue for people, and why, in the view that’s beginning to crystallize in me, we need an approach to this that addresses all of these issues, not just the legal ones.

With Daniel’s observation that U.S. culture does tend towards rallying around fairness issues, and the fact that the “rights” approach to social recognition of GLBTQ relationships isn’t working (thus far), we are faced with something of a conundrum.

Something, or some things, is fueling the social dislike of marriage equality that is not based on fairness. There is something more elemental, more fundamental if you will, to the negative view held by the majority of U.S. citizens.

Based on work done since Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, sociobiology theory has posited that humans have four basic needs: (1) acquire objects and experiences; (2) bond with others in long-term relationships of mutual care and commitment; (3) learn and make sense of the world and of ourselves; and (4) to defend ourselves, our loved ones, beliefs and resources from harm.

Two things would seem profitable, at this point (at least to me).

1. To broaden the issue of marriage equality within LGBTQ circles (as Nova suggested), to address all the levels basic human need. “Rights” alone leave opponents with the counter-argument that GLBTQ are just interested in material gain – it’s just economic (Need 1).

Nothing could be further from the truth, however, since the issue is encompassed within all of the basic human needs categories briefly outlined above. Fleshing out the arguments based on the other need categories may help communication with those who also recognize their own human needs and can find a way to relate to people who are different than themselves.

2. Identify not the arguments (since these tend to be sound byte), but the underlying perceptions that exist (within the population that make up my hypothetical Groups 3 & 4) of how GLBTQ equality threatens their basic human need. I perceive, right or wrong, that the negative social reaction is based on perceived threat – it is human need #4 for protection that drives the objections. Why? What are the threats perceived? How do we find out what they REALLY are?

Okay, have I really said anything here? Pick this apart, and add to it, if you will.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Daniel said:

I should have guessed from that all-American face, the bright smile and, especially, the dapper appearance in a tux, that you were a boy scout. As a quick aside, the highest level attainable in scouting in Britain and Australia (perhaps other places) is the Queen Scout. Hmmm.

Well...I didn't get very far. The whole competitive angle- at that age- was a big turnoff- that- and my own mom was a den-mother. But I ended up a queen anyway! Hurrah!

But I digress!

Many people perceive equal rights for GBLTQ as inherently unfair to themselves, their values, their rights, etc. I’m not saying this is right – it just is. Therefore, it seems that discussing fairness would be one of the eventual “goals” – a concept to hold onto for future discussion.

Point taken. Ok. I can wait for fairness to get in play. A tiny bit- but not too long.

The Matthew Shepherd murder in Wyoming brought disparate and warring parties together in Laramie out of a cultural “cognitive dissonance” that something like this could happen “here”.

I saw the play- it was sobering- to say the least. And yes- conversations did take place on the sidewalk outside the theatre with regard to rights and justice. Hubby and I also participated in the march here in NYC right after Matthew's death. It really was a peaceful candelight march, that is, until a phalanx of police on horses tried to keep a hundred thousand people on the sidewalk and out of the street. They arrested all of the organizers marching at the front. That didn't stop us. We still made it to our intended destination, a park on 23rd street. There, stretched out across the wide expanse of 23rd street, just south of the park, were a legion of men, 6 deep, in full regalia-shield and helmets. What did they think we were going to do? Burn City Hall with our candles?

I tell this tale for one reason. I see it as a metaphor for how Americans react towards gay people (even is places such as Manhattan- which is supposed to be ultra liberal). Overwhelming oppostion arises out of nothing but the irrational fear of the Other.

God forbid that heinous events are the only things that can bring people to the table to talk openly and honestly about their true motivations. What other kinds of events can facilitate this type of dialogue?

We wouldn't be the first to note that the AIDS crisis has done a great deal of good for gay rights overall. God bless Elizabeth Taylor and others like her!

I am one who believes that a great deal has been done already. Gay marriage in MA. The sky didn't fall. And now there will be civil unions in NJ. The sky won't fall their either. This is huge. It gets people talking and thinking about the ramifications of awarding rights. And I defy anyone to come up the negatives (lowering the standards of morality doesn't count!).

Something, or some things, is fueling the social dislike of marriage equality that is not based on fairness. There is something more elemental, more fundamental if you will, to the negative view held by the majority of U.S. citizens.

I think this is a simple matter of the ick factor co-mingled with personal desire. One has only to note the comments a nice looking gay guy can get from a straight gal like "what a waste". It sounds far too simple, but I believe it to be the driving factor of a great deal of opposition. In sum, this attitude says: "I think you're hot! What? You don't want to do it with me? How can you engage in sexual practices that I don't want to engage in? That's bad. You have no right to do that. Therefore you have no rights."

Based on work done since Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, sociobiology theory has posited that humans have four basic needs: (1) acquire objects and experiences; (2) bond with others in long-term relationships of mutual care and commitment; (3) learn and make sense of the world and of ourselves; and (4) to defend ourselves, our loved ones, beliefs and resources from harm.

Great point! Which I would like to point out has everything to do with my comment above. We generally see our own needs first. In that sense, we all have to grow up and see that others may have needs that are different from our own- the journey from Maslow's first stage to the second.

How do we get the country from stage 1 and on to stage 2? That is, seeing the benefit of letting others establish- legally that is- relationships and commitments- and away from 'you shouldn't have what I don't want' ? That's an excellent question for which I do not have a ready answer other than the observation that the fundi fear of sex education is real. Fundies are right: start talking and educating poeple about sex and all bets are off. And it's been proven that the more educated a person is about sexual matters the more prudent they are in their choices and behaviors.

They just want to say 'no' to the whole thing however.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Point taken. Ok. I can wait for fairness to get in play. A tiny bit- but not too long.


Hubby and I also participated in the march here in NYC right after Matthew's death. It really was a peaceful candelight march, that is, until a phalanx of police on horses tried to keep a hundred thousand people on the sidewalk and out of the street. They arrested all of the organizers marching at the front. That didn't stop us. We still made it to our intended destination, a park on 23rd street. There, stretched out across the wide expanse of 23rd street, just south of the park, were a legion of men, 6 deep, in full regalia-shield and helmets. What did they think we were going to do? Burn City Hall with our candles?

I tell this tale for one reason. I see it as a metaphor for how Americans react towards gay people (even is places such as Manhattan- which is supposed to be ultra liberal). Overwhelming oppostion arises out of nothing but the irrational fear of the Other.


I think this is a simple matter of the ick factor co-mingled with personal desire. One has only to note the comments a nice looking gay guy can get from a straight gal like "what a waste". It sounds far too simple, but I believe it to be the driving factor of a great deal of opposition. In sum, this attitude says: "I think you're hot! What? You don't want to do it with me? How can you engage in sexual practices that I don't want to engage in? That's bad. You have no right to do that. Therefore you have no rights."

r.

Addressing each of these points: fairness. This thread has helped explain something that I found mysterious. AZ just fought back the "marriage" amendment, as y'all know. Some in the LGBTQ community initially wanted the messaging to focus on fairness, and the inherent UNfairness of the proposed amendment. To the surprise of many, it was announced at all the early community meetings that "fairness" did not poll well, in fact, "fairness" was a flop with voters. Considering that I always thought Americans valued "fairness," I found that somewhat confusing. Obviously homophobia was trumping fairness, but I couldn't figure why. And "why" was not important, what mattered was finding an accurate message about the proposition that DID resonate with voters. That message was found, and the amendment was stopped. Back to fairness, IF there is a perception (even, perhaps especially, if just an EMOTIONAL perception) that there is something unfair to them about gay couples having equal marriage rights, that would explain why fairness flopped with voters. Whether or not it's rational doesn't matter if it's there - if it's there, we have to find a way to successfully deal with it.

The description of that march made me angry. It sounds like the police presence was about inciting trouble, not a safeguard. Interesting observation about the conflicting attitude in NYC, not being what one might expect. I just started reading "Stonewall" by David Carter, and if all his research is accurate, that conflict goes back many generations. I was surprised to read just how deeply entrenched, intentional, and pre-meditated police harassment/entrapment went in NYC only a few decades ago.

The reading had me reflecting that the years described (the early and mid-60s) were when my mom was young and single. All those organized entrapment campaigns leading to folks losing jobs, etc. were going on when my mother was only a little younger than I am now. Which brings me to what you said Daniel, about straight women and homophobia. . . my mom often used to tell me that when she was a young woman she would take the train in from NJ and go wander around Greenwich Village admiring the gay men, because they looked "so elegant and handsome," and what a "waste" she thought they were. She would spit vitriol about how sick homosexuals were, and then the next day I would hear her saying "Oh gay men are so elegant and handsome!" It gave me the creeps. But I finally concluded her homophobia was based on attraction/rejection.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

To the surprise of many, it was announced at all the early community meetings that "fairness" did not poll well, in fact, "fairness" was a flop with voters. Considering that I always thought Americans valued "fairness," I found that somewhat confusing. Obviously homophobia was trumping fairness, but I couldn't figure why. And "why" was not important, what mattered was finding an accurate message about the proposition that DID resonate with voters. That message was found, and the amendment was stopped. Back to fairness, IF there is a perception (even, perhaps especially, if just an EMOTIONAL perception) that there is something unfair to them about gay couples having equal marriage rights, that would explain why fairness flopped with voters. Whether or not it's rational doesn't matter if it's there - if it's there, we have to find a way to successfully deal with it.

Zerbie- you make a point here which is interesting to contemplate. (What message did the Arizona campaign focus on btw?) It is possible that straight people believe- erroneously- that gay people are having all the 'fun' they want and why should they have marriage too? Is it simple jealously? What is there to be jealous of?

I just started reading "Stonewall" by David Carter, and if all his research is accurate, that conflict goes back many generations. I was surprised to read just how deeply entrenched, intentional, and pre-meditated police harassment/entrapment went in NYC only a few decades ago.

Hubby's mentor- a very well-known concert organist- was ruined by police entrapment in the early 70's. He was fired from a prestigous church on Central Park West and never recovered.

But I finally concluded her homophobia was based on attraction/rejection.

That's it in a nut shell.

Your thought about finding out what seems unfair to straight voters may be the most salient point here. How do we do that?

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Zerbie- you make a point here which is interesting to contemplate. (What message did the Arizona campaign focus on btw?) It is possible that straight people believe- erroneously- that gay people are having all the 'fun' they want and why should they have marriage too? Is it simple jealously? What is there to be jealous of?

I can't speak to the jealousy point. Who knows? Possibly. As to the AZ campaign. Although the word "fairness" was a flop with voters polled, it's ultimately what was appealed to in our actual message. Words that polled well were "legal protections" and "domestic benefits." Those polled well, so the campaign literature, signs, tee shirts, mailings, all featured the questions:

Why take away domestic benefits?
Why take away legal protections?
NO on Prop 107

Not a word about fairness, not a word about marriage. Of course many voters asked for clarification at which point we explained in depth the wording of the amendment. Our campaign stressed the impact on heterosexual couples and their children, as it was found early that voters were quick to defend people who seemed more like themselves (ie, straight.) Since the majority of unmarried couples in AZ ARE straight couples, it made sense that our campaign focused on them, since that is who would have actually been most affected, despite the opposition painting it as solely a 'gay marriage' ban. My personal analysis of our success here was that voters defeated 107 because they were wanted to protect the rights of unmarried STRAIGHT couples. Though there were still many who opposed 'gay marriage' who also opposed 107 because they felt that stripping gay couples of benefits such as health coverage went too far. Ultimately though, we did not win in Arizona strictly AS a gay rights issue. The gay issue imo rode the coattails of a broader issue, namely, leaving peoples' private lives alone and not taking away currently existing benefits. Arizona is libertarian more than it is conservative.

Hubby's mentor- a very well-known concert organist- was ruined by police entrapment in the early 70's. He was fired from a prestigous church on Central Park West and never recovered.

That makes me so angry!! They had to have been trying to ruin peoples' lives!

That's it in a nut shell.

Your thought about finding out what seems unfair to straight voters may be the most salient point here. How do we do that?

How do we do that? I think any organization looking to beat back "marriage" amendments ought to ask our AZ campaign what polling group they hired, and go hire them. Every demographic is going to resonate differently. Mass. has a very different history and outlook than Arizona, for instance, and a very different set of circumstances with regard to the marriage question. So Mass. needs to find out what message they can win on with Mass. voters. Then, funds and volunteer power to get that message out to voters. I think Mass. is in a great position to maintain marriage equality if they do.

[BenL]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

To the surprise of many, it was announced at all the early community meetings that "fairness" did not poll well, in fact, "fairness" was a flop with voters. Considering that I always thought Americans valued "fairness," I found that somewhat confusing. Obviously homophobia was trumping fairness, but I couldn't figure why. And "why" was not important, what mattered was finding an accurate message about the proposition that DID resonate with voters. That message was found, and the amendment was stopped.

According to an article in the Dec. 19 Advocate, the AZ campaign used a two-pronged effort: the traditional civil rights approach, which played well in more liberal parts of the state like Tucson, and a message from straight couples, which resonated with a lot of the state's retirees.

The article is not in the Advocate.com's issue archives and I don't have the magazine at hand, but the jist of the straight folks article was an appeal to all the unmarried retired couples where one or both were divorced and who stood to lose substantial pension/SS benefits if they married their partners. That's because the AZ measure would have banned civil partnerships as well, I think. Zerbie, you're closer to the fray than I am. Do you recall that?

Anyways it speaks to economic interests once again, and in that light it seems to be about fairness.

This thread is so juicy. It takes a lot of thought, which makes it hard to just jump in with off-the-cuff reactions. I'm still trying to digest Andrew's distinctions about the message and about the segments of the audience to which it has to be directed. I do know that he's right that until we convince the silent center, we won't get anywhere. To me, that's what makes a screaming match with the Christian Right such a waste of time. Not that we don't have to constantly call them on their untruths, but the silent center is not listening to our argument. To them it's a pax on both our houses.

What makes the silent center pay attention?

Bill Clinton knew: It's the economy, stupid! First, they're worried about their jobs, their homes and their families. Most of the Silent Majority don't want our queerness shoved in their faces, but they're willing to live and let live. When they meet individuals who are gay -- in their churches, in their neighborhoods, in the workplace -- and find out they're pretty much like them, we have won our first battle. They may have learned to hate the group, but they can easily learn to love the individual.

In the fight to perserve MA same-sex marriage, one straight man from a Boston suburb told one of the most touching stories. I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like this: Apparently, a gay male couple had bought an old house and renovated it. (How gay is that?) The heterosexual neighbor's first reaction was, "Oh, well, as long as they keep to themselves, I guess it doesn't matter." What he found out instead was that these two guys were the first to bring a casserole to a berieved family, the ones who pitched in to do yardwork for a family with someone in the hospital, the first ones to volunteer for community causes. In other words, they were typical suburbanites, who in some ways put their neighbors to shame. It's the individual couples and their kids who are the most persuasive, and who are the most worrisome to the virulent opponents of gay marriage. I think the rabid right has to be more afraid of gays who are more like them than those who represent the more flamboyant part of our community.

BenL

[Zerbie]

Hi Ben,

The amendment would have banned any recognition of any legal status for unmarried couples, therefore rolling back domestic partnership registries, domestic violence protections, and prohibiting municipalities and state entities from providing health coverage for partners and dependent children of their employees, among other problems. A great many senior citizens would have been affected, hence one of our most visible campaign couples, Al and Maxine, Tucson domestic partners in their late 70s, were pictured on the campaign literature that was mailed to voters.

Interesting the Advocate reported a "traditional civil rights approach" because all I ever heard from the leadership was that such an approach would not work so we were avoiding it. Though there was a sense that there was a message for the LGBT community and a broader message for the "mainstream" which was the official campaign message, so it might be that to which the article referred (I didn't see the article.)

Tucson is good. Tucson is a lot more progressive than the rest of the state and has (so I hear) a vibrant and rather cohesive gay community. Tucson is the only municipality in AZ that actually has a domestic partnership registry, and it would have been nullified had the amendment passed. We expected to win in Tucson, and Tucson was GOLDEN! The battle came down to we had to win the Phoenix metro area by at least a slight margin, well and I believe we may have also had a win in Flagstaff, or else broke even there, since as expected we lost in all the more rural counties.

I agree that a "screaming match" with the extreme right is pretty pointless and a waste of time. Unfortunately, once they start it, it's up to us to make sure that the silent majority OBSERVING it hear reason from us. They are our audience, and the point of Andrew's thread here, I think, or part of it, is how to tap into the majority of folks who are quite rightly put off by all the screaming.

[novaseeker]

1. To broaden the issue of marriage equality within LGBTQ circles (as Nova suggested), to address all the levels basic human need. “Rights” alone leave opponents with the counter-argument that GLBTQ are just interested in material gain – it’s just economic (Need 1).

Nothing could be further from the truth, however, since the issue is encompassed within all of the basic human needs categories briefly outlined above. Fleshing out the arguments based on the other need categories may help communication with those who also recognize their own human needs and can find a way to relate to people who are different than themselves.

It’s important, but it’s also tricky, because there are many competing “visions” of marriage, among straight people as well as LGBT people. What I think would be perhaps of greatest benefit would be for more LGBT people to form committed couples in the open, and for these couples to integrate into mainstream society. This is already happening, of course, but it needs to be broadened and deepened. By the act of living committed lives in the open in the middle of straight America, minds can be changed on the issue, and it can be demonstrated that this is not just an issue of fairness in terms of doling out legal benefits, but something that fits the committed lives LGBT people are leading. Perhaps that’s a more effective way of getting this part of the message across … more effective than the messages from the activist community can be to most straight American ears.

2. Identify not the arguments (since these tend to be sound byte), but the underlying perceptions that exist (within the population that make up my hypothetical Groups 3 & 4) of how GLBTQ equality threatens their basic human need. I perceive, right or wrong, that the negative social reaction is based on perceived threat – it is human need #4 for protection that drives the objections. Why? What are the threats perceived? How do we find out what they REALLY are?

I’ve thought a bit about this, and I think that the perceived threat is in a few areas.

First, there’s the generic threat that “approved” homosexuality (such approval being implied by the state formally recognizing committed relationships and benefitting them) poses to perceived gender roles and identities. I’ve long thought that one of the main reasons for “homophobia” is that the behavior is inconsistent with pre-existing notions of appropriate gender behavior (i.e., it’s considered appropriate for men to desire and love women, and vice-versa), and homosexual behavior in the open threatens these gender role perceptions and undermines them. I think that even if they do not articulate it as such, many people find this unsettling and threatening, because gender identity and role plays such a common, everyday role in how the world is perceived for many people. To a certain degree, there is a greater issue about gay men than about lesbian women, because while the women’s movement has somewhat broadened the “permissible” gender expression for women in the last 30-40 years, there is no equivalent to this on the male side of the equation, and so I think that straight men (and perhaps to a lesser degree straight women) are more “threatened” by gay men than either straight men or women are threatened by lesbian women (in fact the latter are often fetishized by straight men). It manifests itself as the “ick factor” that Daniel mentions, but I think the underlying threat, the underlying thing that makes people uncomfortable, relates to a perceived undermining of what it means to be “masculine” or “feminine”.

Another level of threat is the fear that allowing LGBT people to marry would result in a proliferation of “alternative” lifestyles in mainstream America. In other words, because people perceive of the LGBT community often as the stereotypes they see in images of gay pride parades, hollywood movies and TV shows and the like, there is a perception that if gay marriage is allowed, soon you would have leather daddies, dykes on bikes, drag queens and kings and the like living down the street and throwing wild parties at their house, exposing children to hedonistic and libertine lifestyles and the like. In other words, because the perception of the LGBT community is often based on an alternative lifestyle stereotype (and one that is unfortunately promoted by certain segments of the LGBT world), there is a perception that allowing LGBT people to marry would result in a significant influx of these alternative lifestyles both into the institution of marriage and, through that, into mainstream America … resulting in a redefinition of both.

Yet another level of threat is the fear that allowing LGBT people to marry – even if it would not result in an influx of alternative lifestyles into mainstream America – would result in LGBT couples living in mainstream neighborhoods, raising kids there and the like, and this would force, over time, greater social acceptance of LGBT people and LGBT relationships in general. That can feel threatening to people who think that, while LGBT people should not be discriminated against, at the same time, they should not be “normalized” either, and that people should be free to continue to raise their children to believe that it isn’t normal. It’s a fear, in other words, that the culture will overtake people’s ability to pass on their own discomfort with LGBT-ness to their children, and that sense of the culture changing in ways that are beyond the control of such individuals can feel very threatening.

I’m sure there are other perceived “threats” as well. I think the only real way to ferret them out is to engage in direct, non-heated dialogue with #3 and #4 types of peopls to really understand what is motivating reluctance and fear. It’s hard to have these dialogues without becoming angry because things are said that will make people angry, but I think nevertheless they are necessary if we are to begin to address what the underlying problems are, and why people who are otherwise very open-minded nevertheless cling to the established order when it comes to this specific issue.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

I’m sure there are other perceived “threats” as well. I think the only real way to ferret them out is to engage in direct, non-heated dialogue with #3 and #4 types of peopls to really understand what is motivating reluctance and fear. It’s hard to have these dialogues without becoming angry because things are said that will make people angry, but I think nevertheless they are necessary if we are to begin to address what the underlying problems are, and why people who are otherwise very open-minded nevertheless cling to the established order when it comes to this specific issue.

I have highlighted the last paragraph of you post, Nova, NOT because the rest wasn't insightful, but because here I perceive a potential role for allies.

It is difficult for allies to know how to help - what to do to support and advocate for our sisters and brothers. But I see a glimmer of an answer in your last paragraph that may or may not be applicable.

Can straight allies provide a needed service in respect to facilitating dialogue (I already know the answer is yes, but the how is perhaps more elusive)? If so, would it be to engage Type #3 and #4 in these discussions, or perhaps to somehow act as mediators/translators/moderators of those discussions? Allies, while we may get pissed off with homophobic reactions, are not as susceptible to taking personal affront. Can that little bit of distance from the issue be helpful, and how?

Maybe these seem like no-brainers, but I'd like to see them fleshed out none-the-less, if someone is willing.

[Zerbie]

Andrew,

Anyone capable of remaining detached enough to avoid reacting in heated anger during a face to face discussion is a good person for the task. It depends on the personality structure of the individual involved, but certainly straight people can and do stand up for their gay friends and family, and are in many ways ideal for the role you describe.

I often find straight people who more easily speak out on these issues than gay folk, because the straight people don't have internal homophobia (or even the memory of it!) and years of learning behind them that if they speak out on this issue they could be personally rejected, which many gay folks do have.

But it depends on the personality. I have a tendency to wave off for idiocy that which name-calls me. But if something cruel is directed at my friends, that is when I go over the edge reacting in anger.

[BenL]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Can straight allies provide a needed service in respect to facilitating dialogue (I already know the answer is yes, but the how is perhaps more elusive)? If so, would it be to engage Type #3 and #4 in these discussions, or perhaps to somehow act as mediators/translators/moderators of those discussions? Allies, while we may get pissed off with homophobic reactions, are not as susceptible to taking personal affront. Can that little bit of distance from the issue be helpful, and how?

Good point, Andrew. I can tell how one straight ally helped the gay community in our congregation. We have an Alliance group, founded by a gay clergyman, who since has accepted a call to another church. His successor is a heterosexual retired clergyman in his early 60s who was already an ally, at least intellectually. He adopted us and we adopted him from the first time he joined our small, once-a-month worship and fellowship meeting. He was keen on hearing our stories, and we shared with him the good things God has done for us and some of the homophobic reactions we had experienced at the hands of our families, our churches and society in general.

Six months to a year into his association with us, he wrote to the whole congregation in the parish newsletter about the spiritual growth HE had experienced while ministering with us. He said that straight folks like him often have it easy when it comes to God and their faith, whereas LGBT people often question deep and hard why God made us the way the way we are. The result, he told the congregation, is that gay Christians who have seen the hand of God in their queerness often love and serve God with more heartfelt gratitude because they have had to be faithful to their God-given pilgrimage. The people in our Alliance are also deeply involved in the life of the congregation on all fronts: ministry, outreach, education, worship etc.

Another way clergy allies can help us is to incorporate us and our needs into their preaching. We virtually NEVER hear our lives echoed from the pulpit. Preachers often use anecdotes to illustrate their sermons. We have families, we have relationships, but they are never alluded to except by way of condemnation, perhaps. Presenting the lives of gay Christians in a positive way from the pulpit would go a long way to demystifying us and exorcising the negative streotypes people have about us.

I apologize for casting these examples in terms of the Christian church, but it's where my life is and how I thought I could reply most authetically. I recognize that you are talking about the general political and social scene.

BenL