Get Herald RSSProgressives' reactions to New Jersey's new civil union law have been rather somber. Yes, gay couples are now explicitly entitled to "every statutory right and benefit conferred to heterosexual couples through civil marriage," and yes, New Jersey is the first state outside of New England (arguably after California) to offer such significant recognition - but liberals' prevailing mood seems to be of resignation, even disappointment.
"Marriage equality" has not been achieved, say many - "marriage apartheid" endures. A puzzling attitude, really, since civil unions immeasurably advance the quality of life for New Jersey's gay couples, at last allowing them, for example, unfettered visitation rights and the same financial incentives offered to heterosexual couples. The law, in short, affords gay couples everything but two words - "marriage" and "spouse" - and a bundle of supposed implications.
For most in favor of "marriage equality," those implications include a national stamp of approval for LGBTQ partnerships - both a symbol of official acceptance and a long-awaited rebuff to homophobes who like to pretend that gays don't exist. For many who support "defending marriage," however, the implication is heroic resistance to an aggressively depraved gay value system threatening to corrupt their children. For each side, it seems, the symbol - the word "marriage" - is more important than the statutory benefits that legal partnership provides. For those deeply invested in this issue on either side, the opposition is the enemy, and compromise is unthinkable.
But compromise is exactly what the majority of Americans want. Polls find a nation hungry for less bickering and grandstanding in government - the Democratic victory in November came primarily from centrist candidates who pledged bipartisanship. The swing voters that often determine elections don't see either party as the enemy - or at least they don't see one as more inimical than the other. Somewhat sympathetic to the arguments of both sides but mostly distracted and not really paying attention, swing voters want each side of each issue to find a reasonable middle ground where everyone gets part of what they want, and nothing changes too quickly.
Civil unions are a good example. Though national polls show that a small but substantial majority oppose "gay marriage," the divide is far narrower - and legislative success more likely - when the public considers civil unions. Apparently, many of those who are touchy about maintaining traditional "marriage" also back legal recognition and equal benefits for gay couples. Due partially to sympathetic portrayals in the media, Americans have become increasingly tolerant and accepting of LGBTQ lifestyles. Their attitudes, however, are tempered by a decidedly less embracing perspective.
Whether a "gay agenda" really exists is immaterial. What matters is that millions of voters believe it does. Not only is this belief promulgated by various right-wing commentators, but it also emerges naturally from our 24/7 mass media that peddles sensationalism rather than nuanced perspectives on reality.
Feverishly competing for a fickle audience with ever-shrinking attention spans, media outlets consistently emphasize the most outrageous, controversial and simplistic aspects of their stories. The resulting narrative is a cartoonish parody of the world, riddled with disproportionality: A world in which poor women are frequently welfare queens, for instance, and gays tend to be bizarre denizens of militantly orgiastic pride parades.
Regardless of the LGBTQ community's actual nature, many voters are reacting to such over-the-top caricatures, which violate their most fundamental assumptions about what constitutes appropriate behavior. Although these voters may empathize with gay individuals, they still feel a compelling need to vote in defense of their cultural values - even if their candidate's economic positions contradict their own interests. This is, according to author Thomas Frank, "what's the matter with Kansas" - and much of America.
Such emotional topics encourage politicians to craft increasingly shallow campaigns based on hot-button issues rather than substantive platforms. To make matters worse, bitter experience has demonstrated that, among non-habitual voters, gay marriage is much more galvanizing to the right than to the left. Had it been less of an issue in 2004, fewer Republicans who vote intermittently might have showed up to the polls and more swing voters in Ohio and Florida might have voted their economic interests with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. We'll never know, of course, but in an era of super-competitive elections, progressive activists must approach such divisive issues strategically.
LGBTQ advocates face a similar dilemma as many other progressive groups, such as Students for Sensible Drug Policy, of which I'm a member. How do you advance a progressive cause that much of the public finds threatening without provoking the kind of active and organized opposition that hurts both the cause and the broader progressive agenda?
In recognition of the fact that much of society fears the corruptive influence of a hedonistic drug culture, SSDP focuses on smaller, less threatening aspects of drug policy reform than the total decriminalization that many activists favor. The group's remarkable success includes passage of medicinal marijuana and felon enfranchisement legislation in Rhode Island. SSDP has managed to make a real progressive difference by pursuing harm reduction rather than dramatic and alienating systemic change, at least in the short term - exactly what LGBTQ advocates can do by supporting civil unions over the more polarizing "marriage equality" platform.
With this approach, gay couples nationwide will sooner receive the rights and benefits they deserve - but with less chance of spurring a backlash that can set back other progressive causes. As national surveys find that Americans are increasingly tolerant of alternative sexualities, it is not difficult to foresee easy passage of actual "gay marriage" in a few decades. For now, though, the issue should not be allowed to alienate prospective voters who might otherwise support progressive policies.
Jesse Adams '07 wants to save liberalism from itself. He does not officially represent SSDP, which was not consulted for this column.
