The more I see of the opposition to same-sex marriage, the more I become convinced that it’s definitely going to get passed this year, and most likely this session. As such, groups that are lobbying so heavily against the measure are not only fighting an uphill battle, but putting their own long-term viability at risk.

First,there’s the Catholic Church. Whether or not it’s by their own design, the marriage equality debate is the most visible local political presence I can recall the Catholic Church having in my lifetime. Archbishop Timothy Dolan has rallied hard in the print media and taken to the airwaves against the measure, making him a more prominent and public figure than he ever has before.

The fierceness of the opposition is a bit surprising. Dolan and other Church officials have stated repeatedly that they will not settle for religious exemptions, no matter how rigorous and thorough. There can be no compromise. Their position is to be expected, but the level of visibility they’ve maintained in the waning days of the debate is at best ill-advised and possibly catastrophic due to the elephant in the room whenever they insert themselves into debates in the public sector: clergy abuse. To invoke the issue purely for the sake of debate is an unfair logical fallacy, but it needs to be noted because it’s the reason the voices of Archbishop Dolan and others aren’t being heeded by even the most virulent among their congregations. The long and the short of it is that a litany of scandals has resulted in a very serious image problem for the Vatican that undermines their moral authority. They have enough trouble already dictating movements among its faithful when it has to issue as many apologies as it does edicts. To do so in the media, while what few churches aren’t shuttered have empty pews, seems almost silly.

The other organization that has unwisely chosen this issue as their hill to die on is the Conservative Party of New York State. Their obstacles aren’t image and shrinking participation, but priorities and relevance.

CPNYS took a gamble in threatening to pull their line from any Republican who voted in favor of marriage equality. The metaphor of playing their hand has been invoked, but more apt would be tossing a ball into a roulette wheel. More and more, younger Republicans are in favor of the measure, and even the older ones aren’t the social conservatives that one finds to the West and the South. If statements and actions of the CPNYS on this issue are any indication, they have grossly misread GOP victories in New York State over the last five years: it’s the fiscal conservatism, not the social conservatism, that took root and bolstered their ranks. The fact that they’re standing in front of marriage equality with their palms extended upwards while the state’s going bankrupt behind them has not escaped the attention of the younger members of their rank and file, who not only disagree with the stance on marriage equality but are hitting their heads on the desk at the threat of pulling the line for those voting yes. Senators like Roy McDonald telling them to stick it is moot since he has a stronghold in his district that can survive a race without the CPNYS line. But if Republicans cut a deal to get this passed – and they will – it will be a profound embarrassment and a blow to the strength of their ballot line and lobbying power.

Regardless of the outcome from this session, marriage equality is going to pass and there’s going to be a price to pay for both groups. Their stance and vigilance against marriage equality caters to a rapidly shrinking segment that is – literally – dying off, but it’s not their position that’s damning. It’s their inability to see the writing on the wall. Nobody’s going to ask the Vatican or members of the old guard in the Conservative Party to change their minds on homosexuality, because as history has shown, they have a better chance of talking bricks into changing their color from red to blue. They are, though, asking them both to back off, and the warning has thus far gone unheeded.

30 Responses to Groups lobbying against Marriage equality do so at their peril

  1. The other Kevin says:

    Young people see, understand and resent hypocrisy no matter where it’s from.

    The very word “Conservative” in the social sense kind of implies “we ain’t changin and you can’t make me.” …and at the rate that the world is evolving and becoming more enlightened it always seems wildly ignorant.

    I know I have said it before, but it’s this kind of stuff that makes Libertarian ideals so much more attractive.

  2. Jackson Powers says:

    Don’t forget the Tea Party. I wasn’t all that surprised to read today that they were one of the first groups to stake out some real estate in the capitol to protest against gay marriage, but their continued opposition drastically undermines their legitimacy as a libertarian movement. The circular arguments made against same-sex marriage about how it will diminish others’ freedoms are outlandish and serve only to show the lengths to which Tea Baggers will go to hide the fact that they are truly motivated by prejudice more than anything else.

    • Jackson – Hoo boy. I don’t even want to open that can of worms, but yeah. The bigger problem is that the concept of The Tea Party is discussed, even by me at times, as if they’re an official and cohesive unit/movement/party unto themselves a la CPNYS, but like you said, it started as more of a libertarian movement – though it might be more apt to just label it fiscal conservatism – and has been hijacked by social conservatives. It’s a real quagmire, because I do know a handful of people that were on the TP train very early on that don’t really identify with it anymore for that very reason while there’s others that are fighting against the hijacking of it. So now you have those folks fighting a losing battle themselves, and Tea Party in 2011 is suddenly an entirely different animal than it was in 2009. I know some will say it sounds like a conspiracy theory when I state that the moniker’s been hijacked by what was formerly known as the religious right but the more I see the more I’m convinced that’s the case. That’s the problem when you participate a grass-roots movement that prides itself on not having any sort of real organization or infrastructure: if the wrong people come in with their s*** together, they take over and you get lumped in with them whether you like it or not. Which is why I always suggest to my fiscal conservative friends that they just walk away from it entirely.

      It’s also the same brick wall that candidates in the GOP Presidential Primary is going to run into once they hit the general election, but that’s a whole other discussion.

  3. Tony Barbaro says:

    Am I crazy to think we should just freaking vote on it?

  4. HomeTownGirl says:

    I don’t care for the phrase TeaBaggers. Just sayin’. It puts me off so anything said after someone uses that word, whether it be valid or not, just doesn’t hold any merit with me.

  5. Roger Green says:

    HomeTownGirl- The Tea Party has embraced the term Tea Party. Congress has a Tea Party Caucus, chaired by Michelle Bachmann. And it was the Tea Party that first embraced the term, sending tea bags to members of Congress: http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger

  6. Roger Green says:

    Ah, typo – I meant the Tea Party embraced the term Tea Bagger

  7. Stephen says:

    Roger – really? if you don’t know why people use the term TeaBaggers just ask someone oh and nice to see the TU letting a sexual term be used on a group the editors don’t like – Real nice.

    • Stephen – Right, but as Roger pointed out, the term derived from their own usage and there’s currently a movement to “reclaim” it so to speak. Double entendres, whether intentional or not, are fair game.

      Also, I’m not an “editor,” I’m a reader blogger. Editors actually get paid. Thanks!

  8. Stephen says:

    Spin it anyway you want Kevin. We all know the term is used by those that do not agree with the Tea Party in a derogatory manner and would not be allowed by you or the PAID Editors if directed towards a group you agree with. But hey its the Tea Party use any sexual term you’d like – seems a bit one sided me thinks.

  9. Equal Rights 4 All says:

    If I don’t get to vote on whether you can get married, you shouldn’t get to vote on whether I can either! Think about how silly that is. If we always let the greater public vote on the rights of a minority, we’d never have inter racial marriage, women’s rights to vote or own property, or have abolished slavery…

  10. Jeffrey says:

    There will be an important rally tomorrow (Tuesday) at noon at West Capitol Park, outside the capitol building. Please attend and show your support for marriage equality!!!

  11. michael says:

    My guess is that for every gay marriage, there will be at least 50 “traditional marriage” divorces, maybe more. Sanctity of marriage? Protecting the “family”. Can ANYONE who cites religious and/or moral ground as their basis for opposing the rights of gays to legally marry explain to me why there isn’t a peep about divorce? The hypocrisy is so over-the-top, yet these “protectors of the traditional family” get a pass on it. Sure, the Catholic Church is “against” divorce (for those that don’t have the $ to buy an “annulment”), but I’ve NEVER heard of the Church taking a meaningful public stand against the laws that allow it. It will NEVER happen. Gee whiz. I wonder why.

  12. Dave says:

    Jackson,
    You said different animal, I believe that the term you should have been doppelgänger. What is truly disturbing is how closely that word models the group formerly known as ‘Tea Party’, it should be said that the true emotions that cause the tea party to form in the first place, while may not completely admirable, were at least understandable. Let’s add another year so we can see what the political climate becomes shall we? 2012 Conservatives, start the campaign ball rolling by doing what comes natural, a hack and slash media ads bad mouthing the Dems, in the second quarter election mania get into full swing with GOP being pulled along by the conservative in to the fray more media ads wrong doing of politicians(Tea party, and Dems) are up for grabs. The Conservatives and GOP come down to the wire, and hire slander monger to post information about candidates, and before anyone can find out what the truth is. They demand the candidates resign from the race. When the truth is revealed the backlash is so great that the candidate that stayed out of the back stabbing free for all wins. Ralph Nader is elected to office.

  13. Get Real © says:

    Clever one, Kevin. I see what you did there. 8)

  14. Bud Evans says:

    We Are Married…. Let No One Put Asunder

    My spouse and I were married on September 13, 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. We have been together for more than thirty years. When we arrived back home in Kansas, the sky did not fall; dairy cows did not stop producing milk, and gravity was still intact — although common sense and common decency seemed to have left our segment of the planet under the seemingly endless Kansas prairie sky. Yes, we got the expected “Welcome Back Home to the Good ol’ USA!” reception alright to which we’ve sadly grown accustomed as Gay and Lesbian Americans.

    For months, the vile malevolent specter of our very own local home-grown Kansas State Anti-Equality “Heterosexuals Only” so-called Marriage Amendment hung over our heads like the shadowy silhouette of a cowardly mugger ready to strike in ambush from a dark alley. Finally, in early April 2005, a Kansas lynch-mob, drunk with power and prejudice, at last had their little necktie party and strung up our Bill of Rights in the public square of totalitarianism. Apparently, American neo-fascists aren’t satisfied with just being the insufferable bully on the international block, they must also have their pound of flesh at home too.

    So what is so surprising about this scenario? Obviously there is not enough conflict in the world, so malicious malcontents in Kansas, as well as throughout most of the US, feel the need to stir up the flames of division even more. All of this brings to mind my saddest and most sustained observation concerning the United States in general. It is in regard to her citizenry’s constantly evolving contempt for other Americans. Overall, it is Mankind’s greatest single flaw too. But in the USA it is the perversion of Christian fellowship and tolerance that is being twisted into a pseudo-religious/right-wing political dogma of dissimulation and group-hate which will be the next great stain on America.

    Political gay-bashing and religion-based bigotry has quickly become this new century’s equivalent of racism, gender inequality and ethnic strife. Fanatical homophobia has been effortlessly revived and poisonously retooled from the last century’s panoply of prejudices so eagerly embraced in these perpetually un-United States. Once again, the drama is much the same — only the characters on the stage are played by different actors.

    As this tragedy unfolds, those whose duty it is to uphold America’s promise of equality once again turn a blind eye to this country’s absolute assurances of equal justice. How did this nation’s immutable guarantees of liberty degenerate into such an arrogant and heartless popularity contest in America? If you don’t like your neighbor, just simply write them out of the Constitution. Is that it? Is that all it takes to make them disappear? Just fashion a paper noose out of group-specific malicious laws and then lynch your neighbor on a gallows once called the Bill of Rights. Is that the level of barbarity to which we have regressed in America?

    No, I did not expect homophobes to throw rice at our wedding, but occasionally, albeit foolishly, I expect a modicum of class from people I do not know — such as the simple civility of minding one’s own business. I certainly do not appreciate strangers meddling in my personal affairs; especially when it concerns my marriage. That is not only bad manners, but it is truly beneath contempt.

    So, unless Canada’s Marriage Laws or the few Marriage Equality U.S. “free” States fair laws are changed to reflect the rest of America’s narrow-minded contempt for her own most vulnerable citizens, then my marriage will stand in at least a few zones of freedom in the U.S. as well as elsewhere abroad where equality actually means something. And there is nothing any thug in the guise of religion or government can do about it. No amount of hatred for my spouse and me will ever un-marry us. I am confident that those miscreants who envy and despise our joyful union, as well as those unethical politicians who seek political power by inciting a mob mentality in the general public, will not be looked upon favorably by history nor by future generations.

    The truth is that decent people elevate themselves by their own achievements and talents; not by standing on the backs of others who are least able to defend themselves. It’s a very sad commentary on modern society, as well as on this really not-so-Christian country after all, that people will still do to others what they would not tolerate having done to them. That is the classic definition of a fascist. And that is certainly not what either The Founding Fathers or Christ would have envisioned for this not-yet-great nation.

    Jesus who had embraced the disenfranchised, and who had walked amongst the outcasts of society, would weep today for what is done in his name. Equally shameful is the disrespect shown to the drafters of our Bill of Rights who took great pains to protect the “inalienable rights” of the less politically powerful against the tyranny of the majority. Just try to keep in mind those words: “Liberty and Justice for All…” and “That which you do unto the least among you, you do unto me.” And according to all belief systems which respect the dignity of Humankind, whether secular or religious in nature, that mandate is simply this: All people are created equal in all ways and they are endowed with the same inherent rights, in all things, as all others — there are no exceptions. Too bad some people still refuse to see it that way.

    Bigotry has always had a peculiar way of eviscerating virtue when truth becomes particularly inconvenient in advancing petty prejudices and an anti-social agenda. Whether one makes a religion out of politics (such as in Nazi Germany or in Communist regimes) or fabricates politics from religion (such as fundamentalist deity-based totalitarianism anywhere on Earth) the end result is the same. The end result is intolerance, and that is the nexus of most human strife and suffering on this planet since time immemorial.

    America owes a birthright of equality in all things, great or small, under the legal umbrella of citizenship which she extends to all of her children. No one’s personal religious, ethical, political or any other belief system can ever be allowed to dictate which Americans should have rights and which ones should not. If that is not anathema to the revolutionary spirit of this country and an affront to our Bill of Rights, then nothing is.

    The courage to stand up for the most vulnerable citizens among us against institutional and popular prejudice is a rare act of both bravery and virtue. People of good will, working together, perhaps can someday make America a shining example of a Constitutional Republic that keeps its solemn promise of equality for all. Maybe we can remind others that this nation’s guarantee of individual liberty would never allow one faction to ever vote away another citizen’s civil rights in a thoughtless expression of group-hate. I still believe that there are good and fair people in this country. But considering the lessons of the past, I hope we don’t have to wait for the next generation to grow up in order to find them.

    Yes, contrary to the presuppositions of inculcated hate and politically manipulated hysteria, there really is room enough at the matrimonial table for every consenting, non-related, pair of adult human beings who wish to marry in this world — regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, politics, gender identity or sexual orientation. It is obvious to any student of history that loving, mutually supportive same-sex romantic relationships are as old as Mankind. It has always been so and will continue to be so as long as there is a human race.

    Let us also not forget that the civil rights of Gays and Lesbians are protected in most of the industrialized Western world. In those truly civilized nations, same-sex oriented individuals can be open and honest about their orientation. Even in this country, which has such a long and shameful history on the issue of human rights, homosexual intimate relationships are just as legally protected under the U.S. Constitution as heterosexual intimate relationships — as wisely decided by the Supreme Court in the Lawrence -vs- Texas decision on June 26, 2003.

    Currently, the personal lives of tens of millions of Gay and Lesbian Americans are the bloody battlegrounds where this never-ending war against civil rights is being fought. It is a war that perennially pits progress and egalitarianism against the forces of ignorance and maliciousness. We may lose many battles to those foes who divide this great house against itself — which we call America — but ultimately we will win the final war against the enemies of human dignity and freedom. Of that I have no doubt.

    Those who fanatically and sanctimoniously wave the banner of “tradition” are in reality only selfishly trying to protect their own special status at the expense of others. Obviously, if tradition was always such a virtuous thing to uphold we’d still have slavery; women wouldn’t have the right to vote, and America would have king.

    The horrors of human bondage are most often conceived and perpetuated by using that contemptible excuse of upholding the self-serving status quo. Unquestionably, when tradition is used as justification to oppress others it becomes a thing of evil and an enemy of civilization. Old notions and elitists traditions must yield to inclusiveness and egalitarianism if peace is ever to be realized and a stable society maintained.

    A hallmark of civilization is marriage, and marriage is both a binding oath of mutual loyalty and a personal contract which clearly details responsibilities and rights entered into between two romantically involved individuals who pledge to share their lives with one another. That very same institution belongs to all loving, non-related, adult couples. No apartheid-like system of separate tables (i.e. civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc.) will ever suffice. To deny same-sex couples who are also engaged in constitutionally protected, intimate, mutually supportive relationships the same protections and rights that many married heterosexual couples take so easily for granted is an affront to human dignity and an assault on American principles of fairness.

    Too many brave and good citizens, Gay and Straight alike, have fought and died on too many bloody battlefields so that all people can partake of freedom. No one should belittle their ultimate sacrifice by parceling out equality as if it were their own special gift to give to a favored segment of society. I truly believe (just as I previously stated in an essay I wrote which appeared in the Kansas City Star) that there is more than enough room at the same table of marriage for each of us who wish to take on all the responsibility it demands, as well as reap its rewards. As tempestuous as marriage sometimes is, it most often provides for couples pledged to one another for life, be they heterosexual or same-sex couples, the only real promise of a safe harbor in which to lay anchor and to protect their most precious cargo — each other.

    We too have sworn an oath — to have and to hold ’till death do us part. My spouse and I made that promise to each other officially on September 13, 2004 when we were finally, legally allowed to be married in a country to the north which respects human dignity and individual liberty. Although, I still can remember that one cold winter night on January 10th, 1975, when Bill and I first met — we were just kids in our early twenties then. We also made that pledge, albeit unofficially, to one another. Now as then, in good times and in bad times; forsaking all others; ’till death do us part; let no one put asunder.

    It means just as much to us today as then. And perhaps just a little bit more, because at least a few more compassionate people and a few more civilized nations are finally starting to respect our right to be recognized as a family at last. They know, as we do, that love is the most important ingredient that makes a family. Families can’t exist without it. All kinds of families spring into existence because of it. That is the bedrock of marriage. Nothing else is required except devotion — plus the courage to fight for the ones you love in the face of adversity. That is what actually makes a family. And, in case anyone forgets, that is what marriage is truly all about.

    (C) Bud Evans 2006 & 2010

    [originally published in 2006 and then revised in 2010 to reflect the growing number of Marriage Equality States which have joined the 21st Century by rejecting anti-GLBT bigotry as an official state policy]

    (Bud Evans is a studio artist and writer who lives with his partner, Bill, for over thirty-five years who has also been his spouse since September 13, 2004 when they were legally married in Vancouver, B.C., Canada)

  15. Ned Flaherty says:

    Bud Evans’ “We Are Married… Let No One Put Asunder” (post #17) is the most eloquent treatise from the last few decades. Thanks, Bud.

  16. Em says:

    If people are so concerned with protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage, any violatation of marriage vows, including divorce, should be punishable by law with jail time and fines.
    Problem solved. Now pass the bill.

  17. HomeTownGirl says:

    Thank you Bud Evans.

  18. Henry says:

    OK, I’m getting bored with the whole gay marriage debate. Can we talk about something else please?

  19. JayK says:

    Henry, absolutely. As soon as marriage equality is passed.

  20. Ann says:

    I’m with Henry, but it does not affect me directly. I think a lot of people are of the mind set of “just go ahead and pass it already!”

    The sky won’t fall, rivers won’t turn blood red, some people probably will turn in their graves, but so be it.

  21. luvpudders says:

    I also agree with 21 Henry and 23 Ann.

  22. wheninthecourse says:

    why stop with SSM? let us allow parents (widowed/divorced/single) to marry their adult children. this way when a 75 year old Wife dies her husband-son can collect widows/widower SS benefits

    Watch for California to be the first state to pass this

  23. anrold says:

    Horrible, that such a timeless thing passes in the NY-state. How long will it take to rechange the stance ?
    Noone can force us to admit, that the same-sex ralation is somthing the same as the normal family. Never.

  24. Jango Davis says:

    anrold-“rechange” is not word. No one is forcing you to admit anything. This is America, you can love or hate whoever you want. In fact, you can even post on Kevin Marshall’s blog using atrocious spelling and grammar, a right I see you exercise to the fullest of your ability.

  25. Jeffrey says:

    Trust me Kevin, don’t bother trying to figure out what these yahoos are talking about. I can now marry my partner of 18 years but that apparently means i should support polygamy, bestiality and incest. These “religious” people have very, very, sick minds. My real concern is that people this ignorant are allowed to vote!!! SCARY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>