One way to look at the policy debate over gay rights is from the perspective of the movement strategy. Building a coalition of support for a position requires forging consensus among differeing views. Some partners opt for more aggressive stands; others may prefer to use incremental or subtle approaches. When a group faces a crisis or defeat, that is when the coalition can face fracture or transition. (Perhaps this is what is happening with the movement that hit a zenith with California Prop 8 and now a critical deflation in Maine–a libertarian state with little Mormon or African American influence to blame.)
Tuesday’s defeat is also likely to further splinter a movement that has been debating the best tactics for success. Some prominent gay politicians last month skipped a gay rights march in Washington, questioning its purpose, which emboldened some of the younger advocates at the march to call for a new generation of leaders. Now, many will argue that that approach is not enough. Some are already pressing for more aggressive tactics, like speeding up a ballot measure to reverse California’s ban on same-sex marriage next year, instead of taking more time to build support.
via News Analysis – Gay Rights Rebuke May Change Approach – NYTimes.com.
10 responses so far ↓
stricklj // November 6, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
Observing the gay rights movement as an academic study in political activity, we can recognize the difficulties of building and maintaining a coalition even when — perhaps especially when — the participants are all deeply committed to the general cause. As long as the outside pressure is strong enough, this coalition (and others) can usually maintain unity. But such coalitions are volatile and susceptible to breakdowns over setbacks, which is not to say that the activists will go away, but rather that the direction of the movement is redefined as leadership gets shook up. Here, for example, the more aggressive faction believes it’s time to circumvent populist forces and go through a more assertive channel: the courts. Other members of the movement believe that changing hearts and minds will create a longer-lasting and more meaningful result, besides being more democratic. Which way the movement goes will indicate who in the coalition is winning the internal power struggle.
Other movements face similar splits in their coalitions, and have to learn to cope. In Iran, the opposition movement continues despite the fact that the members of that coalition range from a belief in a secular democracy to believing the Islamic Revolution has been derailed and needs to be reset. This appears largely to be the result of outside pressure (see photo). Republicans, too, are facing a split among their coalition, from Limbaugh conservatives to Steele to the libertarian wing. This is one of the reasons why the party has had to “just say no” to the health care reform bills for so long — who can say what the conservative movement as a whole supports?
The lesson in coalition building seems to be to keep the differences between coalition members on the second level while emphasizing the differences between the coalition and opponents.
rmeldau // November 9, 2009 at 12:33 pm |
The gay rights movement is also an interesting case study in the strengths and weaknesses of formal democracy. It appears clear that Americans, in general currently accept marriage as it is traditionally defined, a relationship between a man and a woman. However, the gay rights movement has used its position of influence in the private sphere (popular entertainment, for example), legal activism, and interest lobbying in an attempt to redirect or overcome the general consensus.
One cannot help but be reminded of Jurgen Habermas’s description of the dangers of “colonization of the lifeworld” (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~frank/habermas.html) in modern democracy. Habermas, in analyzing democracy in modernity, warns that special interest groups or businesses can use their traditionally non-political power to create political capital in the type of democracies that exist today. The danger this represents is that the equality of representation understood as being inherent in democracy ends up getting trumped by outside, irrelevant factors. This seems like an accurate description of what is occurring with the gay rights debate in America today.
rebwise // November 10, 2009 at 11:26 am |
I was surprised to hear that the referendum had been successful. Due to the huge amount of attention that has been spent on gay rights lately it feels as though the entire supports the idea. It is refreshing to hear that somewhere in the country, surprisingly in Maine of all states, when the voice of the people is allowed to rise above legislative and court decisions, the mood is no the gay rights.
The article focuses on how gay rights activists are struggling to find what their next move or tactic will be to gain support for their cause again. In contrast to their struggle I found this article http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1936746,00.html?iid=tsmodule
which outlines several catholic congregations and what they plan to do to combat gay rights, and keep support in line with the current referendum. Perhaps the reason gay rights activists are loosing support is because the opposition is ready to counteract any act by the activists.
jesusrosasjr // November 10, 2009 at 1:19 pm |
The battle seems to be among the same lawyers, the ones in Main worked for the same clients in California with the P8. But what the people in Main is claiming now is that there was a misleading word there. Do you want to know which word? take a look here:
http://www.care2.com/causes/civil-rights/blog/maines-gay-marriage-ballot-question-misleading/
hilarygthomas // November 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
It’s comforting to see that after proposition 8 passed last year, that the drama and emotion surrounding same-sex marriage has subsided to what is was pre-2008 election. The gay-marriage movement worked very hard to gain support against proposition 8 in California last year. Both sides of the debate felt that California was a key state to determine whether the movement would rise in popularity or decrease back to it’s normal rigor. After the elections in Maine, it is becoming more clear that support for same-sex marriage is decreasing. However, it’s not decreasing enough to lost support all together – and probably never will. However, the movement had it’s peak support before last year’s election – the support it rallied gave a glimmer of hope for the movement on a national scale. But now the media, as well as the support has dwindled on the subject and one by one, states, citizens and politicians are decreasing their support for the movement.
The article describes how not only Maine, but other New-England states are lowering their once high support for the gay rights movement. The slow decline in support is not news the movement leaders want to hear.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Gay-Marriage-Bill-in-Albany-Faces-Uncertain-Fate-69554487.html
ryanblank // November 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm |
As a person who lived in California during the Prop 8 issue and actively supported Prop 8 it is so encoraging and rewarding to see that the efforts of those who would subvert the concept of marriage for their own purposes is being challenged and beaten at every corner. The tactics used have suggested that it is impossible for morality to win-that any who disagree are bigots who should be unable to have a voice. I was threatened with violence, watched as friends cars, houses, and property were vandalized, watched friends lose membership in organizations, lost friends, and saw all sorts of vile tactics used to promote Same-Sex “marriage.” The most encouiraging part of the story is that no state that voted on the issue has ever passed gay “marriage” rather it has been forced on the citizens of the state through the courts or legislature. I look forward to seeing this issue favorably resolved in every state. If the gay “dominance” and advocacy groups want to change leadership, go right ahead. It doesn’t matter, the people of America still cling to a thread of the morality that has protected us for our entire history. And when we relinquish that grip we shall plunge into the chaos that the jJredites and the Nephites discovered at the decline of their great civilizations.
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.3836955/k.BEC6/Home.htm
aysasaga // November 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm |
Most of those in my graduating class turned 18 just in time to vote in last year’s elections. Although I was here at BYU and didn’t witness most of the chaos that ensued back in my very politically divided hometown, I did have conversations with some of my friends and peers who opposed Prop 8. Setting religion aside, I am forever engaged by the argument of Pitirm Sorokin in his book “The American Sex Revolution.” Sorokin, founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard University, studied the effects of sexual “looseness,” particularly manifested in homosexuality, on ancient societies ranging from Greece to the Netherlands. He said: “Sex anarchy and political and social anarchy are twin demons.” Although his theories were unorthodox and polarizing, I think Sorokin’s findings ring true today. “Sex anarchy” limits cultural creativity. I feel encouraged by the stance of voters in Maine, but like Ryan Blank stated, because gay “marriage” has only ever been passed through state courts and legislatures, I feel concerned about the future of our cultural identity in America.
This article is pretty cool. It’s an unbiased discussion on homosexuality and its purported effects: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/. I also suggest checking out Sorokin’s book. It’s a good one.
suzetteswallow // November 10, 2009 at 4:54 pm |
Their is certainly a strategy to become accepted by mainstream America from the LGBT communtiy. This plan was layed out by Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk in their book After the Ball in 1989. The book has a six point agenda to homosexuality becoming acceptable. They range from bombarding the media with talk about gays and the gay lifestyle to portraying gays as victims. It is widely accepted that this book propoganda at least and more like brainwashing. At any rate during the past 20 years I have literally seen the six point plan become a reality.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/socarides.html
Charles W. Socarides, M.D. wrote an article entitled how America Went Gay… The link provides a deeper analysis of Kirk and Madsen’s book.
stevencfreeman // November 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm |
This article demonstrates several difficulties that can occur during coalition building. As many of the above comments discussed, those who are shown to be extremely passionate about an issue often struggle to build a coalition. There are several possible reasons for this, but the major is probably building consensus. If you come out to strong against someone, they immediately begin arguing. It doesn’t matter how logical you are, once someone begins arguing they are less likely to change opinions. It is better to start out by mentioning something you agree on, and slowly shifting until you are speaking about the relevant issue.
Check out Dale Carnegie’s 12 Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
Many of the principles Carnegie discusses are extremely important to coalition building. It’s a great book and extremely relevant to what we do in class.
jennishiguchi // November 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
I believe very strongly that marriage is to be solely between a man and a woman. About two weeks ago I was having a conversation with a friend on the topic of gay marriage and I am repeatedly surprised at the views of LDS members. Between the proclamation on the family and Elder Oak’s address at BYU-I the brethren have been extremely clear on this issue.
http://www.article6blog.com/2009/10/14/dallin-oaks-religious-freedom-proposition-8-and-keith-olbermann/
http://www.lds.org/Static%20Files/PDF/Manuals/TheFamily_AProclamationToTheWorld_35538_eng.pdf
You must be logged in to post a comment.