Last year I wrote a critique of the modern pro-gay marriage movement in light of the California Supreme Court’s legalizing gay marriage in California. In that essay, I urged pro-homosexuals to pursue equal rights by supporting civil unions and not gay marriage because mainstream Americans may be more sympathetic to this more moderate request. Homosexuals may have lost the Prop 8 battle last November, but they can now plant flags of victory in Des Moines, Augusta, Concord, Hartford, and Montpelier as these state capitols have officially legalized gay marriage.
Fortunately for the movement, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont legalized gay marriage using the legislature instead of the courts, indicating that gay marriage is becoming somewhat more mainstream (at least in New England). Fortunately for those who fear that gay marriage is an assault on their religious beliefs, gay marriage supporters have even shown a propensity for compromise.
When legislators in New Hampshire proposed a bill legalizing gay marriage last spring, the Democratic Governor John Lynch threatened to veto the bill unless it included language emphasizing that religious groups opposed to same-sex unions may refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies. While the New Hampshire legislature initially rejected this amendment after pro-homosexual legislators sided with social conservatives to oppose the bill, it eventually passed, at which point Governor Lynch signed it into law.
Vermont, whose same-sex marriage bill passed overwhelmingly in the legislature, also included language permitting religious organizations to deny gay couples “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges… related to the solemnization of a marriage or celebration of a marriage.”
The passage of these two bills is Exhibit A in my larger argument that the movement for gay rights must compromise in order to seek acceptance into society as a whole. In the case of New Hampshire, it received the support of Governor Lynch (who is reported to personally oppose gay marriage) after providing a minor concession to religious conservatives who still oppose gay marriage. Everybody won here thanks to compromise, accommodation, and mutual understanding.
If only homosexual activists in California paid attention. If New Englanders taught gays how to win support for same-sex marriage, Californians certainly have not. For those who have not followed the contentious gay marriage battle in California, the California Supreme Court found statues banning gay marriage to be unconstitutional in May 2008. In response, opponents gathered signatures to amend the California constitution to only permit marriages between one man and one woman. The question, titled Proposition 8, passed in November with 52% of the vote.
As homosexual activists protested the amendment’s passage throughout this year and last, they have found every way to alienate potential supporters and anger their foes to fight even harder for traditional unions.
Start with protests immediately after Prop 8 passed. Thousands filled the streets of Los Angeles, and one account from the LA Times reports that one lesbian that was a plaintiff in the original lawsuit referred to Prop 8’s supporters as “bigots.” Other reports indicated that Prop 8 protesters referred to African Americans as “n—–” (exit polls indicate that 70 percent of African Americans supported Prop 8).
Perez Hilton only made matters worse. An openly gay celebrity blogger, he served as a celebrity judge for the Miss USA 2009 pageant. During the question and answer portion, he asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, whether she supported gay marriage. Prejean responded honestly, that she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. Hilton gave her a “zero” for her response, costing her the Miss USA crown.
Hilton, who is an active supporter of “outing” celebrities on his blog, used this platform to record a video of himself referring to Miss California as a “dumb bi—.” He later admitted that the word “c—” entered his mind as Miss California bravely provided her answer. Hilton’s rant ironically produced its opposite intended effect. Instead of portraying Miss California as a “dumb bi—,” his demonizing her worked against gay marriage supporters. To many, she appeared to be the innocent victim of a haughty self-righteous judge whose personal biases cost her Miss USA title, and she later became a symbol for supporters of traditional marriage, including appearances in TV ads supporting traditional marriage.
Californian gay marriage activists are in luck, however, as Hilton’s stock has dropped. Several prominent gay marriage supporters including San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome thought Hilton’s berating was inappropriate. Even the Empowering Spirits Foundation rejected Hilton vilifying Miss California: “Demeaning [Miss California] or others by using terms such as bigot will not advance our cause of civil rights and social justice. The LGBT community must use this period of heightened attention on LGBT issues by engaging others in positive ways.” Most recently, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation denounced Hilton for calling someone an expletive at a nightclub altercation.
These recent events indicate that many in the gay marriage movement understand that the movement needs to become more mainstreamed. While I still believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, I applaud efforts to reach out to reluctant Americans. California has not presented a model for building support for gay marriage like New England has, but jettisoning Perez Hilton is a sign that they understand how to use the olive branch.
