Free The Battle Over Marriage: Gay Rights Activism Through the Media by Leigh Moscowitz Page A
Authors: Leigh Moscowitz
economy I haven’t been able to turn around. I’ve got 45 million Americans without health insurance. I’ve got an education system that’s still got all the same problems it had. Hmmm . . . How are we going to get our base revved up and that little core middle we’ve got to pull over, to get our 51 percent distracted enough to not ask us the tough questions like deficits and balanced budgets? I know, we’ll talk about gay marriage! And you know, candidates have been campaigning forever on fear strategies. And Reagan, it was the Cold War s
. . . Bush, its 9/11 and those gay people, we’re coming to get you! (Cheryl, former n
president and executive director of the Human Rights Campaign)
l
LC
Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 33
7/29/13 9:38 AM
34
chapter two
So while the marriage conversation took on a new life after the Lawrence and Goodridge decisions, it was when the Bush administration made the issue part of the 2004 presidential campaign that gay rights activists universally said they had to “reshuffle the deck” and turn more organizational resources and attention toward marriage. Activists anticipated the right-wing response to the historic Goodridge case (legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) to be vehement. But movement leaders said they were shocked when
the president went before Congress and asked representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Cheryl, then president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), recalls her reaction to the president’s call for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a move that
pushed gay marriage from the periphery to the center. “The president took to the airwaves in February calling for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Now, this is a president who holds very few news conferences, and he held an emergency news conference, saying the most pressing matter before the American public is those gay people, and we better get that Federal Marriage Amendment passed or else! Talk about catapulting it and convincing people there’s some sort of emergency here and the sky is falling.”
The aftermath of the Goodridge decision and the process of being thrown into the center of mainstream presidential politics forced gay rights organizations to shift priorities in order to dedicate increased energy, resources, and messaging to marriage. Seth, who was elevated to a new position of vice president of the Marriage Project for the HRC as a result of this increased public attention, recalled, “I’ve never actually seen an organization as big as this one turn so quickly to make an issue a political priority.” As the national LGBT organization that works primarily on Capitol Hill, they “reshuffled resources relatively quickly” to make sure that the FMA was defeated.
Coming to the decision to foreground the marriage issue was, in Seth’s view, not mired in controversy, but was rather “surprisingly tension-free.” In other words, it became obvious to organizational leaders that they had to al ocate the resources to protect the Goodridge decision, defeat the FMA, and build a political climate state-by-state that would support marriage equality. But with limited funds, resources, and staff, turning to focus on one priority meant that time and attention was invariably taken from others. Michael, who at the time worked as the HRC’s communications specialist (by the time of the later interview period, he had become the director of communication), explains how shifting political priorities toward marriage led to organizational strains.
s
It [marriage] was an issue that we obviously spent less time and resources on, n
because while that does equal full equality, there are so many other issues and things in this country where LGBT people are denied, you know, their right l
LC
Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 34
7/29/13 9:38 AM
Fighting the “Battle to Be Boring”
35
to a job. Because in 34
. . . Bush, its 9/11 and those gay people, we’re coming to get you! (Cheryl, former n
president and executive director of the Human Rights Campaign)
l
LC
Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 33
7/29/13 9:38 AM
34
chapter two
So while the marriage conversation took on a new life after the Lawrence and Goodridge decisions, it was when the Bush administration made the issue part of the 2004 presidential campaign that gay rights activists universally said they had to “reshuffle the deck” and turn more organizational resources and attention toward marriage. Activists anticipated the right-wing response to the historic Goodridge case (legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts) to be vehement. But movement leaders said they were shocked when
the president went before Congress and asked representatives to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Cheryl, then president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), recalls her reaction to the president’s call for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a move that
pushed gay marriage from the periphery to the center. “The president took to the airwaves in February calling for the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Now, this is a president who holds very few news conferences, and he held an emergency news conference, saying the most pressing matter before the American public is those gay people, and we better get that Federal Marriage Amendment passed or else! Talk about catapulting it and convincing people there’s some sort of emergency here and the sky is falling.”
The aftermath of the Goodridge decision and the process of being thrown into the center of mainstream presidential politics forced gay rights organizations to shift priorities in order to dedicate increased energy, resources, and messaging to marriage. Seth, who was elevated to a new position of vice president of the Marriage Project for the HRC as a result of this increased public attention, recalled, “I’ve never actually seen an organization as big as this one turn so quickly to make an issue a political priority.” As the national LGBT organization that works primarily on Capitol Hill, they “reshuffled resources relatively quickly” to make sure that the FMA was defeated.
Coming to the decision to foreground the marriage issue was, in Seth’s view, not mired in controversy, but was rather “surprisingly tension-free.” In other words, it became obvious to organizational leaders that they had to al ocate the resources to protect the Goodridge decision, defeat the FMA, and build a political climate state-by-state that would support marriage equality. But with limited funds, resources, and staff, turning to focus on one priority meant that time and attention was invariably taken from others. Michael, who at the time worked as the HRC’s communications specialist (by the time of the later interview period, he had become the director of communication), explains how shifting political priorities toward marriage led to organizational strains.
s
It [marriage] was an issue that we obviously spent less time and resources on, n
because while that does equal full equality, there are so many other issues and things in this country where LGBT people are denied, you know, their right l
LC
Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 34
7/29/13 9:38 AM
Fighting the “Battle to Be Boring”
35
to a job. Because in 34
Similar Books
Carl Hiaasen
Nature Girl
Unrevealed
Laurel Dewey
A Start in Life
Anita Brookner
Nothing
Janne Teller
Her Godfather: A Dark Romance (With FREE Bonus Book: Trapped In His World)
Stella Noir, Roxy Sinclaire
Anglo-Irish Murders
Ruth Dudley Edwards
The Shadows of Ghadames
Joelle Stolz
Hellblazer 2 - Subterranean
John Shirley
Stalking Ivory
Suzanne Arruda