Bigotry or Conscience? Pro-choice, anti-gay marriage voters
In a comment below a post-election reflection at my blog, Hector (a pro-life Anglo-Catholic Obama voter with a strong social conscience) remarked, in regards to the various state results:
It’s truly sad that many social conservatives in America appear to care more about whether something is called ‘civil union’ or ‘civil marriage’ than about the protection of innocent human life.
In the last two or three election cycles, a pattern has developed that was confirmed again on Tuesday. Every single measure designed to limit the rights of gays and lesbians (in Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and California) passed. Every single measure designed to further restrict abortion failed (in California, South Dakota, and Colorado). Outside of California, these votes weren't particularly close. Certainly in the Golden State, hundreds of thousands of voters chose to "split the ticket" on Propositions 4 and 8 -- voting to ban gay marriage while voting to protect the right of teenage girls to seek abortion without parental consent.
To both the true believers on left and right, these are perplexing results. Who are these hundreds of thousands of folks who support abortion rights for minors but oppose gay marriage for consenting adults? The statistics make it clear that a great many people voted "No" on 4 (to require parental notification) and "Yes" on 8 (to eliminate same-sex marriage.) I'm an ENFP; I know a great many people, but all the Californians I know voted one of three ways: "No" on both 4 and 8, "Yes" on both 4 and 8, or "Yes" on 4 and "No" on 8. I haven't met a single soul who voted "No" on 4 and "Yes" on 8. Clearly, they exist. Clearly, they determined the outcome of the election. Open call, readers: if you know someone who did vote that way, ask them to come and comment here (anonymously, if they prefer.) I'm fascinated to know what the moral calculus was for that particular combination.
In any event, this decade social conservatives are losing on the so-called "life issues" almost every time they hit the ballot. A "death with dignity" proposition passed this year in Washington: several states have passed bills to legalize embryonic stem-cell research, most famously Missouri in 2006. The pro-life movement continues to claim that Americans, particularly young Americans, are re-thinking abortion -- but recent election results suggest otherwise. Americans are as willing as they ever have been to protect choice.
But social conservatives are enjoying great success in limiting marriage to a man and a woman. That's true in "red" states like Arizona, "purple" swing states like Florida, and solidly blue states like my own California. I expected Proposition 4 to fail, but I honestly didn't foresee Proposition 8 passing by a 500,000 vote margin. I would never have imagined that Los Angeles County would reject gay marriage, and am as bitterly disappointed as a heterosexual cisgendered person could be. The polls show that black and Latino voters, galvanized by Barack Obama, voted heavily against gay marriage. Many cited religious convictions for rejecting same-sex marriage. However, many of those same voters cast ballots to protect abortion rights for minor girls. Does anyone know of a parish in which the pastor preached against gay marriage -- and in favor of abortion rights? Me neither.
Most of the social conservatives whom I know and respect are far more concerned about protecting the unborn than they are about banning gay marriage. I know many folks like Hector, and my friend Russell Arben Fox, who combine progressive and tolerant views on homosexuality with a fervent commitment to what is often called the "consistent-life ethic." Rooted in a belief that real love means protecting all the vulnerable, many consistent-life types stand against war as well as abortion, stand for animal rights as well as the rights of the unborn. They fight against factory farming, the war in Iraq, euthanasia, capital punishment, and abortion. They tend to be agnostic on the issue of homosexuality. They want the state to intervene to protect the innocent in the womb, but are open to gay marriage as a viable social arrangement. I know these consistent-lifers well; I was once one of them. I still feel the moral sway of their arguments.
But alas, the religious right is not in the hands of the consistent-life ethicists. The lesson of the 2006 and 2008 elections is clear: abortion is a losing issue for Republicans, gay marriage a winning one. And that saddens me. Of course, I'm both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. But I admit that I can see some theological and spiritual legitimacy to the anti-abortion movement; as a vegan with pacifist leanings myself, I'm amenable to the consistent-life argument. But denying the right of two adults to marry seems to me to be far more mean-spirited than the attempt to deny the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. The former position seems rooted in bigotry with tradition applied as window-dressing; the latter, however misguided, is at least rooted in deep compassion for the vulnerable. Then again, I've been a pro-lifer -- but I've never for a minute felt even the slightest twinge of discomfort with homosexuality or the prospect of gay marriage.
So, once again, if someone who is a strong supporter of abortion rights and a strong opponent of same-sex marriage would like to weigh in (politely), they'd be most welcome. I haven't met many of that tribe, and would like to know the thinkin' process that undergirds their decision-making. Because across this country, they are having their way at the ballot box.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jane Gideon
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
Bonnie Bucqueroux
Lisa Kern
Salon.com
Comments
I'm not somebody who would have voted yes on either prop 4 or 8 if I lived in California, but my reaction as I started to read your essay was "of course some people would vote that way." So I'll speculate as to why those who did might have done so.
The idea of forcing somebody to have a baby feels far more intrusive to me than denying somebody the right to marry, particularly in a state where there are strong civil union benefits. Denying women "reasonable" access to abortion is denying them a right (self-determination over your body), while denying somebody the right to marry is denying them a privilege (the ability to use a particular word to describe your relationship in a legal context*) . The former directly impacts the body of the woman, while the latter doesn't preclude them from a relationship, just using a particular word.
That's not to say the attempts to ban gay marriage aren't rotten with anti-gay bigotry. I'd like very single person who voted for Prop 8 to have to explain why two men or two women getting married undermines their own marriage or the sanctity of their faith or whatever, while getting married by an Elvis impersonator in a whim while in Vegas doesn't. Nobody seems in a rush to do anything that might strengthen marriage (free pre-marriage counseling, a waiting period before being able to get married) or make divorce more difficult.
If the real concern was the word "marriage" being diluted by non-sacred usage, the campaign would be not to ban gays from marrying, but changing the language of civil marriages to civil unions and leaving marriage to be something between your faith and yourself. That's not the campaign and that's not the issue, just the cover.
But just because the reasons people vote against gay marriage are (largely) cover for bigotry doesn't make voting for choice more indicative of bigotry than voting against it.
* I don't know the extent of California civil unions, but what I've read suggests they offer something close to parity to marriage in terms of legal rights and benefits. In states where that isn't the case, the argument would have to be modified to reflect that, but I'd expect the sentiment to be the same.
You have many labels like 'social conservative', 'Anglo Catholic', 'pro lifer', and many of your points are religiously based,,, viewed.
But I see neither of these in a religious context, nor do I think either should be. These are both civil questions, secular questions and I believe we do all of us a disservice when ever we speak of them as religious/ governmental laws. There should be no such thing.
Both questions are addressed in the Constitutions of the States and the Federal Government. Prop 8 is bigotry pure and simple. Prop 8 is unconstitutional, pure and simple. 100 percent of the voters can vote for it and the courts should throw it out. That some few don't speaks to something.
If a man were born with one arm, shall we deny him his civil rights? We'd better damned well not! Black? We'd better protect his rights just as stridently. How a person is made, is how a person is.
Is the Earth flat? Is the Earth at the center of the Universe? Does the sun orbit the Earth once a day? Why would anyone still rely on dogma instead of truth. On church property dogma yourself all you like.
I know, let's elevate all BLUE eyed people to a non working supervisory god like position. We can do it by popular election and then enforce those special rights with our control of a few gutless courts.
Makes just as much sense, maybe more, and equally legal. I like the idea.
Dean
I do not believe that one of these matters is more mean-spirited than the other.
These questions cannot be driven by a religious ideology.
For some reason they ended up in this realm and a fundamentalist approach has taken over the debate.
I am happy with the practical approach our people have adopted in both matters. (i am a Belgian)
I agree that a gay marriage should be possible. It's impossible to deny the legal rights and benefits to a part of the society based upon their choices (if it is a choice) or based upon the facts that life threw at them. Although i do not completely understand the fixation for marriage,..soit.
But the 'moral' issues are not over once you accept gay marriage. Once you have made that step, the question of gay parents comes up. What to do with gays wanting to be parents. What to do with a child born in a female gay marriage. Will you accept the adoption of a child by male gay parents?
These are questions that have not been totally 'solved' by law in my country. There is still an opostion to it although kids have been adopted into such famillies. They seemed to be fine.