Countering the Right's Continued War on LGBT Americans

Nine years ago tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges took the right to same sex marriage nationwide. A new Gallup survey found that more than two in three Americans continue to believe that marriage between same-sex couples should be legal (69%), and nearly as many say gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable (64%). Yet, across the country Republican controlled legislatures are passing anti-LGBT legislation and are trying to erase the existence of LGBT individuals from school curriculums with "don't say gay" laws.  Here in Virginia, had Republicans taken control of the Virginia General Assembly there is little doubt that GOP governor Glenn Youngkin would have quickly turned Virginia into a warmed over version of Florida and censored not only gays but blacks out of school courses. Meanwhile, maddeningly, gay Republicans - many white and privileged - continue to support a party that wants them to disappear. After such successes, how do LGBT individuals and activists turn the tide of increased Christofascist/Republican attacks on LGBT rights, indeed, out very existence.  A column in the New York Times argues that the messaging needs to be expanded in an effort to make more Americans understand that attacks on gays opens the way for even more right wing legislation that will threaten the rights of all, including the availability of contraception.  Here are highlights:

It’s a strange time for gay rights in America. As the country nears the 10th anniversary of the legalization of gay marriage nationwide, support for same-sex unions has risen to 70 percent of the American public. But at the same time, L.G.B.T.Q. people are being targeted in ways not seen since the days of Save Our Children, Anita Bryant’s infamous 1977 campaign against gay rights that depicted gay men as human garbage and pedophiles.

In recent years, Republican-controlled state legislatures have banned drag shows, gender-affirming care for minors and adults, and the teaching of sexual orientation from kindergarten through the third grade, including the passage of Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law. Panic about “grooming,” a homophobic slur that exploits people’s worst fears about gays and children, is having a moment.

Even Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage, is under attack. In 2020, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas cast doubt on the legality of the ruling, which could yet go the same way as Roe v. Wade. The Respect for Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 2022, did not codify the ruling into law and would provide scant protection.

Clearly, marriage equality was not enough to bring full equality to L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. It would be wishful to think it could, perhaps. But the gay marriage campaign was a major missed opportunity to expand L.G.B.T.Q. equality. When compared with its foreign counterparts, the American campaign was notable for one thing: the extraordinary modesty of its framing.

The approach was good enough to make gay marriage the law of the land. Yet by failing to make a more ambitious case for equality across the board, as other countries did, the campaign limited the transformative power of gay marriage and created an opening for today’s backlash.

Inspired by the civil rights movement’s struggle for equality under the law, the campaign — which ran for roughly two decades until the ruling in 2015 — was framed around “rights and benefits.” It spotlighted the rights denied to same-sex couples, including tax deductions, inheritance provisions and hospital visitation privileges.

But the message backfired . . . A different message, centered on “love and commitment,” was introduced late in the campaign to show that same-sex couples wanted marriage for the same reasons heterosexuals do.

Neither messaging, however, made the case for L.G.B.T.Q. equality beyond pleading for opening the institution of marriage to same-sex couples. For the most part, gay marriage activists did not defend the morality of homosexual unions. Nor did they refute the claim by the Christian right that gay marriage was a threat to the family and religious freedom.

To be sure, extending marriage rights to same-sex couples was a major step for American society. But it did not require Americans to question their fundamental assumptions about L.G.B.T.Q. people. And despite its modesty, the campaign didn’t stop backlash nor the sense among conservative activists and lawmakers that attacking L.G.B.T.Q. people is a low-risk proposition.

There were different ways to frame the struggle for gay marriage, as other countries show. In Spain, for example, gay marriage activists waged a crusade for “full citizenship,” emphasizing rights and benefits but also dignity and respect. They also posited gay marriage as moral redemption for historical injustices against homosexuals dating back to the burning of “sodomites” at the stake during the Spanish Inquisition.

This ambitious framing paved the way for a gay marriage law that made Spain in 2005, as The New York Times reported, “the first nation to eliminate all legal distinctions between same-sex and heterosexual unions.” It also prompted a frank debate about the state of sexual minorities in Spanish society and converted Spain, historically a social backwater, into the country most accepting of homosexuality.

Echoes of Spain’s pioneering gay marriage campaign can be found in countries as diverse as Argentina, Canada, Brazil, South Africa and Ireland. In all of them, gay marriage was framed as a moral issue rather than a legal matter.

Of course, we cannot expect what happened abroad to be reproduced at home. In Spain and Brazil, gay activists exploited histories of L.G.B.T.Q. oppression and violence to fashion compelling moral messages. The Spanish campaign unfolded in the midst of a national reckoning with the atrocities of the Spanish Civil War and the Franco dictatorship, which included sending homosexuals to “re-education” camps.

[T]he culture war over gay marriage in countries like Spain, Brazil and Ireland was won with smaller and less seasoned gay rights movements than in the United States and against formidable opponents like the Catholic Church and the evangelical movement.

American gay activists would be wise to recalibrate their activism, shifting from a rights-based approach, with its emphasis on litigation, to one more oriented toward citizenship and dignity. They may also want to embrace a more ambitious and idealistic mind-set, aiming squarely at public persuasion. Modesty has its virtues, of course. But when it comes to struggles for fairness and equality, it pays to go big and aim high.