Earlier this month, voters in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington faced ballot measures on same-sex marriage. The measures in Maryland and Washington sought to repeal same-sex marriage rights passed by their legislatures, while Minnesotans voted on whether to ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution — and rejected the change. These three unsuccessful measures were part of a long history of anti-gay ballot measures dating back to 1974, which I document in my book, Gay Rights at the Ballot Box. Meanwhile, in Maine voters legalized same-sex marriage at the ballot.
In all four states, the campaigns to ban same-sex marriage developed political ads that suggest that same-sex marriage is a threat to individual religious freedom. One ad about a Gallaudet diversity officer whose job was temporarily suspended due to her support for a referendum on same-sex marriage was initially aired in Maryland before being pulled for copyright restrictions by Gallaudet University. This and similar ads warned voters that individuals who do not support same-sex marriage will be fined, imprisoned, or ostracized for their religious beliefs:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqO9_I2akOQ&feature=share&list=ULYqO9_I2akOQ[/youtube]
These ads draw from a documentary series called Speechless: Silencing the Christians, created by the Reverend Donald Wildmon, founder and president of the American Family Association, a national organization that has worked for decades to restrict same-sex marriage and other rights for LGBT individuals. The 13-episode series was produced in 2008 and published as a book in 2009:
This discourse of religious freedom relies on civil rights language rather than morality. It focuses on the ability of individuals to live lives of faith in the world and make decisions in all aspects of their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.
This understanding of religious freedom has more in common with arguments about civil rights than ones about religious morality. Rather than arguing about a particular moral perspective (e.g., the immorality of homosexuality), religious freedom rests on an argument that all individuals should have the freedom to make decisions based on their religion and should not be obstructed in their daily lives in doing so. The ads present Christians as embattled victims of intolerance for their religious views.
The political ads also use many of the zero-sum arguments about civil rights that have been documented by scholars since the 1960s, with gains for one group seen as a loss for another group. For example, a gain for African Americans through desegregation was constructed by some white citizens as an equally dramatic loss for themselves.
Thus, these political ads, which seem to emerge out of the individual politics of each ballot measure, are connected to a larger argument about same-sex marriage and a long history of arguments about civil rights.
————————
Comments 42
Jolie — November 29, 2012
It's interesting to notice how discourses of "gay marriage would infringe upon religious freedoms" are based on the assumption that some religions (with very explicit reference to the majority of Christian and, more seldom, Jewish denominations) who oppose gay marriage are more deserving of religious freedom than others, who are pro gay marriage (for instance: unitarian universalists; some liberal Christian denominations such as Liberal Quakers, the Episcopalian Church in Scotland or some Methodist churches; some Reform Judaism congregations; a great deal of the Animistic, Neo-pagan or New Age religious communities).
For example, until recently, a law in the UK forbade same=-sex civil unions to be officiated in churches; this being pushed by members of religions who oppose gay marriage as they feared legal precedent or European legislation might end-up forcing them to blelss gay marriage against their religious thought/conscience.How about the religious freedom of churches/congregations/groups who support gay marriage and believe the interdiction to be against their values??
I'd also be curious of how one would react to "gay marriage infringes upon my rights" discourse coming from a Muslim rather than Christian group... Just sayin'.
mimimur — November 29, 2012
It is so hard to wrap your mind around these people. They're saying that any suggestion that they'd hact out of hate is a stereotype or a lie, only to turn around a minute or so later and lament that homophobia isn't socially acceptable anymore and that people don't hate gay people. They seem to be at least ok with stopping bullying and harrassment, but in the same minute they express outrage at the idea of treating gay people with respect.
It is so obvious that they're unable to see gay people as people or anything worthy the slightest bit of regard, and that seems to be what makes this hideous double standard possible to maintain. They somehow manage to express so much hostility towards other people and at the same time think of themselves as good - it's horrifying
decius — November 29, 2012
Anyone want to form a new religion which abhors opposite-sex marriage? We could protest said marriages in a high-profile way (of course, without interfering or disrupting the ceremony) and make all the same absurd claims about marriage that the current nuts are.
We could demand equal time on news coverage, then point at the fact that we aren't being covered (or aren't being taken seriously if we are covered) as part of a "[right|left] wing conspiracy to sinful behavior".
The problem would be in compensating for Poe's law: it is impossible to be so sarcastic that nobody thinks you are sincere.
Gman E Willikers — November 30, 2012
It's a logical progression. First, supporters of gay marriage changed the framing of their advocacy from one in which gay marriage was portrayed as a morally justified exception and special inclusion to traditional marriage. This framing didn't gain the necessary traction. When it was changed to a civil rights argument under marriage equality the seas parted and acceptance was greatly accelerated. Advocates of traditional marriage saw this, learned and now are responding in kind. Its very interesting that the strategic framing can make all the difference by radically changing the nature of the implied questions that must be answered before a decision can be made regarding which advocacy position one supports.
CYPRAN MICHEAL — December 4, 2012
I am cypran mark i need a gay relationship cypranmark@gmail.com
Kali — December 4, 2012
The religious freedom argument against gay marriage doesn't hold up. Nobody is forcing any religious zealot to enter into a gay marriage against their will.
Having said that, I think it is going too far to suspend or fire people for voicing their bigoted views.
Bakka111 — December 6, 2012
I find this debate interesting, since the religious freedom argument was the one that was used in Canada, which ultimately led to legal equal-marriages. Toronto's Metropolitan Community Church performed a same-sex union using a method called banns that allows Churches to marry without government approval. So religious freedom arguments can go the other way, too.
stilladyj — December 9, 2012
Ri-freaking-diculous. I'm a conservative Christian, and I believe it's a sin, but I will vote FOR gay marriage every time, because it's none of my business. The best way for me to protect my religious freedom is to protect your religious freedom. If you're gay and want to take birth control, go right ahead, it doesn't in any way harm me. Argh.