First, let me say, I think much of this is inevitable. The battle for gay marriage will be won in America because it is the only morally coherent position and because the political demographics of the country have shifted so seismically in the past decade. The only position consistent with the Christian conception of love, the only side that supports the traditional nuclear and monogamous family, is the one that expands the definition of marriage to homosexual couples. In my age cohort, the debate is basically over (because we all have gay friends), and so the point will be moot eventually, but the questions.
Why is it taking so long? Why do people still hold on to outdated conceptions of the family and why are they scared by logically insane arguments, such as, 'Gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage'? Why is the issue framed as a matter of change vs. tradition and not as a matter of civil rights vs. discrimination?
Part of the reason is that American society has been virulently homophobic for most of its history. There are well-known examples of violence against gays as well as examples of violent conversion of gays (shock therapy, et. al.) that are even more chilling. Currently, as Kenji Yoshino has described, gays are forced to "cover" their true identity in America. We're OK with gay people dancing on stage or waiting our tables or fixing our cars, we still watch Ellen and we still listen to Elton, being gay is acceptable... as long as you don't shove it in our face, as long as you're not "flaming" gay, because then you're just another "faggot." Or at least that's how the mainstream (il)logic goes.
However, another reason that gay rights have had such trouble getting off the ground is that gays and gay rights advocates have made things harder on themselves. With a bizarre sense of satire, they have accepted and played along with the base stereotype of homosexuals as "hypersexual" and "promiscuous." This is a terrible mistake, because it is very easy to make a straight white man uncomfortable by invoking thoughts of anal penetration. It's much harder to convince him to say "no" to a loving family, a supportive parent, a lawful citizen, a productive member of society.
Gays would do well to try and counteract their hyper-sexual "flaming rainbow" stereotype by presenting themselves as full humans. Humble, hard-working, principled human beings. Stop using celebrities and politicians as the surrogate spokesman for the gay marriage movement. Tell the stories of real people, real gay Americans, and I think you will be surprised by the level of decency and compassion in America.
If you keep on "covering," if you keep on making the debate about definitions and rights -- and not about people -- then you will lose. You will lose because Americans exhibit a visceral revulsion towards over-abstraction ("fluff and flowers and verbosity," as Mark Twain put it). If you keep things simple and fundamental and grounded in the heartfelt stories of Americans that are accessible and yet provocative, then you will succeed. This video from TIME magazine demonstrates how the stories of everyday Americans are more compelling than all the celebrity endorsements in the world:
Iowa: Gay Marriage in the Heartland
Social progress in America doesn't happen until powerful, white men buckle under popular pressure from below, and from this perspective, the gay rights campaign still has some convincing to do. Hopefully, the gay marriage debate in Iowa will look and sound and feel much different than it did in California.
(Photo courtesy of LesbianFamily.org)
