Candlelight Vigil until a decision is made
So we have a number of prop 8 cases coming before the California Supreme Court in the near future. I don't think I'm alone in wanting to do something through all of this to show support. In discussion this evening, we came up with an idea
( Read more... )
I say voters because you're not going to really do anything to affect the opinions of a judge (at least not any judge worth a damn) unless you're actually presenting in court. So let's assume that anything that happens now is actually prep work for "whatever's next", which presumably will be yet another ballot measure.
I was just up in Redding, population 100,000 ("and we vote"), and let me assure you, the more candles you light the more they're going to roll their eyes. You need solid arguments grounded in good, conservative, respectable laws (and yes, some of the civil rights foundations are old enough that they're considered conservative at this point).
You also need to be willing to play dirty pool and get very, very sneaky. You need to recruit outside California (you can post to the Internet from anywhere).
You need to make anyone who doesn't believe in total equality on this issue feel like a total idiot.
You need to make people, no matter how religious they are, somehow feel that when their pastor or priest spews on about how immoral this conduct is, it's as easy for them to ignore as when they tell them they shouldn't watch violent television or let their kids play video games. People ignore their religion all the time, but only on certain issues. You need to make this issue look like those issues.
Basically, you need strategy. Lack of strategy is why the fucking baby boomer hippies, who like to think of themselves as having saved the world, were actually completely ineffective in protecting the environment and saddled us with an enormous goddamn debt.
The "Yes on 8" crowd played chess and won. The "No on 8" crowd played Connect Four and lost.
Reply
This line should (thank you, Safari) have read:
You need to make anyone who doesn't believe in total equality on this issue feel like a total idiot, but the trick is, you cannot do it by insulting them.
Not directly, at least.
Reply
The goal is to change the minds of the middle-of-the-road, just wants to enjoy life and maybe have a beer in the evening, don't care what those freaky people are doing as long as it's not in my face voters. And those sometimes can be reached by touchy-feely hippie activism with candles and gentle chanting and signs with pointed, simple slogans.
The strategy is reach as many people as possible. In different ways, because different people are open to different forms of the message. Every bit of activism helps; not everyone can present in court; not everyone can write coherent, passionate letters to the editor; not everyone can go on talk shows.
I am baffled by the idea, "convince people that their religion doesn't matter on this issue." (Of course, by "religion," you mean "Christianity." Because there is NO conflict between my religion & same-sex relationships.) I'd much rather convince them that this issue is not in opposition to their religion, any more than mixed-race marriage was, any more than women getting jobs was, any more than serving in the armed forces is. As in--if it's against your religion, don't do it, but that doesn't mean you have the right to insist that nobody else can.
Every bit of activism helps. Even if it just keeps the issue alive in our own minds, on the tip of our thoughts, ready to be brought up in casual conversation.
Reply
The effect may well be to change the minds of moderate voters but only if the goal is to change the minds of conservative voters. A strategy effective on moderate targets will have a moderate chance of success on moderate targets, and a slim chance of success on hard targets. A strategy effective on hard targets will have a moderate chance of success on hard targets, and an excellent chance of success on moderate targets.
Your religion is, frankly, statistically irrelevant compared to the bulk of the population, and this is precisely the type of uncomfortable truth that "liberal" people are not willing to accept when trying to take an objective look at their opponents.
The basic problem is that most liberals have lost their ability to stereotype. This is probably a good thing in day to day life but it is a serious problem for political strategy. There is a reason we are sick of people in positions of power stereotyping each other-- this is one of the critical skills that got them elected. Quickly breaking people into a manageably small, coarse set of groups, performing broad generalizations about them, and coming up with a targeted message for each group is what allows you to get a first iteration of your strategy down almost immediately. It'll be wrong, of course, but by virtue of having a quick first iteration, you can start revising very early. This is why Republican campaigns always have stupid moves very early in the campaign-- they blunder through rapid iterations and then adapt. They piss off the people in the smaller groups, at least a little bit, in the process, but they actually hit most of each target group with something close enough to resonate. After that they apologize and fine-tune as necessary. Where you do not want to get stuck is spending all your efforts trying avoid offending small groups to the point that you can no longer spend time increasing your effectiveness with larger groups. There's no point in wasting time trying to get a 10% increase in effectiveness within a 100,000 person group if you can try to get a 5% increase within a 10,000,000 person group.
Incidentally, as someone who grew up in the mid-west, let me assure you that mixed-race marriage is an issue that most churches do, in fact, have a problem with. This is another case of the old Bay Area Blinders. The No on 8 campaign completely lost track of the fact that not only is the Bay Area not representative of the United States, it is not even representative of California. It is an anomaly. An anomaly I happen to know and love, but an anomaly nonetheless.
No, every bit of activism does not help. The problem with activism is that to most people it winds up being the difference between buying a "Fuck Chevron" bumper sticker and actually buying a fuel-efficient car.
Activism without strategy makes people feel like they're having an impact because their peer group reacts well to it. The problem is that their peer group is not the target. Solidarity is all well and good, but the more "hippie shit" you do to try and change this issue, the more people are just going to quickly stereotype your position as "gay hippie shit", and you cannot afford to get cornered there.
Reply
The goal is not to change the minds of conservative voters. Or at least, not of the most conservative. We're damned aware that their minds will not be changed--the goal is to change the laws & social structure around them, until they are left as the last homophobic bigots, defensive and frightened, wondering why the prejudice they feel is so natural is no longer acceptable in public.
As someone who spent her teen & some college years in Arkansas, I'm perfectly aware that mixed-race marriage is a hot-button issue in many churches. But they're not advocating making it against the law. Not anymore. They limit themselves to calling it a "moral" issue, and snubbing people who won't play along. Their prejudice is no longer legally supported--regardless of how many conservative voters wish it were.
The message of "two men getting married is normal and natural" is not gonna fly in a lot of areas. But the message, "what do I care what those two dudes call themselves? Who does it hurt if they're legally married" might. And there is no conflict between that message, and many forms of Christianity--the ones that focus on the two New Testament rules laid out by Jesus, rather than arcane bits of Levitican law.
Where you do not want to get stuck is spending all your efforts trying avoid offending small groups to the point that you can no longer spend time increasing your effectiveness with larger groups.
Well, yes. And this has what to do with candle vigils? Granted, they fail to offend pretty much anybody, but I'm not sure what offensive-to-small-groups action you're advocating as a replacement.
(Also, given that I live & work in the Bay Area, I'm not sure there's any form of activism open to me that isn't basically peer reinforcement. I don't personally know a single person who voted for Prop 8. My husband knows several, but none that ever speak with me.)
Reply
If you want to do this because it will help you, personally, cope with the situation, then do so-- but if you really want change, you may actually be a great deal better off leaving yourself hurt and angry-- it may inspire you to take action with more concrete results.
Reply
Leave a comment