Way down, but not out in Kansas

To the surprise of few, the amendment to the Kansas constitution that will ban state recognition of gay relationships (and may affect partnership benefits from private companies, and possibly any legal contract) passed, at current count with over 70% of the vote. To make the night worse, Tiffany Muller, Topeka's first openly gay city council member, lost her election bid (she was appointed to the seat last year).

The media happily searches for any excuse to write their latest variation on "real Americans hate gays", so they will probably blame the vote total on "backlash" from recent court rulings in New York and California.

I have no idea whether or not there has been an increase in public hostility towards gays (I don't trust poll results whether they are kind or brutal to gay rights matters), but the bottom line is that if you put an amendment on the ballot that is advertised as protecting or strengthening marriage, it's going to pass, regardless of any court rulings in any other states.

This ruling does not mean that Kansas hates gays, or that Kansas believes that gays are a major threat to their lives. If you want some proof, look at the popular governor, Kathleen Selibus, who has never suffered with the voters in spite of her moderate stance on gay issues. Or Congressman Dennis Moore, who was reelected by his widest margin EVER in spite of his Ashcroft-protege opponent, Kris Kobach, running a gay-bashing campaign. Or you only have to go back a month to Topeka voters' decision to uphold a gay rights ordinance. When voters see the word "marriage", that limited support evaporates. Whether that changes in my lifetime is something I am not very optimistic about, but I do know that America has a schizophrenic relationship with gays, loving and hating us at the same time. I urge you to tune out the media speculation and the Republican gloating over any of these types of amendments or of what they mean for the public opinion of gays. While the leaders of the anti-gay movements may have a clear opinion of gays (they think we're perverts who are going to burn in hell), many Americans do not. I urge you to do your best in your own life to support basic human dignity and tolerance, whether that is speaking out against anti-gay slurs, coming out to those around you (if you can do so -- I know there are many who would lose everything they have, including their lives, if they came out to the people around them) or giving a few dollars to a local gay rights group. I don't have a lot of use for the national gay groups, but I did want to recommend Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. They have helped elect openly gay candidates in some of the most hostile areas of the country. From Adam Ebbin in Virginia to Nicole LeFavour in Idaho to Julia Boseman in North Carolina. Ebbin and particularly LeFavour have played leading roles in defeating vicious anti-gay legislation this year.

Muller herself was aided by the Victory Fund. And her tenure was not in vain - she was the one who pushed through the anti-discrimination ordinance for Topeka. So let's say a silent moment of thanks to the many unsung heroes like Tiffany Muller who do so much with the limited resources they have.

Comments

[DHinMI]

At this point, I think that in most places you're right about marriage being something that too many straights still have a problem extending to gays, and I'd add adoption as an area that makes too many straights sqeamish. But in most places in the country, there's a decent acceptance of basic rights for gays that didn't exist 20 years ago.

FWIW, in Michigan, where the "marriage" amendment passed 58-42, the proponents spent about $2-3 million, almost all of it on ads arguing (dishonestly) that the proposal wasn't about domestic partnerships or civil unions (which the polling found had fairly solid support), but only about marriage. So, while I'm not pleased by the still existent sqeamishness about marriage and adoption, I guess I see the glass as not completely empty, but maybe a quarter full, and slowing filling up.

[James]

I don't think the public is as opposed to gay adoption as they are to gay marriage, if only because it's more of a cold, hard reality that gays have children and the children need some kind of homes. I don't know, maybe that's naivete, but I've noticed that even in the reddest of states, gay adoption/foster care bans are having a difficult time going through the legislature, even as the "protect marriage" crap sails through.

[DHinMI]

For couples where one of the partners already has children, you're probably right. I was thinking more about couples adopting a child that isn't the biological child of either person.

[James]

You're right, there is probably some kind of difference. I guess I shouldn't take any public support for granted, particularly when there may be "save the children" type amendments down the pipeline.

BTW, this woman (Muller) beat Fred Phelps' granddaughter in the primary. I don't know anything about the man who beat Muller tonight; if someone does, please let us know.

[BoulderDuck]

Question for you James:

Say you were in charge of Lambda Legal Defense Fund. What sort of "civil union" vs "marriage" strategy would you pursue?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. It's a question that this liberal breeder honestly gapples with, and your post seems to be getting at this issue...

(and it's nice to have this forum. I would not try to ask this question at dkos. it would get too flamey. good to see you posting here, i miss you over at kos.)

-quack