GLAD Perspective on 2004 Elections

Rather, as conservative columnist David Brooks argued in the New York Times, “Bush won because 53% of voters approved of his performance as President. 58% of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq.” And when asked about specific issues – as opposed to amorphous “moral values” – voters in Ohio listed gay marriage second to last in their consideration of whether to vote for Bush or Kerry.

Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News, warned that the “poorly devised” exit poll “threatens to undermine our understanding of the 2004 election.” By asking voters to choose among taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, moral values or health care, the poll equated six concrete policy issues with one grab bag which could hold anything. Dick Meyer of CBS News agreed: “If one of the issues on the list was a combined "terrorism and Iraq," it would have been the top concern of 34 percent of the electorate and nobody would be talking about moral values. If "taxes, jobs and the economy" was on the list as one item instead of two, it would have been the topper at 25 percent.”

One thing exit polls did tell us is that fairness is a bedrock value across the country: 62% of people support either marriage or civil unions for same-sex relationships. Even George Bush, in the final days of the campaign, softened his stance and spoke of being open to supporting civil unions. As Brooks noted in the New York Times, “There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.”

In fact, in Massachusetts, legislators who supported the Goodridge decision were returned to office – every one. And two legislators who had not supported Goodridge were defeated in their primaries. In this state where we have seen same-sex couples marry, voters seem to have recognized that marriages only bring joy and security, and they don’t threaten any one else’s marriages, or society in general.

The fact of this state’s growing acceptance of equal marriage is the result a long, long process of public discussion and incremental legal and legislative progress on GLBT rights issues. Goodridge did not come out of the blue in Massachusetts: we carefully assessed our chances of success here – as in Vermont and now in Connecticut – before filing suit.

And GLAD waited for the time to be right in those states: for there to be a record of legislation and court decisions advancing lesbian and gay issues; for public opinion to recognize the challenges facing same-sex families as legitimate; for the development of an organized community of allies to support the issue politically.

Massachusetts is not an island or a miracle. It is a way forward. As we go forward seeking an end to discrimination in marriage for LGBT people no matter where they live, the one reliable and very powerful asset LGBT have is the same as any minority group has: the power to speak our truth in our own voices. That is what the seven couples we represent in Connecticut are doing: telling their stories of harm from being denied marriage rights. In a country where many grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance, fairness still matters.

But non-LGBT people are essential for us to succeed since no minority can succeed on its own. Plain and simple, we are at a crossroads. Plenty of Bush voters voted against constitutional amendments. Whatever our political background or life circumstances, all who believe in equality and fairness as fundamental American values must stand up to those who would further institutionalize discrimination against LGBT people, our families, and our children.

We must all unequivocally condemn marriage discrimination against same-sex couples, answer every person who seeks to perpetuate it, and reassure everyone (including elected officials) that there is much to gain and nothing to fear from recognizing that LGBT people and families are fully part of our civil society.

While it is important, always, for strategy to be timely, it is also important to recognize that oppressed people are always told to wait. And as Martin Luther King, Jr. reminds us in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", time can be used for good or ill:

"More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of bad people, but for the appalling silence of good people."