Page 4 of 5
"It's not confrontational, but if you call someone on those incidents, the likelihood is that they can be persuaded to change their attitudes and realize LGBT people are not being treated fairly," Davidson says.
But conservatives, too, have subtly altered — and complicated — their approaches.
Dan Cathy, the chief operating officer of fast-food chain Chick-fil-A, made headlines when he told the Baptist Press in July that he supports the "Biblical definition of the family unit." In the subsequent furor, same-sex marriage opponents lined up for chicken sandwiches and waffle fries while LGBT groups staged "kiss-ins" at restaurants nationwide.
Officials with Chick-fil-A announced in mid-September that the company would not give further money to political or social campaigns, though they weren't specific about campaigns related to same-sex marriage. The chain would, however, continue donating to programs that "strengthen families and enrich marriages." A week later, employee Steve Cammett publicly resigned, saying the company had become "a safe place for people to hate."
In the months leading up to the 2012 election, the Republican Party reaffirmed its dedication to marriage as a "sacred contract," its code for "heterosexual." "Defending marriage against an activist judiciary" is also part of the 2012 GOP platform — a telling phrase, given the same-sex marriage cases facing the Supreme Court. However, the only speaker to mention the topic onstage during the Republican National Convention in August was Mike Huckabee.
All this pushback may be having the opposite effect. A state's act of banning same-sex marriage, paradoxically, seems to call out new advocates.
Scott Barclay, a public-policy scholar with UCLA's Williams Institute, which researches law and policy on sexual orientation, studied 13 states where voters approved same-sex marriage bans. In every case, support for LGBT causes rose immediately after such votes. Barclay attributes the effect to increased activism, as well as a kind of buyer's remorse: Legislating inequality tends to bring people off the fence.
In San Francisco, activism comes from one other, perhaps less likely, source: City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office. After each marriage-equality setback, "the emotional devastation that people felt — I'm seeing this in people's faces — it was demoralizing," he says. That prompted his office to jump into the legal fight. It's been in every battle since, from protecting San Francisco's 2004 marriages to petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the Prop. 8 case this fall.
"Public opinion on same-sex marriage is changing faster than on any other civil-rights movement in history," says sociologist Taylor. "We think it's partly because of the movement, and the embracing of visibility strategies," such as gays coming out of the closet and onto the front page of the New York Times.
All of this has come at a price. Some gays worry that marriage has eclipsed other LGBT activism. Nearly half of those who married in San Francisco in 2004 said they stopped giving time to other causes in order to focus their attention on the marriage fight, Taylor says. Activism swallowed up parts of their lives in much the same way Donat's home became a base for the marriage fight.
But post-Prop. 8 activism is now resonating at a national level.
This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court has the option to hear — or decline to hear — a number of cases challenging same-sex-marriage bans. That includes the Prop. 8 case, now called Hollingsworth v. Perry, as well as several others challenging aspects of the Defense of Marriage Act — particularly Section 3, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.
The court hasn't yet announced its intentions. If it doesn't take Hollingsworth, then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' February ruling, declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional, will stand — and same-sex couples can marry in California again. Such a ruling would only affect states where gays and lesbians could legally marry and then had the right taken away, and there aren't many.
Other wonks believe the Supreme Court is waiting until all the DOMA cases are ready — and some won't be until later this fall — before taking them at the same time. A judgment could then affect marriage nationwide. An Oct. 2 piece in the New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin suggested the justices may also wait to see how the four marriage initiatives on ballots in November play out, which would provide a snapshot of which way the national wind is blowing. There's a precedent here: The Supreme Court didn't end bans on interracial marriage until 1967, and on homosexual sex until 2003, until after a majority of the populace had accepted them.
When President Barack Obama backed the issue in May, many proponents felt it was long overdue. For the first time, marriage equality is part of the Democratic Party's 2012 campaign platform. First Lady Michelle Obama told Democratic National Convention audiences, "If proud Americans can be who they are and boldly stand at the altar with who they love, then surely, surely we can give everyone in this country a fair chance at that great American dream."
Most of the DNC's speakers mentioned marriage equality in their own way. "You knew what they were talking about and it was enough," says Prozan, who has attended the past two conventions. That, combined with Obama's repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act, and support of same-sex marriage, boosted the tone of LGBT support in Charlotte, N.C.
While drawing clear lines on LGBT issues helps Obama distinguish himself from Republican candidate Mitt Romney, it's still a risky move if he wants to capture votes and delegates come November. "It's safe in San Francisco, but it's still a very divisive issue, and will continue to be until we can change the hearts and minds," Prozan says.
Gay-rights organizers agree that marriage remains an uphill battle. Equality California hoped to put ballot measures before voters in 2010 and 2012 to overturn Prop. 8, but current polls and donation levels aren't enough to ensure a slam-dunk, Davidson says. Another vote against same-sex marriage could set the movement back years, politically, culturally, and financially.
