by Kelly Roache
Try as I might, I will never forget my first experience phone banking for a political campaign. I was a sophomore in high school when I volunteered with Victory NJ 2006, the GOP’s ultimately ill-fated midterm election effort to elect Tom Kean, Jr. to the US Senate. Many – if not most – of the calls ended in disconnected numbers or awkward and fumbling attempts with recipients who could not speak English. It was the latter case that led to a particularly disturbing encounter. As I read from a script about how the Republicans vowed to end the culture of corruption in New Jersey, the woman on the other end of the line interrupted me in broken English and a thick Chinese accent:
“I do not like the homosex.”
I don’t know that words really exist to describe the range of emotions – from shock to disappointment to pity – that I felt in that instant. I promptly wished her a good night and ended the call, unsure of how to react. Rarely in my life had I been faced with such ugly, discomfiting prejudice as I was right then – at least not until last spring.
It was shortly before the end of the semester that I caught wind of the now infamous ad released by the National Organization for Marriage – headed by Princeton’s own McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence – warning against the “gathering storm” of marriage equality, with its “dark clouds and strong winds” that make one of the actresses feel “afraid.” (The rest of their ads are also worth viewing, particularly one alleging that gay marriage should be banned to keep kids from getting “confused”.) I generally find myself on the same page as Professor George – and even if I didn’t, I would respect him for his notable achievements and intellect. But I found this menacing characterization of gay marriage just as disturbing as the woman on my call sheet at the phone bank years before.
A pro-marriage equality conservative is a difficult thing to be (but not as difficult, I try to remind myself, as a gay couple unable to marry under prevailing law). But for me it has always been an issue of conscience. This Republican Party has strayed far from its roots – the cause for my recent re-registration as Independent/unaffiliated. The thought of a
Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage should make, at least in my estimation, diehard small-government conservatives cringe. For me, the federal government has no business defining the morality of marriage between consenting human beings all of equal worth in the eyes of the law and their Creator. And it seems I’m not alone – Ted Olson (of Bush v. Gore fame (yes, he argued on the side of President Bush, as well as arguing for an end to affirmative action and working to impeach President Clinton) has agreed to represent two gay couples in a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 in California:
“For conservatives who don’t like what I’m doing, it’s, ‘If he just had someone in his family we’d forgive him,’ ” he says. “For liberals it’s such a freakish thing that it’s, ‘He must have someone in his family, otherwise a conservative couldn’t possibly have these views.’ It’s frustrating that people won’t take it on face value.”
Yes, it is. Not belonging in either “camp” is a political challenge I’ve wrestled with time and time again, especially for those who believe that a conservative feminist is a contradiction in terms. Still, I was glad when a friend from home approached me this summer about volunteering with Garden State Equality, an organization working to pass same-sex marriage in New Jersey before the year’s end. With six* other states – Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, and, most recently, Vermont – condoning gay marriage, the movement in New Jersey is gathering momentum. Right now, Garden State Equality is just three votes short in the Senate of passing the bill, which will be decided after the November elections so that legislators can vote their consciences (and Governor Corzine can still sign it even if he loses a tough race to former US Attorney Chris Christie). With 20,000 postcards sent to state legislators, 10,000 more in the works before November, and weekly phone banks to turn out their base, the organization is well on its way to winning over enough fence-sitting senators to make gay marriage a reality in New Jersey.
My volunteer stint with Garden State equality may well be (fingers crossed) my first experience working with a winning campaign. The energy displayed by the people we speak to on the phones and meet at postcarding events is a radical departure – and a breath of fresh air – from the apathy and complacency typically plaguing Jersey politics. Regardless of the outcome of the vote, I know that I’ll always treasure the experience for what it’s taught me about challenging assumptions, something I’ve championed as a feminist but never really seen firsthand. When the phone script encourages us to tell call recipients what motivates us to support gay marriage, people on the other end of the line more often than not jump in to “sympathize” with me as a liberal or a lesbian. But I’ve been just as guilty of these assumptions myself; for instance, at a local summer jazz festival, I approached what I expected to be a group of supportive young people, only to find from their looks of disgust that they had no interest in passing marriage equality. That same night, I met an elderly pair of women who professed their excitement at finally “shacking up” after knowing each other since kindergarten. Meanwhile, a 91-year-old man who was anxious to send a postcard to his legislator in clamorous support of the cause: “Well, considering I was in a gay marriage for fifty years, I guess I didn’t know any better by these guys’ logic!”
While it’s uncertain whether Garden State Equality’s efforts will be successful, I think the words of the organization’s head, Steve Goldstein, sum up well the sentiments of those involved with the campaign: “I wouldn’t trade where we’re positioned with where (the foes of gay marriage) are positioned.” With the vote two months out and outreach efforts planned on campuses all over the state, the best we can do is get – or stay – involved in what is quite possibly the civil rights issue of our time.
*Seven, if you count Maine, where gay marriage was supposed to be effective come fall. However, a Prop 8-style referendum coming to a vote in November has put the measure on hold.



{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 7 comments }
Conservative and Republican policies are in general so hateful and destructive that it is unsurprising that, in order to foster support amongd people who will be damaged by those policies, conservatives and Republicans in general campaign by lying about their policies (and the policies of their opponents) and by fostering hatred for “the other” among their supporters. For the Republican party in the US, “the other” can be feminist women, gay people, black people, immigrants – whatever: their core support is white people who want to believe themselves superior to those “others”.
I think a rigorous analysis of feminist theory must lead to a position opposing conservative policies, but I wouldn’t quarrel with anyone identifying themselves as feminist when they simply mean the basics “Equal rights for women”. Nevertheless, in the Republican party support for women’s equality and human rights will as naturally lead a person into direct political conflict with their own party as support for black people’s equality and human rights, GLBT equality and human rights, etc.
The beginning of this post is making me exceedingly uncomfortable. Is there a reason that you decided to include the woman’s ethnicity, accent and English proficiency in the description of your call? How is this information relevant to her discriminatory views and to the larger subject of your post?
thanks, cara, that made me uncomfortable as well. i think it’s possible to share a reaction to opposition of same-sex marriage without attributing them to an individual with limited english proficiency and a non-white ethnic background. this is especially true given the assumptions about age and support that the author had contradicted in later experience. let’s focus on the equality issues without “othering” other groups.
@ Cara – post #2
Are ya kidding? Have ya LOOKED at Prop 8 in California? EXISTING marriage rights were TAKEN AWAY, but only from Gay citizens. And this was done LARGELY by racial minorities. Ya know, those persecuted groups that Gay citizens have marched and fought for, only to have our faces spat upon by those very same people.
So, while I am so very sorry you felt ‘uncomfortable’ reading the first paragraph, I wonder just how ‘uncomfortable’ you would feel with YOUR human rights up to a public vote. And to be voted on by the very people who hate and oppress you.
Get a clue, Cara.
Bill, I think you’re the one who should get a clue. Look at the vote breakdown of Prop 8. I know the “blame the black and Latino folks” was a fun meme, but it was totally inaccurate. Read through the voting stats and then come back.
Not to mention the fact that voter breakdown and proportions/correlations are not nearly as reliable measures as other statistics (regression, for example). The ethnic voting pattern from Prop 8 is exceedingly complicated. I know that all sounds a bit obnoxious for me to say “your stats are weak”….but yeah.
Isn’t it a little sad that Senators and Assemblymen/women WON’T vote their consciences BEFORE the election and they are comfortable with letting people be treated unfairly as long as it doesn’t affect their re-election? It’s sad. And the fact that Corzine won’t call for the bill now is also sad. The Democrats have control of the legislature and the governor’s office. I must be insane to keep giving them money for their campaigns. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE NOW!
Comments on this entry are closed.