| christian grantham | |||
| Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later was a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD. | |||
|
|
|
||
latest posts
December 31, 2004
RETROSPECT:
If you're a regular reader of this blog and the daily news clips I compile, you are likely very familiar with the impact "gay marriage" had on the American conscience and political landscape. Despite the dismissals of the issue playing a prominent role in the 2004 elections, paper after paper place the issue as the top story in state and local retrospects.
The first half of 2004 on Beacon Hill was dominated by the debate over gay marriage; the second half, by the presidential election.
[Top state stories rocked the nation - Berkshire Eagle - 12-31-04]Same-sex marriage brought international attention to New Paltz in 2004, turning a small college town into a focal point in the national debate over gay rights.
[Gay weddings caused a furor - Poughkeepsie Journal - 12-31-04]From coast to coast, gay marriage was a volatile topic throughout the year. Massachusetts became the first state to have legal, same-sex weddings, and local officials in several places — including San Francisco and Portland, Ore. — also wed gay and lesbian couples before courts intervened. However, each time the issue reached the ballot — in 13 states in all — voters decisively approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
[2004’s top stories - Pioneer Press - 12-26-04]The euphoric optimism gay and lesbian Americans felt entering 2004 dimmed throughout a year when gay marriage, and society’s disapproval of it, became a part of the national discussion like never before.
[Gay marriage debate defined the year 2004 - Houston Voice - 12-31-04]
This list of examples could go on and on. In fact, the only other story that shared more space with newspapers' top stories was the war in Iraq. Despite this blaring fact, we also saw denials from some gay and lesbian activists in Washington D.C. and elsewhere that other "moral issues" played a more important factor in another common top story: the 2004 elections.
GLAAD
"It would be a mistake to conclude that the 22% of voters who placed 'moral values' at the top of their list were uniformly anti-gay in their voting," Garry explained. "Moral values can encompass whole host of issues and opinions -- issues like a woman's right to choose; social, racial and economic justice; stem-cell research; gay and lesbian equality; the honesty and integrity of public officials, and much more.
[GLAAD Calls on Media to Present Complete Picture of Gay Issues and the 2004 Vote - GLAAD - 11-04-04]
Signorile
The entire "moral values" story of the 2004 election has been greatly exaggerated by the corporate media. Not so coincidentally, it fits exactly with what the Republicans would like everyone to believe.
[DON’T BLAME THE GAYS - NY Press - 11-10-04]
Bonauto and Rouse
Did the voters cite "moral values" as they left their polling places? Yes, but abortion and guns were cited more often than marriage, and it appears that those voters were equally troubled by the Viagra ads that play during "Everyone Loves Raymond." Cable television and its programming also took a big hit.
[Gay marriage is not to blame - Boston Globe - 11-09-04]
RESOLVE:
The fight for civil rights in 2004 focused on the issue of gay marriage. The issue clearly unfolded with the greatest political impact on the state and local level. Representatives in the United States Congress have not and never will bow to PAC contributions from the Human Rights Campaign or others on this or any other issue. They will represent the will of the people in their districts or face an angry electorate.
In 2005, Be It Resolved That: we will not continue underestimating the fact that the United States Congress represents the will of the people in their respective districts.
In 2005, Be It Resolved That: we will not continue to accept excuses from Washington lobbyist and others as to why this fact isn't true. We will reject the pipedream that federal PAC contributions are effective tools in obscuring the realities of the political landscape.
In 2004, HRC spent only $0.05 for every $1.00 donated to them on the front line battle over the nation's top story.
In 2005, Be It Resolved That: we will refocus our giving to state and local groups that do spend more than $0.05 for every $1.00 donated on this and other extremely important issues on which voters need education. We will demand our contributions be spent to directly educate people on the state and local level and mobilize the vote.
If you look at your financial gifts in 2004 and find you gave disproportionately to Washington based lobby groups like HRC, consider 2004's return and resolve to shift your contributions to make a difference that truly matters. Let's move civil rights from 2004 loses to 2005 wins.
This New Year's resolution doesn't mean we should stop giving to HRC. We will always need a voice in Washington reminding legislators of the will of the people. If you are a major donor or Federal Club member, consider becoming a regular $35 member and shift the bulk of your contributions to state and local efforts or national groups focusing more than $0.05 for every $1.00 donated on educating and mobilizing voters.
Let's help make federal lobbyist's job in Washington easier by giving our congressional representatives electorates that truly value protecting civil rights. Not only will your shift in giving help transform the politics of civil rights in America in 2005, you will also realize a level of personal power and respect you deserve from the community you love.
Here's to our success in 2005. Happy New Year!
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
