Politics, same-sex marriage and “the Mormon bogey”
All weekend long John and I have been reflecting on Friday’s Washington Post piece, ‘The Mormons Are Coming!’ John found it almost funny (he comments below); I found it both fascinating and revealing. The reporter, Karl Vick, seems pretty clear-eyed about what is happening. For example, Vick notes that Proposition 8 likely would not have passed in California without the support provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He then matter-of-factly adds that some gay marriage advocates on the East Coast
are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality. [Emphasis added.]
Well. That makes the point pretty clearly, doesn’t it? Playing on the electorate’s fears about a minority religious faith can help you win an election. It sure worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa, but no one came right out and said that the way Karl Vick did here.
In a way this is helpful because the tactic is now out of the shadows:
“The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!” warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.”
That language “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.” You think?
Apply my favorite test for bigotry, which John and I have often used here: Insert “Jew” or “Muslim,” “Catholic,” or “gay” in the above-quoted ad language and ask yourself if the advertisers could ever get away with such a tactic.
Nope, they couldn’t, could they? Vick, to his credit, continues with a clear-eyed view of what is going on:
But the demographics tempt proponents of same-sex marriage: Mormons account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and they are scarce outside the West. Nearly eight in 10 Americans personally know or work with a gay person, according to a recent Newsweek survey. Only 48 percent, meanwhile, know a Mormon, according to a Pew Research Center poll. [Emphasis added.]
So now that we know what’s really happening, we get to the real question: Is that tactic legitimate? One political expert quoted in the article doesn’t address that question, but focuses on the tactic’s effectiveness:
“Is it fruitful to use the Mormon bogey?” said Mark Silk, a professor of religion and public life at Trinity College in Connecticut. “My sense is that there aren’t great risks to it. Once a religious institution is going to inject itself into a public fight, which the LDS did in a straight-up way, then I think people are prepared to say, ‘Well, okay, you’re on that side and we’re against you.’”
In other words, once a church takes a position on a public issue, and urges its members to exercise their political rights as voters and citizens to support that position, using that church as a bogey man can be very effective. No surprise there, and there’s nothing unlawful about such a tactic.
To me, however, the real questions are these: Should we as a society sit still for such behavior? Isn’t the Kennebeck Journal’s position more consistent with what we’ve come to call “the American Way?” And if we do not stand up against such bigoted political discourse, isn’t it a very short step to using any candidate’s religion against him or her?
And do we really want to go there as a nation and as a society?
Update by Lowell:
Our reader Carl H. has commented below, and we find his thoughts so useful that we are adding it to the post:
Mollie at GetReligion takes up Vick’s article–and the important issues–here, and considers the elephant in the room that only one side of the debate is willing to discuss:
I also find it fascinating that this entire story aims to support the notion that Americans will be less comfortable with Mormons than gays (if forced, somehow, to choose). We learn all sorts of things about the Mormon church in this story — much of it very fairly written. But we never explore whether it’s true that the more people know about gay activists, the more comfortable they’ll be with them.
Take, for instance, the woman who organized California’s “Meet in the Middle for Equality” march held Saturday in Fresno. Her name is Robin McGehee and she seems by all accounts to be a very nice and capable woman. Here’s an absolutely fawning profile of her in the San Francisco Chronicle from last fall. I sure hope it was written by her mother — it’s just that biased. Anyway, she is one of four partners in the raising of her children — two partnered women and two partnered men. I’m sure that what I’m about to write is considered shocking inside the Washington Post … but I bet quite a few people in America think that such a family arrangement is less than ideal. They might even feel more, dare I say, “comfortable” with the Mormon family next door (not that I, again, think this should matter regarding marriage policy). But we never really see any hard-hitting looks at why society considers families led by two parents of opposite sex to be best for children. It’s almost considered impolitic to discuss this reality.
Indeed. I have more thoughts about this, and an intriguing Gallup poll, at True North.
John comments: OK, it is serious, but come on – “The Mormons are Coming”? It conjures up some images of old, very funny movies.
I am reminded of July 2007 when we accused Jim Geraghty of being an “accomplice to bigotry” due to some argument he leveled against Romney at the time. Jim did not take it kindly. What Jim engaged in then was what this piece does now – some cold political calculation, and we leveled our accusation because sometimes decency demands that some political realities be denounced. There is a point at which winning is not the only thing.
The American way is nothing if not fair. That means that Lowell’s analysis is right. If this stands, then any other religion will be the next thing that can be attacked. But it won’t stop there, then we will attack on other things. Identity politics are just wrong.
Way back in 2005 I was on a jury in a criminal case. Jury deliberations came down to race. It was ugly. At the time I wrote:
High School Civics class, first day, first words:
Ours is a nation of laws not men.
Those words, that idea, that sentiment has made this nation great. It has, given time, undone the injustices that our society wrought early on.
There was a time, sadly, when the law did not apply equally to all people in our nation. It is our great national shame; fortunately, it is not true any more. More importantly; however, the solution to that former gross injustice lies not in changing what people group gets the benefits of that unequal application – it lies, rather, in assuring EQUAL application.
The pro same-sex marriage crowd feels justified in their discriminatory rants because they feel discriminated against. That is an arguable point, but discrimination begetting discrimination delegitimizes any argument they may have – at that point the discussion has shriveled to hatred, pure and simple. (related reading – Victor Davis Hansen – today)
As proof consider yesterday’s heinous murder of late term abortion provider George Tiller. This decidedly pro-life blog hereby denounces loudly and condemningly the murder of Tiller or any other abortion provider. Despite how wrong I think the actions of such doctors are, it does not justify “returning the favor.” In fact such is an imperative of the same source from which I have come to believe abortion is wrong.
But what I really do not understand in this situation is the press. Why can they not see the discrimination and denounce it? I am old enough (as the movie citation above proves) to remember the racial tensions of the late 1960’s and the press coverage of the same. As I have said before, I have much family in Mississippi and I remember wincing while watching the news thinking that the things they were saying they were saying about my family. And yet the press cannot seem to muster even one ounce of the outrage at this bigotry that they could raise at Mississippi in that time. The coverage of the Tiller murder leads with how awful acts of murder and terrorism are against abortion clinics (and they are!) with denial of sympathy for the murder by the vast majority of the pro-life community coming only late in the story. And yet the coverage of the issue of religious discrimination bears none of the same reporting style. Why are we not informed of the level of hatred for religious people that runs through the gay community? Agreed, it is not violence – yet – but with protests and demonstrations and civil disobedienced witnessed both ater the vote last fall and int he wake of last week’s court decision, one has to wonder about the potential.
But this is made all the worse because there really is no outrage involved in any direction – it’s just cold political manipulation.
Or was it? The Canadian press seems to think religious people in general are just a little nuts.
Bush, a born-again Christian since age 40, arrives for today’s paid speaking engagement at Metro Toronto Convention Centre with fellow former president Bill Clinton amid a series of stranger-than-fiction disclosures, one of which suggests that apocalyptic fervour may have held sway within the walls of his White House.
Read the rest of the story if you can stomach it, but let’s be serious here. Could someone as fanatical as they describe Bush to be even survive the election process? I don’t think so. Which is part of what makes the idea of “The Mormons are coming” funny. The Prop 8 campaign was highly skilled and learned political action. Religious fanatics of the type they seem to invoke here simply could not be that well organized, too much rationality is involved in the execution.
Finally, God help us all, they are talking Iowa ‘12 already. Personally, I think Iowa is done as a political bellweather. Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee are not winners that prove much in the way of reliability. Don’t be surprised to see the GOP, and perhaps the Dems make some moves towards either changing the rules in the early states (IA and NH) or moving towards a national primary day. Iowa did more than cost Romney the nomination last time – it split the party. We cannot afford that.
Posted in Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Religious Bigotry | 8 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
TVHall on 01 Jun 2009 at 7:50 am #
Egermancy! Everyone to get from street!
I realize this is a serious subject, and I do take it seriously. However, I couldn’t pass that one up.
CarlH on 01 Jun 2009 at 9:14 am #
Mollie at GetReligion takes up Vick’s article–and the important issues–here, and considers the elephant in the room that only one side of the debate is willing to discuss:
Frozone on 01 Jun 2009 at 10:50 am #
I’ve been enjoying this blog for over a year, and I couldn’t pass this one up.
Survey says: 8 in 10 Americans know a gay person, but only 5 in 10 know a Mormon?
Very interesting. I wonder if that is because most Mormons fit in nicely, don’t wear their “Mormonism” on their sleeves, and in general aren’t running around foisting their belief system on everyone that will listen? (Ok, full disclosure, I was a Mormon missionary, but my proselytizing ways have tempered considerably lately
I bet if you rounded up the 5 of 10 that claim not to know a Mormon, got them to ask around, they would be surprised how many Mormons they actually do know, quietly living their lives, contributing in positive ways to their communities, just like their GLBT neighbors.
So let’s turn away from the surveys and look at the actual statistics:
According to the 2000 census, 1.51% of the US population identifies itself as GLBT, 1.93% as Mormon.
Statistically speaking, then, there are (only) slightly more Mormons running around than GLBT, so the 8 in 10 vs 5 in 10 is just a marketing problem.
Now an interesting angle here is how one normally quiet minority went head to head with another more overtly vocal minority (a vocal minority that is used to claiming all the headlines) in a pretty evenly matched contest, numbers wise. One important aspect of all this that really bothers the GLBT community is how effectively the Mormons worked to rally the silent majority to their side (assuming you give all the credit for Prop 8 to the LDS church, which I don’t).
Food for thought.
Frozone on 01 Jun 2009 at 10:53 am #
Oh, for those that are interested, here’s a breakdown of the 2000 Census by adherents.
John Schroeder on 01 Jun 2009 at 11:13 am #
Frozone:
Gotta get involved in this one. Your statistics are good, but you fail to take into account the highly regionalized nature of most of this country’s Mormon population.
Anyone west of the Rockies that does not know a Mormon has their head buried in the sand or never bothered to ask. But in the eastern part of the United States it is an entirely different story, and in the Southeast? Well, I have friends in Mississippi that have only met one Mormon their entire life and that was in Germany during military service, which means those that do not broaden their horizons in such ways never will.
You are correct in pointing out that the average GBLT makes SURE you know they are GBLT, while the average Mormon does not – that’s a valid cultural observation, but your statistics do not support your case.
Frozone on 01 Jun 2009 at 12:58 pm #
Excellent and interesting counterpoint, John.
I wonder if there are unexplored regionalisms and demographic concentrations of both minority populations, and the corresponding inverse of vocality and influence in areas where they are sparse. Has anyone seen a density diagram from the census data to expose the underlying concentrations?
But another (unarticulated point) is this:
This all exposes the inherent shortcoming of polls and statistics: depends on who you ask, and what they are selling
. You can always redraw your boundaries, and change your sample to justify just about any point you want to make. Thanks for calling me out on that, though.
Another disclaimer: I’ve lived in UT, CA, FL, MA, MN and Germany (probably working with your friends from Mississippi!), and have experienced some of the regionalism to which you refer first hand.
What dismays me is that too many minorities allow themselves to be drawn into some of these battles and along the way forget the bigger picture, which is finding ways to equitably coexist in peace, no matter what your sexual orientation or religion. Finding and building on that common ground is, I think, the broader theme of this post, this blog, and indeed Article VI of the constitution.
Am I wrong?
Doug King on 01 Jun 2009 at 9:08 pm #
Mormons are not the only ones unpopular. A few google searches will tell you America is experiencing increases in anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Judeo-Christian religion in general. Although some churches continue to grow, organized religion is losing ground in the battle for the heart and soul of the western world. By contrast, secular humanism grows like a weed, spread and fertilized by established media and taxpayer-funded education. I wasn’t around then, but I understand communism spread rapidly back in the 1920s and 1930s and swept through the universities of Europe and America. It took decades (and millions of deaths) for the seductive glamor to wear off before people saw how ugly communism really is. Some people still admire it. Will modern secularism follow a similar path?
I hope leaders and members of various faiths in this country will come to see that the rivalry between them is being eclipsed by a growing force that is hostile to traditional values and which threatens the rights of all. We need more inter-faith political unity, more respect for differing religious traditions, and more vigilance for the First Amendment rights of all.
coltakashi on 02 Jun 2009 at 6:48 pm #
Let’s see–According to the Washington Post story, the majority of Americans AGREE with the Mormon view on same-sex marriage. So Americans are supposed to be AFRAID of Mormons because the Mormons AGREE with them?
The attack on Mormons by advocates of same-sex marriage is an attack on democracy, pure and simple. Suppression of the voice of people who disagree with you is the ethic of totalitarian society, where the Party marginalizes dissenters and the NKVD drags them off in the middle of the night to Lubyanka Prison. Apparently the self-appointed spokespersons of the LGBT community are comfortable with the advocacy of suppression. Their argument that it is Mormons and other religions with traditional views of sexual morality (e.g. catholics, Evangelicals) who are suppressing LGBT people is a gross lie. No Mormons are invading lesbian homes and rifling through their personal effects. No Catholics are dragging gay men to concentration camps. No Orthodox Jews are firing gays and lesbians from their jobs and evicting them from their homes.
However, we have the real example of Mormons being hounded out of jobs by those attacking them because of their views on a political issue.
Almost every aspect of legal unity that comes with marriage can be emulated through voluntary means within traditional law, including deeds, contracts, partnership agreements, and wills. Personally, I don’t have an objection to statutory changes to allow a person who would be entitled to endow a legal spouse with medical and survivor pension benefits to opt to do the same thing with a “domestic partner” who is explicitly designated and identified; it does not have any negative effect on my own family’s benefits.
Since homosexuals currently have no difficulty living together in simulated matrimony, if they wish, the crux of same-sex marriage is to make homosexual and bisexual and transgender behavior the full legal counterpart of normal heterosexual behavior in the eyes of the law, in order to place the burden of proof on those who hold to traditional sexual morality to justify not embracing LGBT people. With all of the emphasis on forcing employees to go beyond affirming equality into praising “diversity” in order to be accepted in society, and in government jobs, and image-conscious corporations, putting non-traditional sex on a legal equality with normal marriage will force all government institutions to punish anyone who dissents from that viewpoint. It is clear that those who have the totalitarian impulse believe that the need of gay couples to feel loved by the community trumps the need of individuals to feel loyal to their religious beliefs. After all, religion is considered to be a “private matter” that cannot be allowed to intrude on the area of “public interaction”. You can believe that gay sex is immoral, but you cannot say so in public if you want to receive any government benefits or employement or a license or a loan.