THEY SAY WE’RE afraid to fight. It’s the latest argument raised by conservatives against full equality for gay Americans, and it’s one that has an ugly tradition, dating back to opposition to the civil rights movement fought by African-Americans. The difference this time around is that “they” may be right.

After the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts ruled in November that gay couples were entitled to all the “rights and benefits” of marriage, conservatives complained that unelected, life-tenured “judicial activists” were acting like a “super-legislature,” deciding a controversial question of social policy that was in mid-debate among elected legislators. Even as the court ruled, they pointed out, the state assembly was already considering competing bills that would have banned gay marriage, enacted gay marriage, or adopted civil unions.

Conflicting polls notwithstanding, these conservatives were probably correct that a bare majority of the Massachusetts court was in fact imposing its will on an elected majority of state representatives (and the state’s governor).

Certainly, history is on the conservatives’ side. The highest courts in Hawaii and Alaska issued rulings in the mid-’90s similar to the one handed down in Massachusetts, but “the people” had other ideas. Through the democratic process, a whopping majority — nearly 70 percent — in both states overwhelmingly backed ballot initiatives that amended state constitutions to ban gay marriage.

Similar story in Vermont, where its Supreme Court decided in 1999 that the state constitution’s guarantee of equality meant that gay couples were entitled to marry. But Vermont’s elected representatives, led by a Democratic governor named Howard Dean, chose a more pragmatic route, enacting civil unions legislation that is not only separate from real marriage but also unequal.

Even without the direct threat of judicial intervention, majorities in 37 state legislatures, backed by their democratically elected governors, have enacted laws banning gay marriage. So did the federal government, passed by a bipartisan majority Congress and signed by a Democratic president in 1996.

SO ARE WE afraid to fight? Every time the issue of gay marriage has gone before “the people,” we lose. Even now, our elected representatives in Congress are considering a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriages, civil unions and maybe even government-issued domestic partnerships, and our barely-elected president has hinted that he just may throw his weight behind the effort.

We don’t need a majority to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment — only enough support to bottle it up in a committee of either house of Congress, or more than one-third of the votes of either house if it goes to the floor, or just 14 states if the amendment is submitted to the states for ratification.

But are we afraid, even, of that relatively easy fight?

The year 2003 will go down in the books as a fantastic year of progress for the gay rights movement, but our wins were not in the hearts and minds of “the people,” as depressing year-end polls confirmed. We can, of course, win some version of equality by having it imposed by judges, but we need look no further than the tortured history of abortion rights to see that the ultimate prize may be an entrenched and angry opposition, always threatening to undo our gains.

The story of the black movement for civil rights has a different ending, with a much more successful resolution. Courtroom wins were backed up in state legislatures and the halls of Congress, where elected representatives gave much needed legitimacy to the idea of equality by casting their votes without a gun to their head of the type held now by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts.

Those legislative victories didn’t happen by accident. African Americans from around the country took to the streets and marched and lobbied until the prize was won.

THAT’S NOT THE way we gays have fought our movement, at least not in recent years.

We much more prefer dressing up in tuxedos and fancy dresses and going to fancy dinners over marching in the streets. And we’re less likely to boycott than we are to strip down for a dance party, a miniscule portion of which may or may not be donated to a group that may or may not effectively be lobbying for our civil rights.

Perhaps with the dawn of a new year, we can face the cold hard reality that no group ever danced and dined its way to equality, however sweet sounding the idea. It will take more from us, and it’s not at all clear that we have the fight in us to do the job.

Of course, not everyone takes an interest in politics, and many people are not the “activist type,” and that’s fine. But there is more each of us can do, and it doesn’t even cost any money.

If every queer in America added just two items to their New Year’s resolutions, and then followed through, this coming year would make the gains of 2003 seem paltry. What are these two things? Both are free, and one is relatively painless.

The easiest is voting. The year 2004 is an election year, of course, and to win the battle fought by those duly elected representatives, we need to make sure we duly elect the right ones. There are lots of issues at stake this year, but if we acted more like we were in the middle of a civil rights movement, we’d vote according to which candidates respect our equality and our place at the table.

The harder is coming out, but it’s arguably even more important. Poll after poll shows what we all know instinctively to be true: Fair-minded people are far more likely to support our equality if they know one or more of us. And if we can’t swallow our shame long enough to introduce our lives to all of our friends, families and coworkers, then the opposition is right.

We are afraid to fight.

© Copyright 2006 Window Media LLC | User Agreement and Privacy Policy

Southern Voice | Express Gay News | David Atlanta | The 411 Mag | Genre Magazine