Dialogue key in fight for gay marriage

The people of this nation predicted that same-sex marriage would
be a pivotal issue in the elections ““ and they were right.
Yet it was shocking to many, including myself, to hear the results:
11 out of 11 states voted to change their constitutions to define
marriage as a union between a man and a woman ““ and many did
so overwhelmingly.

The effects upon the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
community were immense. We were attacked with a reality that many
did not wish to face: America has yet to accept what it does not
understand, and now our rights are actively being taken away.

People across the nation began planning their new lives ““
not because of the opportunities that this nation’s people
have provided them, but rather because of the destruction and
devastation that these results have inflicted on their families and
loved ones.

Many speak of moving north to Canada, others to the more
understanding European nations. Yet it seems clear to many that
America is not about to change.

And as Democrats are soul-searching for a solution to their
loss, many have turned to this very issue: Did Bush and the right
wing mobilize conservatives to vote for these bans on same-sex
marriage, and while they were at it, did these conservatives vote
right?

This could be the case, but the objective of this article is not
to discuss the effect of gay marriage on the presidential election,
but rather the effect of the presidential election on the
state-by-state same-sex marriage ban votes.

So, what happened in these states? Did proponents and opponents
confront the masses and try to win their vote? Was each side able
to present its ideas regarding this heated and intense issue? No
““ the reality of the situation was that in 10 of these
states, the proponents of gay marriage were unable to create a
strong enough movement.

In 10 of these states, millions of dollars were spent to ask
voters to base decisions solely on their lack of understanding. In
10 of these states, charged words such as “morality”
and “values” were hurled at voters repeatedly, same-sex
couples were stripped of their humanity, and the people of America
received a one-sided story that worked all too well.

Americans ran to the ballot box motivated by fear, and the
results prove it.

This was the case for all of the states ““ except Oregon.
In Oregon, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and others were
able to organize and raise over $2 million to campaign for marriage
rights ““ almost the same amount as the opposition. Oregon was
the only state that was able to match its opponents in political
force in such little time.

Their tactic? They spoke to the people. With the over 5,000
mobilized volunteers, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in
Oregon spoke to tens of thousands of people for three months before
the election.

Rather than using charged words and forcing voters to act on
instinct, the Task Force educated individuals through open
dialogue, true-life examples, and by presenting to voters the
reality and need for these rights. People were asked to stop
fearing and to start thinking for themselves.

The result? Oregon had the closest election. Only 57 percent
voted in favor of the ban. (In contrast to the opposite extreme,
Mississippi, which voted for it by 86 percent.) Despite the loss,
many in the Task Force were confident that they would have won if
they had had another month.

What is the moral of this “moral” story? If we
choose to make a difference in the perceptions of the national
community, we must add the real stories and the real lives behind
the fake words. We must strip the fear and add the truth.

Let the dialogue begin within our homes and our lives for the
purpose of creating greater awareness, and let this dialogue lead
to a greater fight for justice. Let this university understand that
its ideologies are the ideologies of a minority ““ not a
majority. And because of that, we should not take these dialogues
for granted.

So, is that it? Will the opposing majority soon turn away from
their steadfast beliefs and embrace us all with open arms? Most
likely not.

But this is not to worry. In the fight for civil rights and
liberties in America, some of the most pivotal moments in our
history have not been a product of the ideals of the majority, but
rather the ideals of the minority. Desegregation, women’s
suffrage and slavery are merely three instances in our heritage in
which popular opinion was ignored for the purpose of upholding
justice.

The fight for the right to same-sex marriage in this nation is
no different ““ majority or no majority, we demand justice,
and we will soon achieve it.

But until that decision is made, it is important that these
individual dialogues occur in order to educate people, and in order
to clear the misconceptions about LGBT people that clearly control
their decisions.

If and when such a decision is made, it is these dialogues that
will be essential for the implementation of the decisions made by
the judicial arm of this nation.

Finally, let us not forget that the right to same-sex marriage
is not the “last struggle” within the LGBT community.
There are numerous other rights that are often overshadowed by this
recent movement. Rights in relation to housing, the workplace and
health care are some of the issues that still need our attention,
and the resolution of the right of same-sex marriage should in no
way trump the necessary rights of the individual. Rather, such
demands for equality should work with one another to create a
greater push for justice.

Ebrahimzadeh is the chair of Queer Alliance.