|
 |
CHRIS JOHNSON
Friday, June 27, 2008
The same-sex marriage ceremonies that took place starting last week in California attracted widespread mainstream media attention, with newspapers and cable news shows carrying images of couples exchanging vows.
The images were sharply different from those broadcast in 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began marrying gay couples. Back then, the weddings sometimes looked more like an impromptu protest than a dignified ceremony.
This time, however, the media feasted on images of celebrity and longtime activist couples in dignified settings, often featuring children.
This, of course, was no accident.
Public relations officials from gay advocacy groups across the United States banded together to cope with the media frenzy in California following the Supreme Court’s decision last month allowing same-sex marriage in the state.
Brad Luna, communications director for Human Rights Campaign, said the response from media outlets on the first day same-sex marriages were performed was overwhelming.
“I really have never seen anything like the tsunami of media interest that happened,” he said.
Luna said HRC dispatched its entire communications team and other staffers to help coordinate public affairs efforts in six California media markets.
Vaishalee Raja, the associate director of media field strategy for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said her organization worked to connect the media to couples all across California, especially in the southern part of the state.
The media “turned a spotlight” on the personal stories and the relationships of the couples getting married, she said. The entertainment media was particularly interested in how George Takei, famed for his role as Hikaru Sulu in “Star Trek,” got a marriage license June 17 with his partner, Brad Altman, so they could wed in September.
But Bob Stern, the president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based think tank, said he heard reports that the public relations effort in California consisted of more than just helping reporters reach couples getting married.
Stern said couples involved in ceremonies were instructed to tone down their appearance to encourage favorable public opinion toward same-sex marriage.
“I know that they’ve had meetings in West Hollywood urging people to tone it down — sort of strategy sessions in terms of how these ceremonies should look,” he said.
Gay advocates told gay couples getting married not to cross dress or to have “excessive displays of affection,” Stern claimed.
With a state constitutional amendment on the California ballot this November that would ban same-sex marriage if enacted, gay advocates are trying to control the images “to appeal to moderates who are in the middle of the issue,” Stern said.
Luna said he did not know of any “strategy sessions” in West Hollywood and said HRC did not issue any guidance to couples on how to present themselves.
“You don’t really have to message people who are getting married because the marriage is about love and about joy and about commitment and that’s what they’re going to talk about anyway,” he said.
Dan Pinello, a gay City University of New York government professor, said the idea that gay groups are issuing instructions to couples is more “speculation than reality.”
Pinello said there might be a perception that gay couples marrying now in California are less on the fringe than those taking part in earlier same-sex weddings because circumstances are different.
Same-sex marriage was briefly available in 2004 in California under the guidance of Newsom. Those licenses were voided in August 2004 by the Supreme Court, which ruled that Newsom acted illegally in issuing them.
Newsom gave gay advocacy groups initially less than a day’s notice to prepare for his announcement that he would start issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, Pinello said. Only at the urging of certain groups did Newsom keep his decision quiet for about another week, Pinello said.
Additionally, there was a general belief, even within the gay community, that Newsom was acting illegally in issuing the licenses and that the judiciary would void them at the first opportunity, Pinello said.
“Everyone thought what Newsom did was legally questionable — there was no certainty that these marriage licenses would be valid in the final analysis,” he said.
Pinello argued that the kind of gay couples who would respond in these circumstances would be people who are not middle-class, people who are not concerned with legality issues and people who did not have to travel far.
“The very kinds of people who are flocking to City Hall in San Francisco in February 2004,” Pinello said, “are very different from who’s … going to clerk’s offices across the entire state of California after having more than a month’s notice of this going on and having no question about the legality of these licenses.”
Pinello said he could not see how it would be possible for gay advocacy groups to communicate guidance “under the counter” to tone down the weddings to the thousands of couples getting married. Nor could gay groups require couples to agree to this guidance, he said.
Similar accusations are being made about how conservative groups are influencing people who oppose same-sex marriage.
Stern said conservative groups are telling protesters at the weddings to “tone down the rhetoric” and not appear too angry or call gay people “devils.”
“It’s my understanding that conservatives have sent out messages to their followers to keep their comments as mild as possible,” he said.
Luna said the protesters in California did not have a significant impact.
There were protests happening in California June 16, he said, but conservative groups led “a very concerted effort to pull those people back.”
On June 17, when most of the marriages kicked off, there were almost no protesters, Luna said.
“For them to have people out there screaming and holding signs … was not a positive thing for their side,” Luna said, “so there was pretty much an ‘all-points bulletin’ put out to the religious right to say pull back our protesters and don’t have people out there protesting with signs.”
Protectmarriage.com, a major conservative group opposing same-sex marriage in California, did not respond to requests for comment.
Same-sex weddings taking place in California are inspiring a number of different reactions from religious leaders and groups across the United States.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormon Church, has come out against the marriages and is urging followers in that state to support the amendment banning same-sex marriage.
In a June 20 letter to members, the First Presidency of the Mormon Church states that its “teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal.”
“Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children,” the letter states. “Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage.”
The First Presidency states that the Church will participate in the coalition of supporting the ballot initiative. Church leaders in California will provide information about how followers can become active in this cause, the letter states.
But the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, a liberal, gay-friendly Christian denomination, is actively participating in the weddings, both as officiators and as people getting married.
Rev. Troy Perry, founder of the denomination and one of the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit overturning the ban on same-sex marriage to the California Supreme Court, performed a ceremony Tuesday with Rev. Neil Thomas.
Cindi Love, executive director of the church, married her partner of 27 years, Glenda Sue Jennings, at the ceremony.
Perry has been marrying gay couples since 1968.
Another religious leader is breaking the rules of her church to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Rev. Jane Spahr, a retired Presbyterian Church minister, married lesbian couple Sara Taylor and Sherrie Holmes, who have been partners for 18 years, at the Marin County Civic Center.
The constitution for the Presbyterian Church of the United States defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Ministers can preside over same-sex unions as long as the ceremonies are not called marriages.
Spahr said “it was such an honor and joy for me to be able to perform this legal and religious service” for her two friends.
“I am thrilled with the California Supreme Court’s ruling and hope that my church will honor our relationships as well,” she said.
Spahr said it was “painful to witness” how same-sex marriages were legalized in California before they were in Presbyterian Church. She plans to conduct more weddings for gay couples.
The denomination’s church council acquitted Spahr in April of officiating same-sex marriages on the grounds that marriages were not legal when she performed them. Now that same-sex marriage is legal in California, a similar ruling from the church council is not expected.
The efforts of gay advocacy groups to defeat the November ballot initiative have recently expanded.
A coalition of groups filed a lawsuit June 20 with the California Supreme Court arguing that the measure is actually a “revision” to the constitution and not an “amendment” and that rules for putting the measure on the ballot were not properly followed.
Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, said the amendment would interfere with how the state constitution provides equal protection to California residents.
“It’s an attempt to treat one group of Californians differently from others and that’s a revision to the constitution as opposed to an amendment to the constitution,” she said. “Equal protection is really the most basic principle in the constitution and a change to that basic principle is a fundamental-enough change that it requires the revision process.”
The “revision process” means that both houses of the California State Legislature need to approve the proposal with a two-thirds vote, she said.
Instead, amendment proponents gathered signatures from California voters to put the measure on the ballot. The California secretary of state certified June 2 that initiative proponents collected enough names to put the measure on the ballot.
Pizer said the coalition waited until last week to file the lawsuit because groups needed to make sure the measure would indeed be on the ballot and because compiling the paperwork for the brief took time.
The coalition filing the lawsuit consists of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and Equality California.
Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm fighting against same-sex marriage in California, released a statement declaring that it will fight against the coalition’s lawsuit.
Glen Lavy, senior counsel for Alliance Defense Fund, called the lawsuit “just another attempt to force a radical political agenda upon the people of California.”
Lavy said his organization “will defend the right of the people to participate in the democratic process and vote on the constitutional amendment.”
|
 |
