The Battle Over Marriage: Gay Rights Activism Through the Media (25 page)

minorities vs. gays” or, more specifically, “blacks vs. gays.” While the lack of African American spokespersons and couples of color has always been a concern of movement leaders, as coverage unfolded, my informants expressed

an increasing unease that only “rich white guys” symbolized the marriage issue in the media. This concern was a valid one; as chapter 3 highlighted, in 2003 and into 2004 gay marriage in news reports was very narrowly defined in terms of race and class, presented as a whites-only, middle- to upper-class institution. Rick articulated how framing the issue around faith and values led to misunderstandings about communities of color: “Our opponents always talked as if gay people were on one side and people of faith were on the other. Gay people were all a bunch of rich, white atheists and were opposed monolithically by black people of faith. We knew from polling that that was not true . . . We knew from our own relationships and from knowing the city

. . . that it was not true, but we had to show it.”

The “blacks vs. gays” framing came to a head in national coverage of the 2008

election of President Barack Obama. The “race frame” became a predominant s

device that journalists relied upon to tell the story of “what happened” in n

California. In the coverage of the Prop 8 aftermath, news stories consistently l

LC

Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 115

7/29/13 9:38 AM

116

chapter five

reported that race was a major factor, if not
the
major factor, in losing the vote.

As the November 5, 2008,
New York Times
reported, “exit pol s indicated [the measure was] hurt by the large turnout among black and Hispanic voters

drawn to Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy” (McKinley & Goodstein, 2008, November 6). Media reports consistently reported the “70 percent figure,”

crediting the high turnout in African American voters for the passage of Prop 8. In many activists’ minds, this “blacks vs. gays” framing constituted an unfair

“blame game” that pitted communities of color against the gay community.

As Michael put it, if one were watching television news during this time, the story came down to “local church folk,” more often than not from the black community, opposing “privileged white gay men.”

In mediated discourses, minority groups are presumably always in conflict, competing for the single seat at the main table. Representing the diversity of the community has always been a concern of the gay activist community, but in responding to this problematic framing, activists had to redouble their efforts to show that marriage was not just an issue for “rich homosexuals” who wanted to “play house.” Rick, who worked with local and national reporters covering the legalization of gay marriage in the nation’s capital, explained: The problem is our opponents really trying to play the race card, if you will.

It’s to their benefit to make marriage equality an issue of white privilege in a majority black city [Washington, D.C]. I think it sort of riles up their base and it makes it feel foreign and different. A lot of the leaders on the anti-marriage side are black ministers who tend to frame it that way. They never include the sort of fact-reality that it is: that a lot of African American same-sex couples are the ones who want to get married in Washington.

Other groups, like GLAAD, developed and distributed materials to combat

the inaccuracies in the reporting of the 70 percent figure. Despite these efforts, there was only one news story that I came across from this sample that featured a critical perspective on the exit poll data. On CNN’s November 6, 2008, evening newscast, Anderson Cooper assembled a panel of “experts” to

“dig deeper” into the impact of race on the Prop 8 vote (Doss, 2008, November 6). Cooper turned to Roland Martin, an African American columnist

and political pundit, asking him why so many African Americans voted for the ban on same-sex marriage: “Is this surprising?” Anderson asked. “No,”

Martin said, explaining, “They see it as a religious issue.” Hilary Rosen, a columnist for the
Huffington Post
who also sat on the panel, cal ed the reporting on race inaccurate. “I think it’s a mistake to make this about black versus s

white voters here. When you look at the actual numbers, 86 or 87 percent n

of Republicans voted for this as opposed to 36 percent of Democrats. The l

LC

Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 116

7/29/13 9:38 AM

Speaking Out

117

overall numbers of white people, white Republicans, who voted against gay rights more than African Americans did, so I just think it’s not a particularly useful blame game” (Doss, 2008, November 6).

Despite this one exception, news framing almost universally centered on

communities of color casting votes against gay rights protections, which made it increasingly difficult for LGBT leaders to resonate with civil rights discourses. Some groups started outreach programs in black and Hispanic

neighborhoods. Most tried to foreground minority couples in press reports.

As Kate explained, having a diverse range of couples for more targeted media outlets became a priority for the movement as a whole. Organizations need to “use media that’s targeted to different communities, but make sure that who we’re putting forward as spokespeople look like those people and sound like them.” In fact, a few of my white male informants avoided being sources in media reports because of this concern, agreeing to appear on television only as a last resort. As Michael told me, “My partner and I did the CNN

interview, and I didn’t want to do it, because I didn’t think that we were the right spokespeople. And it happened to be that we were the only ones available to do it, so we agreed. I think that there was a constant cognizance of the importance of having people of color as spokespeople.”

In the coverage of D.C.’s move to legalize gay marriages in March 2010,

then, it was important that the first three gay and lesbian couples married were minority couples. Michael, the Human Rights Campaign’s communications director, who orchestrated the events, said, “Our local D.C. coverage, particularly on Marriage Day, was just kind of a home run from an LGBT

activist perspective. Especially considering that we’re a majority African American city, the first three couples were African Americans, locals, just very sort of identifiable folks that you would expect to be your neighbors.

They weren’t particularly activist-y themselves. They were just couples who were in love who were sealing their commitment.”

These couples had had commitment ceremonies earlier but agreed to par-

ticipate in another ceremony for the sake of media coverage. They were married again before a dozen television cameras, an additional 20 photographers, and CNN, which broadcast their ceremonies live. In addition to hosting the three ceremonies at their headquarters, the Human Rights Campaign paid

for the ceremonies and converted the serial weddings into a ful -blown media event. As Michael explained:

We identified these three couples as people who would be willing to be sort of the first couples married. We wanted to be able to provide media with a good s

story. The three ceremonies were back-to-back in here, so once all of their nl

LC

Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 117

7/29/13 9:38 AM

118

chapter five

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Rocky Galloway (second from left) and Reggie Stanley

(third from left) hold their daughters at the end of their wedding on the first day same-sex couples were legally allowed to wed under a new law in Washington, D.C. In March 2010 the District of Columbia became the sixth in the nation to recognize same-sex marriages. The couple’s two daughters (far left and far right) also attended the wedding. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

guests were in and media was positioned, we had sort of one ceremony and then the next and then the next without anyone leaving. And after that, we did a media availability out front where the mayor joined them as well as some of the council members who were instrumental in passing the bill.

As Michael’s story indicates, from an activist perspective, the best stories were the ones featuring “real couples” getting married, even more valuable if the couples in the stories were from communities of color who could

demonstrate the racial diversity of the LGBT community. As with similar

media coverage from 2003 and 2004, activists continued to push stories

of “real families” talking about their lives and the challenges they faced in living without marriage equality. However, other movement leaders argued that featuring gay and lesbian people in media stories, marketing materials, and advertisements did little to help the cause—and may actually have hurt it. These internal conflicts over how best to represent pro-gay perspectives in the media led to debates over whether—and to what extent—gay couples

s

and their children should be used to gain support from the “moveable

n

middle.”

l

LC

Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 118

7/29/13 9:38 AM

Speaking Out

119

Taking the “Gay” out of Gay Marriage

Several of my informant interviews in 2010 indicated that the movement

was at a crossroads, having fought and lost several bruising battles in 2008

and 2009. Conversations with California activists were especial y instructive in unpacking these tensions. The Prop 8 loss was so “demoralizing” largely because it was avoidable; many within the movement said the “No on 8”

campaign was, as Molly put it, like “watching a slow train wreck. It was heartbreaking.” She continued: “We absolutely could have and should have won Prop 8, and the fact that we didn’t slows the entire national movement down and emboldened the bullies in ways that there will be more suffering, needless suffering, caused because we did not answer that call. That is very frustrating.”

Central to this fissure is a debate over who should speak on behalf of the community. Who is the most effective messenger for the movement in mediated public discourse? According to my informants, organizers behind the

“No on 8” campaign, a coalition of select gay rights groups, conducted focus groups and survey research with target audiences, the “reachable middle.”

Their research found “overwhelming evidence” that including images of

couples and their children in media materials actually diminished support for marriage equality measures. In test advertisements and media stories, gay couples—in particular, male couples shown with babies or young children—

“did not poll favorably,” according to several of my activists, including Patrick and Elizabeth. Informants told me that focus groups responded more

negatively than positively to the inclusion of interracial couples; young male couples with kids; and images of couples touching, kissing, or even holding hands. As one informant explained, these findings were explosive in the activist community, especially considering the movement’s strategic focus on couples and families in messaging. “Some of the worst polling is [with] an interracial male couple holding a baby. That’s like the worst thing you could possibly put in a commercial, because it’s hitting on so many issues. Oh, that was a big, big, big thing [for campaign organizers]: no gay couples with kids where the kids are in any of the images.”

Jessica, a media relations professional, admitted that “older lesbian couples polled really well as opposed to two men with a child.” Likewise, standard news media images of two men in tuxes, two women in gowns, and long

lines of people wrapped outside a courthouse “didn’t always do well in focus groups.” One informant recalled a training meeting in which a media director showed different versions of advertisements from previous campaigns, s

highlighting those that were successful and those that failed. The commercials nl

LC

Moscowitz_BattleoverMarriage_text.indd 119

7/29/13 9:38 AM

120

chapter five

in which couples were shown touching or holding hands, activists were told,

“didn’t work.”

As a result, the coalition group who ran the “No on 8” campaign in Cali-

fornia “very purposeful y” omitted same-sex couples and their children from the media and marketing materials. Instead of using gay couples, the campaign relied on “straight allies” as spokespersons, including the parents of gay and lesbian people, leaders from diverse communities, and supportive politicians. This campaign strategy continues a long-standing tradition that has long plagued media representations of LGBT communities: relying on

non-gays to speak on behalf of gay concerns while silencing, and in this case symbolically erasing from the picture, those who have the most at stake.

The absence of gay people in the California campaign did not go unno-

ticed by the press. David Jefferson (2008), an editor at
Newsweek
magazine, wrote a very personal editorial in the “Society” section about how the Prop 8