LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY gloucester)

I've been working with one of my friends who is studying public relations and one who is an evangelical Christian on a strategy for approaching the gay-rights debate. One day after a three weeks of particular frustration, a conversation with them yielded what I post here. The presentation has been refined somewhat and tailored to address this community. As an explanation, I approach both from the point of view of a "lefty" supporter of gay rights and a southern conservative Christian, so I use "we" to identify myself with both groups in what follows.
I recognize that many of these points will be "preaching to the choir" in a community like this, but I need to know A) if any points are so bad as to be unpalatable, B) If I've just missed some important detail that leaps out at anyone, and C)If this can be implemented by "Spreading the word."


First and foremost, it is a moral and strategic imperative that those supporting gay rights drop the war-crames language from their conversations, words like fascist, nazi, dominionist, etc. The problem with using language like that is two-fold: first, it implies a long-term strategy that we do not want to be associated with. When we use language like that, it implies to the people about whom we speak that we intend to treat them as an enemy, put them on trial for war-crimes and execute them. This evocation forces them to adopt a stance of self-defense, which does not allow them to concede anything for fear that we will then turn on them. I don't think anyone supporting gay rights actually intends that, and being associated with that by our choice of language makes us look bad, and earns us enemies un-necessarily.
I note that my mention of the term "dominionism" as a word that cannot be used in the debate may seem strange to this community, as that is what is watched by this community. I do that only in the context of the gay rights debate. As I pointed out to another friend, it is a term that can be misused and misconstrued in the gay rights debate, which is only one facet of the arguments concerning dominionism.
The second problem is that, as my evangelical friend Tim repeatedly pointed out to me, voting your conscience and/or your best judgement, even if you need to crush some tinfoil on your antenna, is not a war-crime, and is in fact what is expected of everyone in a participatory democracy. If we are prepared to build our cause on the pain of others, our cause cannot be just.

Second, and building on that sentiment, we have to be prepared to denounce anything said by those approaching from the cause of gay rights that causes the kind of harm outlined above. When someone supporting gay rights calls evangelical Christians dominionists, fascists, or nazis, we not only cannot cheer, we have to boo. If we are seen to be behaving honorably toward evangelical Christians, three things will happen: first, we will make more friends among them. Second, we will put social pressure on them to behave themselves as well. Third, they will drop their defensive posture to at least a neutral stance, thus loosening their grip on some concessions.

Third, we have to stay on-message about the harm that is being done and needs that are unmet. We cannot be drawn into debates of biblical law, Jesus' or God's intentions, philosophy, morals, or the constitution, we have to stick with the message that we will not tolerate harm and we will not stop until the unmet needs of homosexuals are being met, at least on equal footing with the rest of the population. Doing so will confront evangelical Christians to acknowledge and face the harm that is being done, and to address it in the context of their morality.

Fourth, we have to understand and address the fears of evangelical Christians. One way to do that, unfortunately, reeks of "seperate but equal," but may be necessary: we may be forced to concede that the legally recognized union of two people of the same sex, protected under law with all the same protections and priveliges of marriage, cannot in fact be called marriage. It must be a mechanism customized to its intended use, but it must be equal in legal and protection status to marriage. If that option is unapalatable, wording the laws in such a way as to guarantee that it cannot be used to force churches to perform ceremonies against their conscience would serve the same purpose. Such concessions will aleviate the fear of being forced by law to officiate marriages that are against their conscience.

For those of us with contact in Christians communities (which includes myself), there is also an equivalent list for that side:
First, we not only cannot cheer when someone suggest bringing back levitical law, or suggests that gays are "like rats," "diseased perverts," "out to destroy the morality of our children," we have to boo, for all the reasons described above.

Second, we have to be honest about our fears. We have to stay on message that we will not tolerate being forced by law to go against our conscience.

Third, we have to concede the protections of a legally recognized and protected same-sex union. The fact that I have a co-worker who can't get dependant health insurance for his committed partner is unconscionable. We have to stay on-message that kindness to sinners was Jesus' second most unignorable mode of operation--next to an almost mystic and definitely miraculous act of reconciliation with God--and if we truly love him, we will tend his ministry. This concession is also strategic: if Christians truly believe homosexuality is a sin, then part of their goal must be to change the heart of the sinner toward God. This ministry cannot be accomplished while sinners of any stripe are in a defensive stance, for all the reasons outlined previously.

I envision this strategy being applicable to all things related to the debate, from one-on-one conversations/confrontations, to letter-writing and blogging campaigns, to political speech and policy strategy. There will still be hardliners who will never concede anything, but those who are focussing on meeting needs and stopping harm rather than "winning" will likely be able to compromise. The trick, however, is getting all the voices in the debate to adopt these points, and stay on-message with them. If everyone supporting gay rights is suddenly seen to be denouncing inflamatory language from their own side, and sticking with the mantra that harm will not be tolerated, we will gain both PR sympathy and credibility.

So what do you think? Am I off my rocker?