Another Stereotype Hits the Canvas

Mickey Ward's morals-based reversal of an endorsement of Sen. Scott Brown for reelection heartens me. The original is here, in The Fighter's hometown newspaper, the Lowell Sun, in Christopher Scott's sports column. Lefty and gay pubs and blogs have spread the news.

The short of it that the pro boxer from plain stock said, sure he'd endorse Brown. Then he learned that the pol was both anti-union and opposed to same-sex marriage. No good for Mickey. As the pug said of the pol, "I found out Scott is anti-union, and I'm a Teamster guy. I found out he's also against gay marriage,  and I say if you love someone, you should have the same rights no matter who you are."

A stereotype has often been that blue-collar men are anti-marriage equality. Here's a good Catholic lad from a poor industrial town who doesn't play by those precepts.

It took me back to my own lad-hood. Way back when George McGovern, pinko peacenik, was the Dem nominee for President. Back in the thrilling yesteryear of 1972, I canvassed for him in my Lower East Side Manhattan neighborhood.

I got a rough reception. Most of the residents were old women, Ukrainians and Russians. I tried a bit of my Russian on them, but schmoozing didn't work any more than the literature or political arguments. I dreaded the election day as evidence of my failure to sway these crusty conservatives.

Yes and no. Sure enough, nationally, Richard Nixon thumped McGovern by 24%. The WWI and WWII generations were not ready for peace talk, much less a peace-talking President. However, my precinct had the highest reported pro-McGovern percentage in New York City and New York State.

There was a lesson for me, which I took and carry. Those elderly women who had survived czars and wars and the worst humans and nature have to throw at us did not fit my stereotype. I read their stoic non-response as rejection that fit my preconceptions. In reality, they were largely lefties and for peace. They showed me in the voting booth.

LGBT and marriage-equality forces have allies in places that surprise many of us. That seems to account for the successes in places like Maine where gay couples and individuals spoke to voters as well as legislators. They might have gone into the process with stereotypes of a hostile audience but were often literally and figuratively embraced. The legislators who testified in public hearings of being turned by such conversations or of their own gay children, other relatives, neighbors, coworkers and friends were powerful advocates for equal rights.

My late mother died still not quite understanding gay marriage. Yet, she loved and respected two couples of my gay friends, who always visited and dined with her when they came to Santa Fe where she lived. I subsequently solemnized the marriages of the four men in those two couples. She would have continued to welcome them in her and heart without "getting" the marriages.

That woman, my mother, taught me a lesson that dovetails with the thought of not clinging to stereotypes. She'd say when I doubted seeking something I wanted, "Ask. The worst you can hear is, 'No.'"

NOM NOM PAC People

Ah, Mainers. So many have their hearts and heads in good and proper places. There's a great chance that marriage equality will be restored in the November election.

Yet, the Dark Side, epitomized by NOM, National Organization for Marriage, will likely flood the state with ads, paid out-of-state folk and more to defeat it. They've promised/threatened another $2million to again harm, hinder and hamper gay couples there.

Today's Boston Globe carries a heartening recap of the campaign. The thrust is that so far, Equality Maine's related Mainers United for Marriage has far outraised the anti-same-sex marriage forces...locally.

First, I'm glad to see that the pro-equality forces are taking back the reality. For decades, the anti-gay/anti-marriage/anti-adoption/anti-family forces with names like NOM's have pretended to be the opposite of what they are. This is no time to iterate their many lies; this blog among other media has plenty of that.

Second, I have to wonder whether NOM is willing to risk losing the money and bragging rights in the likely event that Mainers will restore marriage equality. Up there, voters have a cantankerous history of doing the most socially conservative thing, even more than once, before coming down on the human and humane side. They certainly did that with gay rights regulations.

The anti-equality crowd is like so many prom queens and princesses. They live in past, remembered glories. In this case, the overwhelming record from 2004 when states looked at civil unions, then SSM, in New England, and rushed to pass laws and amendments prohibiting equality.

Let's assume NOM openly goes after the Maine vote and loses. Sure the money will hurt at a time when fewer Americans want to spend on such nastiness and are blasé about same-sex marriage or support it. Such orgs are on the wrong end of the funnel.

More important though, pro-equality forces have public perception and experience backing them. The great gay panic of 2004 has proven to be lunacy. There's no harm and only good that comes from marriage equality. More and more homosexual couples are making themselves known, and all but the most emotionally driven types see their ordinariness as well as a devotion to marriage often lacking in different-sexed couples and spouses.

I want Maine to fulfill its heritage of basic goodness in November. I won't wish pro-equality forces having to fight extra millions in negative ads and hundreds of hired mouths on the streets. Yet, there would be a particular sweetness to the NOM forces trying hard and falling hard.