Columbia study suggests way forward on equality at state level

Andrew Gelman at FiveThirtyEight discusses a major study of equality issues at the state level by Columbia University Professors Jeffrey R. Lax and Justin H. Phillips. The news that Gelman focuses on, namely, marriage, is not good for Tennessee. We've made some gains in public opinion since the 90s, but we've got a long way to go.

Really significant for Tennessee is Lax and Phillips' look at other issues such as employment non-discrimination and the role of media attention and public opinion as they translate into policy change. According to their state-by-state statistics, 53% of the people of Tennessee would support job protections for the GLBT community. (p. 40)

In itself, the number is good news, but even more important are their findings that suggest a way forward at the state level. At the middle range of public opinion support for a policy option, you can increase the probability of its adoption by 6% with just a 1% movement in public opinion. (p. 21) Salience, meaning their measure of media coverage and public awareness of a particular policy option, is also an important part of the puzzle: "To get a 50% chance of policy adoption, you need roughly 57% support if salience is high, roughly 62% if salience is average, and a whopping 73% if salience is low." (p. 24)

These findings suggest a counter-intuitive conclusion for strategy. Keeping it quiet is not going to work:

While it has been argued that keeping the scope of conflict small and lobbying discretely is the most likely path to success (e.g., Haider-Markel and Maier 1996), this may not be true for gays and lesbians. There are also “cheap” gains to be had in that shifts in employment and housing protection would actually have majoritarian support in almost all states. Employment and housing protection have received far less attention, perhaps because there is such widespread agreement. (pp. 31-32)

Lax and Phillips help explain aspects of the non-discrimination battle we recently went through in Shelby County. While there wasn't any polling on the ordinance, public comment in terms of volume of contact with lawmakers and numbers of supporters at the June 1 County Commission meeting showed strong public support for the ordinance. Media coverage was also extensive yielding a high salience factor. Still, we fell short of the full ordinance and got a resolution. Perhaps we needed more of a lead-up to the effort. But all the attention received by the Shelby ordinance battle lays the groundwork nicely for the Memphis City Council effort.

I think this analysis also helps us explain why the hate crimes bill didn't advance further in the Legislature. There was NO media coverage of the bill. Lax and Phillips estimate public support for hate crimes laws in Tennessee at 65%. Given the lack of media coverage, it's amazing the bill got out of subcommittee with bipartisan support. We all should have done more to draw media attention to the bill in March and April.

Another conclusion that Lax and Phillips reach is that "the federal government has been worse at translating majority opinion into policy than the state governments." (pp. 27-28) It makes sense. Federal equality legislation keeps getting close to passage, but not close enough so far. And that's not surpising given the analysis about salience. With all the media focus on marriage, there has been very little memorable coverage in the national and Tennessee media of either the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or the Matthew Shepard Act. National GLBT organizations are doing a great job of lobbying, but they need to be pushing more media stories on hate crimes and job discrimination.

Or we could just draw the conclusion that we shouldn't hold our breath on federal legislation, but rather we should continue working hard at the state and local level in Tennesee to protect our community.

Beck says, "Let Tennessee be Tennessee."

Perhaps channeling former Lt. Governor John Wilder, Glenn Beck talks with Barry Goldwater, Jr. about same-sex marriage among other things:

But if somebody came with a clear message and said, "Look, you just want government out of your life and so the states can decide."

Look, you want gay marriage in California, that's great. Let California be California. Let Tennessee be Tennessee.

Just stop arguing about these things. That's for the state to decide. What we need to do is just protect and defend the United States. We just need to make sure that there are roads and everybody is operating honestly with each other.

OK, a certain kind of federalism. It's a position with a pedigree and a following. But I have a hard time accepting aspects of the position as a principle, although I accept the reality of it pragmatically. On principle, most politically active GLBT people support full marriage equality, hate crimes legislation, employment non-discrimination laws, etc. As a practical matter, one has no choice but to adapt to the political culture in which one lives and advance what can be advanced. So it's not a question of letting Tennessee be Tennessee. Tennessee will be Tennessee whether one likes it or not. I happen to like living here, so I work for what is possible within the political culture of the state. But that doesn't mean that I accept there will be no change. With generational change, a global media culture, and the movement of more and more people into the state, political changes will come. The activist's job is to help shape them towards equality.

Subsidiarity and the movement for equality

The high-profile cases of violence against two African-American transgender women in Memphis have reinforced some thoughts about the place of subsidiarity in my thinking. It has been fascinating to watch the national discussion take on a life of its own. The comments range from supportive words to calls for a boycott of Memphis until the police department gets its act together.

There has been some strange impulse in the discussion that leads me to think some activists at the national level think it is more important to issue a statement than to see what they can do to help ameliorate the local situation. To my knowledge, the Human Rights Campaign and Amnesty International are the only national/international organizations that have checked to ask what they could do before they issued their statement or got involved. The Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition has been closely involved on a consistent basis with the Memphis community for more than five years now and their action reflects a commitment to local solutions, too.

Subsidiarity makes sense in government and it makes sense for those trying to influence government. In our case, the Tennessee Equality Project has a Shelby County committee whose members are perfectly competent to develop appropriate solutions for their community and advocate for them with local officials whom they know personally. So it makes sense to give them the widest possible latitude in working through these problems.

That's not to say that attention from statewide and national organizations is inappropriate. Far from it. When these groups speak, they can bring additional pressure to bear. But they ought to do so in such a way that enhances and supports the efforts of local citizens. Without checking in and asking questions first, activists at the national and state level risk confusing the issue and even undercutting the efforts of those closest to the action.

Perhaps a lack of patience with the federalism that is inherent in American government and a lack of commitment to the principle of subsidiarity partially explain why GLBT issues have not made the same progress in the South as they have in other parts of the country. Obviously there are huge cultural issues as well, such as the place of Evangelical religion in public life. But that is all the more reason to strengthen local efforts. I appreciate those organizations that respect and empower local efforts.

Same-sex marriage in the South?

The Associated Press is reporting that 10 states are asking California to hold off on implementing marriage rights for same-sex couples. One of them is South Carolina and one is Florida. The others are Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Utah.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

A number of questions come up. Wouldn't same-sex marriages in Massachusetts already have triggered this if a couple married in Mass. moved to one of these other states? Maybe no one who has pushed it in the courts.

And the bigger question is what will it would mean for the other Southern states if South Carolina and/or Florida recognizes same-sex marriages. I occasionally hear people argue about whether Florida is part of the South or not. Certainly the culture of Northern Florida could still lay claim to Southern heritage. But no one questions whether aspects of the old South live on in South Carolina. If these two states granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, then even in those Southern states with constitutional amendments we would see more movement on partnership recognition and even the beginnings of civil union legislation.

Almost everyone agrees that the long-term goal is full marriage equality, but other forms of relationship protection would make a huge difference to couples living in the old Confederacy today.