 |
March 06, 2005
A Religious Left Alive and Well in Cincinnati?
Church-going "Left" has a strong role in politics
By Rebecca Clark
Queen City Forum Magazine staff writer
The old adage “politics makes strange bedfellows” has never seemed truer than with Cincinnati's Issue 3 in November 2004, when numerous African-American community leaders, including the Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, partnered with the religious right in Phil Burress and Citizens for Community Values, while corporate Cincinnati (P&G, Federated, Chamber of Commerce) and the right mainstream Cincinnati Enquirer joined with area progressives in endorsing the repeal of Article XII, the amendment to the city charter that pre-empted City Council from specifically protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination.
As Democrats scramble to compete locally and nationally with the Republican decades-old religious outreach machine, they perhaps need to look no further than Cincinnati for an example of what a “religious left” might look like. In pushing through the repeal of Article XII, supporters not only bucked the national trend against gay rights, but did so through a grassroots campaign that heavily courted the religious community.
Supporters and opponents of Issue 3 alike suspected that Ohio Issue 1, the gay marriage ban, would make the repeal of Article XII more difficult. The No on 3 campaign capitalized on widespread support among voters for a gay marriage ban by combining the two issues in its campaign signs, distributed in African-American neighborhoods in particular, which read “Save Civil Rights and Marriage”. The Yes on 3 campaign walked a fine line to avoid muddling the two issues.
--Read more excerpts from QCF Mag ’s conversation with Ted Jackson, former Field Director for Citizens to Restore Fairness and current Campaign Manager for Nick Spencer’s run for City Council.
|
|
An advisor from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force urged the campaign early on to get church leaders on board, as churchgoers tend to be likely voters. As Citizens to Restore Fairness Field Director Ted Jackson puts it, “if you think about the kind of person who makes the commitment to get up at eight in the morning on Sunday – they’re going to the polls on Election Day.” Indeed, devout churchgoers across denominations turned out in great numbers in the 2004 election. According to the Bliss Institute of the University of Akron‘s report.,78 percent of traditionalist Protestants (who attend weekly or more) turned out, as compared to 61 percent of the general electorate.
Religious voters were also deemed important because of their historical importance to the civil rights movement. “When there’s been a social injustice in our society, it’s been the people in the churches who have stood up,” Jackson argues. “From that aspect, we knew we had to have the churches on our side. If there was to be some sort of social reform for injustices against gay people that some of that reform would come out of the church.”
The campaign began with churches whose clergy and parishioners were already socially active, including Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church and Church of Our Savior , also of Mt. Auburn . Volunteers approached parishioners after Sunday services during the coffee hour or equivalent, introduced themselves and the issue and identified supporters. “It was also important that we attended the service, that we were respectful that this was their worship time, ” says Jackson . |
Hal Porter, pastor emeritus of Mt. Auburn Presbyterian, made the initial contact late in the summer of 2003 with a letter addressed to 500 area clergy explaining the issue and asking for support of the repeal effort. Initially, 40 responded and personally endorsed the campaign. (Churches themselves cannot make endorsements because of their 501 c(3) tax-exempt status.) Those 40 then took the lead in recruiting other clergy members to sign on to the repeal. Over 100 clergy (including rabbis) eventually gave the repeal effort their personal endorsement. Many, of course, did not, and others who may have been sympathetic to the cause did not endorse the campaign because they were not sure their parishioners would understand.
While he made clear the church outreach “wasn’t exactly a piece of cake,” Jackson explains, “we picked up some of our best volunteers through the [church and synagogue] outreach. It was a great way for us to get out there and identify supporters. Some of these churches did their own canvasses. There were a couple of rabbis that got together and did fundraising for the campaign. They weren’t allowed to do anything from the pulpit, and the church itself couldn’t [actively campaign], but the pastor could say, ‘I’m going to go out and canvass, and anyone who wants can come with me.’”
|
|
In February 2004, the campaign received the influential endorsement of Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk of the Cincinnati Diocese. At that point, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force encouraged the campaign to partner with the People for the American Way, a D.C.-based civil liberties advocacy group. The Rev. Stephen Baines, the Senior Organizer for Religious Affairs at the Center, made several visits to the area during the election season to assist the Yes on 3 campaign in formulating strategies for appealing to people of faith. Baines had partnered with the Task Force previously to oppose a 2002 Miami-Dade County referendum that would have removed “sexual orientation” from the county’s anti-discrimination ordinance. Various denominations in the city were split up among campaign staff members, with outreach starting in those congregations where the pastor or other religious leader had already endorsed the campaign. “As other [clergy] endorsements would come in, we would then follow up with a phone call, get to know them, have coffee and get that invitation to come their church and talk to voters afterwards.”
|
Ultimately, the campaign had the support of about 100 clergy members and more African-American clergy than the opposition, according to Jackson . The Rev. Damon Lynch, Jr. of the New Jerusalem Baptist Church in Carthage was one of the more vocal clerical supporters of the repeal effort. Shuttlesworth and The Rev. Aaron Greenlea of Silverton sided with the opposition campaign, Equal Rights No Special Rights, led by Councilmember Sam Malone and closely tied to Phil Burress and the Sharonville-based Citizens for Community Values. ERNSR capitalized on the influence of the church and its conventional positions on homosexuality to win over African-American voters. Lynch counters “the issue was about discrimination and not about homosexuality.” Referring to the opposition’s almost exclusive focus on African-American communities, he explains that “they know that a lot of black folks go to church [but Issue 3] wasn’t a religious issue at all [in terms of what one believes about homosexual behavior]. Those of the religious right were trying to make it a religious issue, and they failed. They thought African-Americans were stupid.”
Cincinnati Issue 3, concerning anti-discrimination ordinances, clearly has legal and moral distinctions from the broader national dialogue about gay unions. Many Issue 3 endorsers, such as Archbishop Pilarcyzk, supported the Issue 1 gay marriage ban while supporting the repeal of Article XII. Regardless of its implications for the gay rights movement, the campaign to repeal Article XII suggests a number of insights for Democrats hoping to counter the ever-strengthening hold of the religious right on American politics.
Jackson attributes the campaign’s success to good old fashioned grassroots organizing, the kind of personal contact by dedicated volunteers that characterized the church outreach as well as the door-to-door canvassing efforts. “We knew that, with everything going on in the country in terms of gay rights, with all the misconceptions and myths and about gay people, the only way we were going to dispel those myths was by having face to face human contact…or letter-to-letter human contact or voice-to-voice.” The Rev. Paula Jackson of the Church of Our Savior agrees the grassroots approach must have won the day, noting the opposition had more money – $1.25 million versus $847,500, which doesn’t include $90,000 spent independently by CCV’s national partner, Focus on the Family. Furthermore, organizers of the repeal showed a willingness early on to embrace people of faith as a progressive political force, approaching religious persons as potential supporters. Just as importantly, the campaign was successful in framing the issue in simple, moral terms, emphasizing “Article XII is about discrimination” and is “anti-gay.” Canvassers made a point to say: we think that’s wrong.
Long maligned as behind the times, Cincinnati may for once be providing cues to the rest of the nation about what a renewed “religious left” might look like and how its energies might be mobilized in support of progressive causes.
Links
· “Church and State, Religion and Politics ”
· Pewforum.org --- "Religion and Politics: Contention and Consensus ”
· The New York Times --- “Democrats Turn to Leader of Religious Left ”[Jan. 17, 2005]
· Heartland Institute --- “What About the Religious Left?”[Feb 1, 1997]
Contact Information
· rebeccac@queencityforum.com
|
