[lbo-talk] Re: Sexuality Under Seige, or What Else is New?

BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Mon Aug 2 14:50:29 PDT 2004


Dear List:

Nathan writes:


> If the Hawaii Supreme Court had never made its ruling, there
would have been no DOMA. But in the end, we got DOMA and the Hawaiian Constitution was amended to ban gay marriage.

The reaction of the legislature and the Hawaiin population shows that it would be fruitless to try to advocate for legislative change.

No legistlature is going to approve same-sex marriage. Queers can advocate and do grassroots work all their lives and it isn't going to happen. To suggest otherwise is a complete misreading of the sexual and religious attitudes of Americans.

The best strategy is to get a court to approve it and then hold off on its being rescinded by the legistlature.


> The result of trying to depend on litigation for individual rights-- a net
loss of rights.

I see your point and would tend to agree with you in most cases but not in those that involve sexuality.


> Same with the Massachusetts decision. Before it, a number of states were
passing domestic partnership laws, but now after MA's decision, we are seeing a whole new round of anti-gay marriage laws and state amendments and the FMA.

Domestic partnership is not marriage, and does not provide federal benefits. Also, it is not portable.


> I'm not arguing that politics TODAY is ideal for gay rights, but many laws
are moving in the right direction and the electorate, notably young voters, are moving that way.

And the young are the most apathetic of all voters.


> Trying to rush the decision now through the courts means that it will actually
take LONGER to achieve equal rights, since now gay rights activists will need not just legislative majorities to achieve gay marriage but the larger political mobilization needed to overturn all these state constitutions and DOMA.

Going the legislative route would not have brought it the high profile it now has and the amount of organizing around it. Also, (and this just occurred to me as I was typing), the fight for queer/SM/sexual rights is an odd one in that it cuts across the usual dichotomyof left and right. Many of the people I work with on SM issues I would not be able to work with on any other subject since we would be on opposite sides most of the time.

I think this is the answer to John's question in his post:

"Where is the broad-based sex radical movement which puts the minimum wage and universal health care at the front of _its_ agenda?"

Those in the radical sex movement often have nothing other than radical sex in common. We serve as a point of confluence for the right and the left.


> Of course, anyone should retain the right to advocate the right to use any of
those products, but commercial advertising should not be protected by the constitution.

Okay, now I understand. You are against all commercial speech being protected.

As I said earlier, I can understand that even if I disagree. I think commercial speech that touches on vital life issues -- sexuality, abortion, health -- should not be restricted. Women should be able to find advertisements for abortion clinics or for doctors who provide abortions. You limit the right to abortion if you limit speech, commercial or non-commercial, about it.

The same goes for the right to sexual self-determination. If you limit commercial speech about it, then you limit the right to it. You personally may not be interested in floggers or restraints or cages, but other people are, and if you restrict commercial speech, you restrict their ability to determine and fulfill their sexuality. You are infringing on their bodily rights.


> I don't have "hostility" towards commercial sexual speech. I have hostility to the
"commercial free speech" legal doctrine, and I am arguing against any progressive use of that doctrine as participating in the expansion of corporate rights.

I understand now. Thank you for being patient with me. What I am really arguing is that your hostility to the "commercial free speech" legal doctrine is indistinguishable in practice from the hostility of someone who is opposed to sexual commercial speech. In both cases, the effect is the same: people are prevented from pursuing and fulfilling a vital life function.

Of course if you were to argue that sexuality is not a vital life function, we would have to examine that. But I do not believe you are saying that.

Thanks again for your patience.

Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list