Frank writes:
> obviously, some of those aspects are no different from other "diverse'
sectors of the marketplace...so fear not, if these forces prevail, we'll
soon be able to purchase flavored strap-ons, mutli-colored vibrators and
other nifty sex toys at, say, costco, if not walmart...
But we won't be able to know they are for sale if Nathan prevails (Buddha forbid LOL).
> and, when that groovy , sex liberated stuff is availbale in alabama as
well, we can safely say the revolution is over, and watch whichever
murderer is in the white house continue the global machinations of
sex-conscious capital...
Well, there will be a more united left, when all leftists can acknowledge and work for the right of sexual self-determination. We have to stop catering to "leftists" who oppose sexual expression and determination -- they are not our allies.
Once you have a left that has taken care of basic issues -- food, shelter, sex -- then you will have a united force to tackle global problems.
Nathan writes:
> Which means you haven't even bothered to look at the polls, since a
majority of young voters in most polls already support legalizing gay
marriage.
I know the polls. But that support among young voters has not translated into anything and probably will not for decades, if ever. For whatever reasons some may be content to wait. Others will be more proactive.
> The fact that the FMA couldn't pass today shows how tragic the premature
Hawaii decision was back in 1996.
The Hawaii action was taken by queers who took the future into their own hands. Since the left was doing NOTHING, queers realized that no one was going to look after their interests if they didn't. It is much the same case today. Look at your own website: links to all sort of leftist issues, but little, if anything, on radical sexuality, same-sex marriage, sexual self-determination. The erasure of queers and their issues has to stop.
> A more gradual approach, first domestic partnership laws evolving
democratically into gay marriage laws would have crept up on the federal
government, while so-called "federalist" conservatives would have found it
harder to pass an law overturning a democratically passed state gay marriage
law, especially as voters increasingly support it.
If queers settle for domestic partnerships that will be it for same-sex marriage. Nothing will evolve from them. To think otherwise is to play into the hands of queer haters.
If you were fighting for voting rights for blacks, would you suggest that it happen gradually -- say every other election? Or for an increased minimum wage -- let's do it gradually -- say one month on -- one month off.
Your tactics provide a smokesscreen that allows heterosexism to thrive and to spread. You may not intend this result, but it is what you help bring about nonetheless.
Christian writes:
> What's the point of having a constitutional democracy then? If the courts
are supposed to go no further than the current climate of opinion allows,
then you've given up what's good about them: in principle, they prevent the
majority from having final say-so over the rights of a minority.
Exactly. The majority of Americans right now want to persecute queers. The courts are about the only chance we have. Mayors in California and New York performed same-sex marriages. Legistlatures in neither state rose to their defense. It is only the courts that may validate these marriages. What are queers supposed to do? Say: "Let's not be pushy. Let's be satisfied with the crumbs of gradualness?"
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister