Miles writes:
> I have to say, Nathan's posts over the last few years have made
a pretty convincing case that reliance on the courts to achieve
political goals is dubious at best.
It is not the best path, I agree. But in the area of queer/ rights, it is the only viable one at the moment.
> If you advocate increasing the political power of the courts,
you're encouraging the development and deployment of a
political tool that will almost certainly be used against you and
your political goals.
I agree. But then any political tool that is developed can be used against you. Does that mean you stop developing tools?
> . . . many examples of shitty legal decisions that blatantly
benefited the powerful at the expense of the downtrodden,
democracy be hanged).
Well, the decision in Massachusetts certainly benefitted the downtrodden. Do you think any amount of organizing was going to move the Massachusetts Legislature to permit same-sex marriage? Both Vermont and New Jersey extended domestic partnerships because of the threat of lawsuits.
Why doesn't organizing work on sexual issues? Nathan answered that question himself: leftists don't want to piss off potential allies. The fact is that people like to avoid sexual issues. One of the things I disagree with is this timidity on the left to embrace sexuality since sexuality is such a core issue for identity and human happiness.
Doug wrote of the weirdness of American society with regard to sexual issues, and weird is putting it mildly. Just look at some of the off-the-wall posts that have been engendered by this thread and the one on abortion. Intelligent, committed leftists suddenly start acting like Vatican prelates, disdainful of pleasure and solicitous of propriety.
It is simpler to advocate for immigration reform, prison reform, an increase in the minimum wage, since all of these issues do not involve the treacherous area of body/sexual issues. The very fact that people can be squicked so easily by these issues demonstrates both how central they are to a person's identity and what a minefield they are.
> The point is that the courts are typically a tool of the powerful; thus
granting more power to the courts is a questionable political strategy if
we're trying to challenge the status quo.
Te courts already have this power. The point is to turn it to our favor.
As for the status quo: maybe one thing to be challenged is the left's softness on queer/sexual issues.
Nathan writes:
> What amazes me is that gay rights defenders of the courts
completely ignore the Dale decision, which struck down New Jersey's law
banning discrimination against gays by the Boy Scouts. Here you had a
state protecting gay rights and the Court stepped into to overturn the law
and protect the bigots. And now, no democratic decision can stop
discrimination by the Boy Scouts because of the Supreme Court.
If the Boy Scouts want to discriminate don't they have the right to do so under the concept of freedom of association?
Adodi is a group dedicated to the lives of gay/bisexual/sgl black men. White men cannot join. Should Adodi be sued so white men can join an organization not meant for them? The Boys Scouts are an organization for heterosexual males. If they want to exclude queers -- fine. They can set their own member- ship criteria just as Adodi does. The Boy Scout case was more about white male privilege and the shocking discovery that being white and male is not the universal passport so many gwm's think it is.
> The antigay activists are losing their majority at the ballot box and the
message is that they are a moral minority.
If this were true there would be no fear of a backlash. Why worry about an amendment in Massachusetts, since the voters will never approve it. WRONG. Antiqueer/antisex activists are stronger than ever.
since legislators would
Michael writes:
1) The reason you don't like civic unions is because they don't entail federal rights
I do not like civil unions because they are not portable. If civil unions provided every benefit marriage did, but without the name, I would not care. You can call it civil cheeseburger for all it matters to me.
2) You think the path to change thing is through the courts.
A path through the courts is the best way now. Legislation for same-sex marriage is dead in the water (more below).
> The only courts you can bring this suit in are state courts (and only 10
states at that, and soon maybe less). And the best you can win in state
courts is full civic union. It may be called gay marriage in Massachusetts,
but afaict (and clearly the case law has barely begun to be developed)
Massachusetts gay marriage is exactly the same rights-wise as Vermont civil
union: neither involve a single federal right.
But if one member of the couple izs moved by her job to another state, they can sue in the new state for recognition of their marriage. I think it is called the full faith and credit clause. Such a suit can be used to attack DOMA. By this method laws against interracial marriages were struck down in the last century.
3) if you really want is to fix the federal rights part, then you have to go legislative.
Ideally yes; realistically, no.
> I personally think the current outlook for gay rights is a lot better than
you do.
I respectrfully disagree. We are in the middle of a religious revival in this country. As I said above, religion and sex do not mix. While religion can be called on to support civil rights, an increase in the minimum wage, etc., it is called upon to oppose queer/sexual issues.
> And for gay rights to become as central to progressive politics as abortion
is to conservative politics. There fact that there is enormous resistance
doesn't mean we can't win, and win big, and keep on winning.
But many leftists are politically progressive, but culturally conservative.
> I think civic union not only has possibilities for evolution, it has the best
chances. It has has the best chance of getting the most rights fastest for the
most gays in the most places; it has the best chance of leading to the most
federal rights fastest; and most importantly of all, it has the best chance of
cumulative progress, where each victory pushes the political balance of forces
more and more in favor of full gay marriage recognition, while creating facts
on the grounds that can never be rolled back.
You may be right. I just do not think that creating a new category from scratch is the way to go.