----- Original Message ----- From: "Nathan Newman" <nathanne at nathannewman.org> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] 4
----- Original Message -----
From: "BklynMagus" <magcomm at ix.netcom.com>
>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.
Excuse me, but that's bullshit. Labor unions have stepped up to support gay rights issues far more often than the national gay rights groups have endorsed pro-labor legislation.
See AFL-CIO's John Sweeney supporting ENDA http://www.prideatwork.org/enda.html
The MA AFL-CIO strongly opposed the anti-gay marriage amendment proposed in that state http://www.baywindows.com/news/2002/07/18/LocalNews/AntiGay.Marriage.Amendment.Defeat.Brings.Cheers.At.State.House.Rally-258627.shtml
SEIU nationally has strongly endorsed enacting gay marriage as a civil right http://www.prideatwork.org/seiu.html
Point me to a similar place where national gay rights organizations have endorsed "right to organize" legislation on behalf of gays? The reality is that non-gay groups have supported gay rights issues far more often than those national gay rights groups have moved beyond their "single issue" focus.
But despite that, those other allies have come out strongly and publicly in support of gay rights.
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.
-If the Boy Scouts want to discriminate don't they have the right to do so -under the concept of freedom of association? -The Boys Scouts are an organization for heterosexual -males. If they want to exclude queers -- fine.
First, it's ridiculous to say that Boy Scouts are just any kind of institution. They are fundamentally embedded in schools and communities across the country in a way that's it's hardly viable to say that there's simple alternative for anyone to join.
But the point is that you want courts to make these calls, not political debate.
As I said at the beginning, your views sounds a lot like a lot of economic libertarians who talk about the "freedom of association" to do whatever they want in their workplace. If someone doesn't like making $2 per hour, they can always join some other business that does.
What's the difference from your view of the right of association?
Nathan Newman
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk