Here is the finished version.
Please forgive the error
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: since leftists don't want to piss off potential allies, the issue keeps getting bumped down the ladder of priorities. 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.
Also, religion can be corralled in support of human rights, civil rights, etc. But it is a very poor ally for sexual/queer rights. And America is nothing if not a religious nation. The thing about Americans is that they can be progressive and still be anti-queer and find no contadiction in this stance.
> 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.
The 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? (I am asking this seriously.)
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. The only difference between today and yesterday is that haters feel emboldened to come out of the closet. The opposition has always been there. It just could afford to be silent since no progress was being made on the sexual front.
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 could call it a 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. It would be nice if every legislature proposed bills authorizing same-sex marriage, but they aren't. Even they are going to let the courts decide.
> 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 is 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.
It becomes iffier when we are talking about civil unions, since while all states have marriage laws, most do not have civil union laws. How do you sue to have a right recognized that is not even on the books in the new state?
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 respectfully 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.
My husband who is from South Carolina used to have objects thrown at him from cars passing along on the road. Even in Charleston it is risky for us to kiss or hold hands. Someone in the mall where he used to work got fired for being gay. As he tells me, South Carolina is a world where you still have to be in the know to find out where gay life is. He does not believe the current outlook is better right now in South Carolina. It might be different in more liberal areas of the country.
> 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.
Many leftists are politically progressive, but culturally conservative. Do you think immigrants from South America, Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, who may be progressive in many areas, are going to embrace same-sex marriage and other sexual/SM rights? Or are they going to be hostile to them in a effort to remain true to their culture? How does the left address this tension? "We support you in your fight for rights, but condemn you for your reactionary ideas about sexuality?" Sexual issues which should be central to progressive politics (since the one thing all progressives have in common is sexuality). But what if some progressives say that homosex or SM goes against their religion or culture? Do we blow them off? Or do we back down on sexual issues?
People on this list condoned Castro's persecution of queers and PWA's as being something he had to do. Whatever happened to Lenin, Emma Goldman and the idea of free love?
> 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 when there is a perfectly serviceable category already in existence. Unions oppose a two-tiered wage system. Should queers accept a two-tiered rights system?
Maria writes:
> Brian, here's an thought. What makes you so sure sexual self-determination
is necessarily an issue "the left" should have a lock on in the first place?
As I said in an earlier post, I think it is an issue that should be of concern to every person since every person is sexual. The right of sexual self-determination is central to the well-being of all humans.
> It's hard to see you flaying people who really do not disagree with you, and
actually making them out to have stated things they did not.
In the area of disagreeing on tactics, I see it as a strong disagreement. But I think there is another issue here as well: the importance/centrality of sexuality to human life. I might flay in that area just around the edges (though I prefer to flog or use a single-tail).
I think for some leftists sexuality is a secondary or even tertiary concern. I find such a belief more in keeping with conservative thought than progressive.
> I think it bears repeating, that if activists for sexual self-determination want the
backing of and alliances with those activists now focused on living-wage issues,
medical care for those who need it, anti-war work, etc., they need to be willing to
give to get too. But traditionally such activists have shown little interest in such
broader issues, or they haven't been good about acting on such interest.
Those who share those interests have been good about it. In fact there was a split in the SM community over the issue not too long ago. Out of the split came this organization:
http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/
> The people who can't make enough to live on or to see a doc when they're sick don't
seem to be the same people deprived of advertising high-end sex toys in AL.
The issue is about more than the availability of high-end sex toys, though access to such is an integral component of sexual rights and sexual self-determination.
> It's REALLY hard to enjoy one's self-determined sexuality when you're hungry
or sick, whether you've got those fancy butt plugs or not.
I have experienced being without heathcare, food, shelter, and the ability to determine my sexuality at various times in my life as has my husband (sometimes we experienced these privations in combination). The suffering was equally intense no matter what the issue. I think sometimes leftists who are able to (or choose to) confrom to the paradigm of vanilla heterosexuality, are unaware of the pain of not being able to do so.
I wrote:
> 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.
Nathan responded:
> Excuse me, but that's bullshit.
Nathan, I am merely repeating what you said in an earlier post. If I misunderstood you I am sorry, but I thought you said that vigorous and vocal support for SM/queer rights might piss off possible allies who were sexually reactionary, but otherwise progressive.
> Labor unions have stepped up to support gay rights issues far more often than the
national gay rights groups have endorsed pro-labor legislation.
As is to be expected. Labor unions are progressive organizations that support progressive issues. Labor unions have queer members. Also, one chooses to join a labor union. In committing such an action one is demonstrating her solidarity with the values and beliefs of such an organization.
One does not choose to be queer. It happens. There are no other values or beliefs that go along with being queer. As Maria noted, progressives do no have a lock on being queer. To expect an organizations of queers to have more than same-sex desire in common is senseless. This does not preclude a same-sex group from adding other commonalities, but they are not mandatory.
A labor union, however, is a voluntary progressive organization which one would expect to support progressive causes. To condemn queer organizations for not embracing other causes and demand a quid pro quo in terms of support is homophobic. I think this the kind of situation which Charles characterized as not being symetrical.
> 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.
National gay rights groups (by and large) are single issue because if they moved beyond that they would schism or not exist at all. When you join a labor union you do so because you believe in its values. You join a gay rights group because of whom you like to sleep with.
> 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.
The alternative is called Scouting For All. As for being embedded, the Boy Scouts should be disinterred.
> But the point is that you want courts to make these calls, not political
debate.
If legislatures won't act, what are we supposed to do? You seem to have this belief that legislatures are a panacea for all problems. In my state, New York, we have a legislature that doesn't even pass budgets. Legislatures have stopped acting.
> 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.
I was not talking about workplaces. If you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I referenced the group Adodi. More information is available here:
http://members.aol.com/adodiny/Default.htm
> What's the difference from your view of the right of association?
The right of association I am talking about is not concerned with workplaces.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister