Nathan writes:
> First, you are talking about an election where the religious right
organized for turnout in a non-major election-- a lesson less about
majoritarianism than the need for progressive activists to themselves take
turnout seriously.
Well, queer progressives did, but once again we were deserted at the altar by non-queer progressives. I wonder sometimes if because same-sex marriage and other sexual rights will benefit not only the left but also the right, whether progressives feel that it is better to expend their time and effort on causes that are more "purely" leftist? Since they will only receive support back from leftists (in terms of organizing quid pro quo), maybe they feel justified in lowering the importance of sexual battles. This fact, along with the puritanism and lack of sexual sophistication on the left, might explain what leads to the ignoring of sexual issues by the left.
> You know- right-to-work laws have been passed in a lot of states as well,
but union activists don't take the lesson that the courts would be better
guardians of workers rights. It means you have to organize better and
smarter.
The analogy is spurious. Rights to work laws and laws regarding sexuality are two different animals requiring different approaches. I cannot understand why you find it so difficult to comprehend this fact. Sexual issues cut across society in a completely different way than social issues.
Since so many Americans are sexually backwards, they think that sexuality is something not to be spoken of. It is therefore quite hard (if not impossible) to organize around sexual issues with most people - left, right and in-between.
> If believing in democracy means you win every time and immediately, that's
a pretty weak belief. And since you don't win in the courts or immediately
in many cases, that therefore proves, by your approach, that courts are
useless and not to be trusted.
I do not think democracy means any such thing. But the realities are:
a) a victory through the courts in Massachusetts b) a defeat in Missouri through the polls - a defeat of 71% to 29% c) the United States is the most religious nation on earth and not likely to change anytime soon (or even later). d) even in "secular" Europe same-sex marriage is not widespread and there is no right to sexual self-expression (remember the Spanner case?)
I still think that getting courts to allow same sex marriage and then forcing states to reverse these decisions once people have started getting married and wreaking all this alleged harm that is the natural consequence of same-sex marriage, is a better path than grovelling to hets, begging for rights only to be rebuffed.
The way things are going soon non-citizens who are heterosexuals will have more rights in this country than citizens who are queer.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister