--- Jim Westrich <westrich at nodimension.com> wrote:
> You are going to have to explain your position more carefully on
> this. Are you
> saying the specific actions in Oklahoma are dangerous or misguided?
Severely ill-timed. And as I've said over and over and over again, the gay marriage push is trying to force an issue the country is evolving towards but is still intimidated enough to want to squash, even somewhat permanently, while other issues with far more basic ramifications, like the right to work and live without harrassment, are being ignored at a time when the country is far more likely to accept them.
What part of this is so difficult for activists to understand?
Everyone likes to brag that Americans are so much more tolerant of gays now, seeing us on TV, accepting us in the workplace. But that is such a gross generalization. Fact: Only 14 states ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the remaining 36 states you can be fired for being gay. Yeah, go get married. But lose your job if you put your wedding pic on your desk.
Again, even in this conservative environment, it is more likely that Americans would not support hindering a gay person's ability to work.
Afterall, a working queer is paying taxes and not a "burden" on Bubba and Bitsy.
Another angle that is being ignored: gay/lesbian parents. The policies of social conservatives and the slashing of state budgets may result in more unwanted children, more abused, poor or special needs children, and all will be in need of services. Hell, even if it doesn't, our social services infrastructure is broken, overwhelmed and severely underfunded right now. Where are all the foster parents and adoptive parents going to come from? We should be focusing on dismantling laws that bar or restrict gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents.
And call me callous, but both of these issues have strong economic angles. I think economic realities in the coming months and years will dilute or diminish the resolve of many social conservatives, especially those who are only marginally involved. THe hard core will remain so; the rest will tire of having to eat those principles when it begins to become inconvenient.
> Just them
> or are you saying the successful judicial, legislative, and popular
> victory of
> gay marriage in Massachusetts is a mistake? How about civil unions
> in Vermont?
I applaud them and honor them both. However, something that continues to plague most of the arguments we're seeing on multiple Left, Liberal and Progressive issues is this: Massachusetts and Vermont are not the rest of the country.
Let me repeat this: Massachusetts and Vermont are not the rest of the country.
Both the Massachusetts and Vermont initiatives have been well-organized, focused and in jurisdictions fertile for change. Venue and timing are important in this battle. THAT'S my point.
> The use of the courts to get past the unpopular legislative
> roadblocks to gay
> marriage in Massachusetts was extremely successful and gay marriage
> maintains
> popular support. Every candidate who supported gay marriage in
> Massachusetts
> one their election.
Yes, all 84 of them. And the vote on the Massachusetts amendment was 105 for, 94 against last year. Very close.
Every single carpet-bagging candidate who came
> into this
> state to "fight for family values" was soundly drubbed by 50-70%
> margins. In
> fact several incumbents who did NOT support gay marriage were
> thrown out of
> office.
Three were thrown out, but gay marriage was an issue in the campaign for only one, per HRC's website.
> So, why aren't people praising the intelligence, hard work, and
> commitment of
> the people who fought for these gains (the Freedom to Marry
> coalition in
> particular)? I sincerely want to know.
Because all of that will be lost for years if the same energy is not used to obliterate the possibilities of the current draft of the constitutional amendment passing. Gay marriage in Massachusetts won't mean squat if a federal amendment is passed barring it.
My proposal: Work for long range goals. Put gay marriage on the back burner for the next *four years* and focus on economic/livelihood protections for gays and lesbians like ENDA laws.
This will further integrate gays/lesbians into society and grease the way for gay marriage. Shrub has hinted at favoring civil unions, but he cannot be trusted, and the bankers for his "political capital" may force him to support the current amendment. The preponderance of our efforts should go into killing this amendment. Period.
Remember, domestic partner benefits became popular with the best companies after they realized their own economic benefit in retaining the best employees. We need to continue to milk their greed.
In four years time, gays could have greater standing and better protections in the workplace, or be much, much closer to it. It buys us time until a more open administration comes in, and more of the tolerant, accepting younger generations add into the voting and working public. Pummel this amendment with facts, like the Howard Paster article in the Wall Street Journal on the business reasons why members of the House of Representatives were right to vote down the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. [ (Oct. 6, 2004) http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Work_Life].
After four years of proving how untenable the marriage amendment is, *then* you start slamming the state DOMA laws in an organized effort that carefully chooses jurisdiction. Carry it through the courts, state by state, building several angles of caselaw so that you have multiple arguments to bring before the Supreme Court.
I know. It's a hair-brained idea. It demands planning, patience and is horribly unromantic. No wonder it's so unpopular.
- Deborah