Deborah, I hope you don't mind if I go through your post in a different order than it was written:
> And the Left? The queer Left?
>
> We've got lesbians in Oklahoma giving themselves to the most
> conservative administration - and Congress - in recent memory as
> poster children for why a constitutional amendment to ban gay
> marriage is needed. Pass this amendment, folks, and there won't be a
> need for this wasteful litigation.
> In the mean time, gays and lesbians can still be fired from their
> *jobs* just for being gay in many states. ENDA and similar
> legislation, is for all practical purposes, dead. Hate crime
> legislation is endanger of being repealed under this administration's
> watch in various jurisdictions. Domestic partner benefits are
> endangered in Ohio. Single or coupled gay/lesbian citizens who want
> to adopt or foster a child are being legislated out of contention.
>
> And you want this lesbian to get excited about some Okie dykes filing
> a lawsuit over gay marriage... still?
My questions on this are: --Say these women are put up as poster children for the anti gay marriage amendment. How far will it get in the amendment process? Correct me if
I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that a proposed amendment has to pass both chambers of the Senate and then go on to be approved by 3/4 of
the state legislatures. Even with the Repub majorities in the House and Senate, do you think it'll pass on to the states?
--I understand your concern for this other legislation, and frankly am embarassed that I haven't heard of them before; I'll go investigate them now. But why is it so that *we* have to choose between these issues? I
understand that there may be a dearth of lawyers and other skilled professionals to do activist work, and so they have to allocate their time accordingly, and that's fine. But for those of us interested in the issues, who may write, hand out stuff, or just be an annoyance to our friends until they change
their minds on a topic--why is it either workplace protection or gay marriage?
This leads into these comments:
> Strategy is something that seems to be sorely lacking in all of this.
> We still don't get it. We're still living our activist lives in a
> McGive-it-to-me-now mode of thought. The conservative movement makes
> strategic plans... 5 year, 10 year, 20 year plans. They move slowly
> and with baby steps until - wham - suddenly everyone is wondering how
> Bush got re-elected.
Comment here: --You're right. Conservatives *do* make strategic plans. But my impression of those strategic plans is that they always somehow accomodate their fringe (sorry, no other words come to mind) elements. In fact, they seem to nuture them. Perhaps they don't get everything they want on any electoral cycle, but they get something. With us on the left/lib/prog side, the mindset seems to be, "You just have to wait, period, until we get done with X," whatever X may be at a given time. This seems to me to be counter-strategic for building a coalition.
I hope this doesn't seem intemperate. There's been too much of a circular firing squad among ourselves, and I don't want to be part of it. Even if we disagree deeply, perhaps there's something constructive that can come of it.
-- Curtiss