Deborah writes:
>I realize, Brian, that in the best of all possible worlds,
we should all just go forth and boldly file our lawsuits and
pack the courts with rational pleas for equal recognition
and justice.
I think we should also do it in the world we live in right now. We are under attack and must fight back.
> Yes, it's the brave thing, the bold thing, the "dammit, we're
not going to wait" thing and the "darn it, I know there are
people who really like me!" thing in a Stuart Smalley vision of
life bespeckled with rainbows.
I do not know who Stuart Smalley is, but taking the offensive is the right thing to do in my opinion. We are facing an implaccable enemy. Just because we go back into our closets does not mean that they will stop their attacks. They want us in the those closets, doors nailed shut with duct tape along the cracks.
> Strategy is something that seems to be sorely lacking in all of this.
There is strategy there. It is just not one you agree with. To say there is no strategy is to demean the hard work of queers who disagree with you.
> We still don't get it. We're still living our activist lives in a
McGive-it-to-me-now mode of thought.
No we are not. We are choosing to fight rather than run.
> 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.
Instead of poster children, I see heros. Guess I come from a different place.
> 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.
You're right. So what should we do? Sit around like good little queers, minding our p's and q's, hoping we go unnoticed? NOT. Our enemies are going to keep coming no matter how well-behaved we are.
> Various analysises suggest that a broad interpretation of this language
(in a judicial system soon packed with conservatives) could be used to
eradicate domestic partner benefits, civil unions, numerous same-sex
initiatives and could open courts to hearing challenges over medical directives,
powers of attorney, and other paper used by gays and lesbians to simulate
the protections of marriage.
When the list discussed the possibility of reforming the election process, it was noted that it is very hard to amend the Constitution. I presume the same hold true in this case.
> And this is why it is time for gay activists to quit acting like every day is
Stonewall and start acting like sophisticated political strategists.
Stonewall is everyday if you are queer. Too often in the queer world, "sophisticated strategy" is a code term for "bougeois complacency." If queers never risk anything, they will just continue to be oppressed.
> The Lambda attorney confirmed what I had suspected, that with
no<BR>organized, well-timed actions in jurisdictions specifically chosen
for their benefits, we were chasing out tails and running from one litigant
to the next, putting out fires and stretching resources.
We have to expand resources, and gay men in particular have to stop putting so much energy into circuit parties and Fire Island/Provincetown, and start devoting time, energy and money to queer civil rights. It must also become an issue within the community about this emphasis on consumption over activism and dedication.
> Initially, organized GLTB organizations like HRC tried to counsel patience
to the GLTB populace, knowing that a radical push towards gay marriage
during Bush's first term would impede progress on ENDA and a host of other
gltb affirmative legislation.
HRC is way too conservative for me. They would have told Rosa Parks to wait for someone to offer her a seat. They endorsed Al D'Amato. 'Nuf said.
> I always felt the real impetus needed to be on adding perceived gender
orientation to ENDA and similar legislation, making a universally equal
non-discrimination clause, and also easier to appeal to heterosexuals on the
fence.
We just disagree here. Get hets to understand transgender issues is tougher than getting them to understand gay and lesbian issues.
> Unfortunately, ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) remains
an "idea" and not a reality. Tom DeLay has pledged to kill it, once and for all.
And not fighting for marriage rights will not stop him from killing it.
> My point is the spontaneous hoopla (a la spontaneous Stonewall riot)
that seems to emerge haphazardly in the gay community over the marriage
initiatives lacks a strategic plan for getting that very goal accomplished and,
instead, fails to capitalize on the issues that could be strengthened, if not won,
now while setting the foundation for a marriage fight when the timing is more
fertile.
Even if Kerry won, there was no way that ENDA would have survived in my opinion. Queers can grow old waiting for this promised "fertile time" or they can dilligently bring it into existence.
> Example: Which do you think more Americans - and I'm not limiting this to socia
conservatives; I mean all Americans - would be more inclined to support, or, at
the very least, not impede: The right of a gay person to hold a job and work or the
right of gay couples to get married?
In my opinion it is about equal. Many people are repulsed by the idea that would have no recourse if they found out someone they had hired was gay. They want the right to keep their businesses/workplaces queer free.
> But critical opportunities towards securing this basic right are being ignored
and wasted while resources are spent fighting for gay marriage and fanning the
flames of the religious conservatives' wet dreams of setting back gay rights.
What specific opportunities have been wasted?
> Like the presidential campaign, we are trying to overcome our enemies by ignoring
them when what we should be doing is strenghtening our base by encouraging common
ground issues like the right to work.
There is no common ground with these people except total capitulation and agreement.
> Yi ha! went all of the local activists, and gay elected<BR>officials, too, until
someone raised their hand and said, uh... yeah, but there isn't a non-discrimination
policy in effect, and if we get the benefits, we can still be fired or harrassed by our
bosses if we dare ask about getting them.
That is why my husband moved to NYC instead of Texas when he left South Carolina. Many of my Texas friends (including 2 in Houston) are realizing that they cannot lead complete lives in the South at the present time and are moving to Chicago or New York.
Queers used to know this: we congregated in certain cities and took them over. We created safe places for ourselves without relying on the kindness of strangers. But in the light of this success, more and more queers came out and decided their bourgeois sense of entitlement must be met and they should be able to live anywhere. Well, this cannot happen at this time: hets are too hostile in most places and there are just not enough of us. We need to build up our presence in key areas and make those places safe for queer immigration. In the best of all possible worlds, queer should be able to live anywhere, but right now that is not the case.
Nathan writes:
> If these folks win in any federal court, I am sure a constitutional amendment
will be passed and no gay marriage will be possible in this country for another
generation.
I thought it was so hard to amend the Constitution? Or is this just more anti-queer scare tactics?
> Having helped energize the religious right across the country by the decision
in Massachusetts, this kind of litigation can be a wonderful tool for Karl Rove to keep
his troops mobilized over the next four years.
So is abortion. Should all suits opposing the ban on partial-birth abortions be dropped? I know how you hate judges deciding the constitutionality of things. This law was passed by the legistlature. Shouldn't it stand? Or is it that only queers should fall on their swords?
Carrol writes:
> But a secondary effect of that long defeat has been to convince so many potential
leftists that the only way to survive is by surrendering.
And unfortunately there are too many proponents of surrending in the queer community.
Frank writes:
> ....in fact, if the issue had not been raised in the first place, they wouldn't have
gotten their various tits and balls all shaken up in the second...
I love this new blame-the-victim progressivism. If women didn't try to have abortions, then the right would not have tried to outlaw them. Neat.
I am unsure which I will understand first: superstring theory or the source of Frank's incredible hatred of queers.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister