--- Curtiss Leung <curtiss_leung at ibi.com> wrote:
> My questions on this are:
> [re Amendment] Even with the Repub majorities in the
> House and
> Senate, do you think it'll pass on to the states?
Honestly can't say. A year ago I would have said hell no, though I still thought we should be cautious in our pursuits and work on basic survival rights first, like employment security and harrassment. But a lot of things that I was told by compadres in the cause wouldn't happen, HAS happened, and this election says quite a lot, too.
I am not willing to let this amendment see the light of day. The more we can do to crush it, the easier it will be for us to attain gay marriage.
> --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?
Who said choose? I'm suggesting prioritizing, that's all. None of these issues will go away; their existence is fluid and ongoing for millions. The gay marriage drive cannot just die, and it should not die. My partner and I would love to get married and receive the protections and benefits that come with it (including not being taxed on our domestic partner benefits). But what is the strategy to attain it? Further, in the come-what-may drive for gay marriage, what are we doing to insure forward movement on the rest of gay rights? It seems rather selective to say gay marriage is the most important issue, when the majority of gltb folk need to work and that basic right is not protected. Not all gltb's want to get married or have anyone to marry; but last I looked, the overwhelming majority of us need to work.
I recently left a work environment where I was not protected from harrassment, and there was little I could do besides move to another firm with a nondiscrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, which I was lucky enough to do. Oddly enough, I've been pissing people off with my concerns over pushing gay marriage under Bush for the last four years, but in all my years of activism, I'd never truly experienced workplace harrassment. Having now had that experience, I can appreciate how harrowing and life threatening it can be. We can plan to get married later; I need to work now.
> why is it either workplace protection or
> gay
> marriage?
Again, it's not. We have to work towards both as simultaneous projects. I'm suggesting we change the spotlight and focus. Right now "gay marriage" seems to be the number one focus. Let's use for the sake of argument, a 90% gay marriage, 10% other issues ratio. Why not move ENDA or harrassment up and make our focus 50% pulverizing the amendment, 40% ENDA/harrassment and 10% gay marriage for four years...hell, maybe just one year...the first 100 days.
I haven't seen this kind of discussion or strategizing; instead, it's pound, pound, pound that square peg into a circle.
All I'm asking is that we look at this with some real thought into what we stand to lose and what we stand to gain.
> 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.
I think you are right, but the "fringe" winds up influencing the majority over time, diluting their message into the general population until they appear mainstream themselves and then *bam* they are the norm, sort of.
Someone earlier said MLK was told his timing was ill conceived, too, but I'll guaranty that MLK did develop a strategy.
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 agree totally, and that's why I don't understand why everyone reduces this argument to either/or, either gay marriage or ENDA or defeating the amendment when what we should be looking at is how each issue affects the other and be flexible enough to adjust strategies accordingly.
> 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.
I appreciate your sincere and civil discourse. If we can get more people talking about it, we may find that we agree on more strategies than not.
- Deborah