> When that electricians' union changed its by-laws it declared
> war on queers. The same is true of any group/persons who
> do not support marriage equality and equal rights for queers.
I'm afraid I don't understand your logic at all. Because the IBEW takes a reactioary position on queer oppression, you should side with the boss if they picket over wages or pensions? Because the president of the IAM said horrible pro-imperialist things after September 11 ("We want vengeance, pure and complete!" and similar bloodcurdling things), we should all say "Fuck those workers" -- Weather Underground style -- and encourage people to scab on the machinists if they strike Boeing or US Air?
This is called a non-sequitir.
If the HRC calls a protest against some anti-gay reactionary, do I say to hell with them (and effectively side with the reactionary) because the HRC is a middle- to upper-class white gay male organization with an anti-working class outlook and a board half of whose members are probably Uncle Tom's Cabin Republicans? Do I tell them I will support no HRC actions for gay rights until the HRC comes out in favor of working-class socialist revolution? If I did something like that, you'd say I was objectively siding with anti-queer bigots despite my hyper-leftist posturing. And you'd be right.
If the IBEW were standing outside a building with picket signs saying "Don't hire faggots," you'd be perfectly within your rights to sabotage their actions. If they were standing outside a building with signs that said "So-and-so is a rat contractor who wants to gut workers' pensions," and you advocated crossing the picketline then, you'd be a scab.
If you have to be a saint to be deserving of solidarity, then no one qualifies.
And once again, people are making this issue far more complicated than it is.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories