John writes:
> You're being incredibly disingenuous. I did not "grant them
carte blanche" -- save when they struggle against the boss
for better conditions.
But when they are struggling after better working conditions is when they would most need allies and, therefore, the best time to strike against them. That is just good strategy. Don't unions try to initiate struggles at their boss's most vulnerable moments?
IBEW broke solidarity with queers by redefining marriage. They were not forced to do that. It was a choice they made. Having broken solidarity with queers, what reasonable expectation do they have of queers remaining in solidarity with them? While it's true I was born in the morning John, it just wasn't this morning.
Being pro-union you want to forestall such an occurrence and, therefore, issued a fiat to the effect that the one time you must never break solidarity with a union is when it is engaged in struggle with the boss.
> You know, of course, that I also grant bourgeois gay-rights
outfits like the HRC carte blanche against creeps like Rick
Santorum.
And you shouldn't. It only makes HRC stronger and, in the long run, hurts the struggle for queer equality. The more prominent HRC becomes, the more potential allies are turned off by its racist and classist dogmas. HRC is only interested in expanding the status quo just enough so as to allow gay white men to join it. Then with the stigma of being gay no longer hindering them, they will proceed to reap the benefits of being white and male in this society.
> Nowhere does this exempt them from criticism or even
attack when they do something reactionary.
Exactly. In the same way, the IBEW is not exempt from attack by queers since they broke solidarity without cause. For such an attack to be effective, it must be launched at the proper time, and the proper time to attack a union is when it is involved in a public struggle with its boss.
Again, the IBEW had no reason to behave in such a reactionary manner. Maybe it would be more effective if those union members who believe in equal rights for queers told the IBEW (and other reactionary unions) to get their act together and come correct on queer rights. That would forestall any attack by queers against a union far more effectively than playing pope and decreeing solidarity during the struggle no matter what. More honest as well, since it affixes the blame where it belongs.
> I don't know how much longer I will have to repeat
myself before you stop setting up these ridiculous straw
men.
John I got your point. I just think it would be better if you focused on cleaning labor's house instead of trying to dictate behavior to others in an effort to hide your own dirty linen. While your help with HRC is appreciated, queers can take care of their own sexual uncle toms, while labor sees to setting its own house in order.
> you've effectively said that electricians in Massachusetts --
including queer union members -- deserve to get screwed out
f their wages, pensions, and job security because their union
leadership took a reactionary position on queer liberation
Where did I say that? What does it mean to "effectively say" something? You keep thinking/posting in extremes.
As for queer union members, what queer would want to be associated in any way with IBEW? That's like a Jew wanting to be a Nazi.
> that if the HRC ends up in the lead of the movement for
gay marriage, then queer people deserve their continued
oppression at the hands of the likes of Rick Santorum,
because they let a bunch of unprincipled hacks lead them.
If HRC leads the campaign, there will be no queer marriage. If queers are foolish enough to let HRC take the lead, then when the effort fails due to lack of allies, they will have to shoulder part of the blame themselves.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister