Friday, November 13, 2009
Homo The R-71 Effect
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM
Earlier this week Rhode Island's governor vetoed a bill that would've allowed same-sex domestic partners to claim each other's bodies and make funeral arrangements should one DP predecease the other (and one almost always does). Yesterday Rhode Island's governor—Republican Don Carcieri—met with a gay group to discuss his veto. Here's what Carcieri had to say after the meeting:
Two days after vetoing a bill giving domestic partners the right to make funeral decisions for each other, a conciliatory Governor Carcieri told a gay-rights activist group he is open to supporting a domestic-partnership law that bestows many if not all of the rights of marriage, without the right to marry.“Maybe it’s something we should consider,” said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him “a bigot”… Citing as a possible model the “everything but marriage” referendum that won approval in the state of Washington earlier this month, Carcieri said: “I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples… outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage. “Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [sic] [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.
What Carcieri is referring to is Mark Goldberg when he says he doesn't think it's a good idea for the legislature to pass "discreet [sic] [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up." Here's what "came up" for Goldberg after his partner of 17 years died:
The [vetoed domestic partnership] bill was prompted by the tale Goldberg brought to the General Assembly in February of his battle to convince state authorities to release his partner’s body to him for cremation after his suicide. Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner’s office “our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate” from Connecticut, but “no one was willing to see these documents.”
We're all talking about Maine but the vote to uphold R-71 here in Washington state may wind up having a more significant impact. Washington was the first state where voters backed a law that provided same-sex couples with the all the rights of marriage that the state can confer (no federal rights), if not the magic word "marriage" itself, and Washington voters approved R-71 despite the fact that the forces campaigning against our everything-but-marriage law here in Washington used the same imagery and scare tactics used by successful campaigns against marriage equality in California and Maine. The results here may wind up giving other legislatures and other governors—even Republican governors—the courage and political cover to move on domestic partnership rights in their states.
Domestic partnership rights are not marriage rights, and they're not full equality, but they're something. We should keep reaching for marriage equality where we can—come on New York and D.C.—but same-sex couples in states where the fight for marriage equality could take decades should reach for whatever protections can be secured now. State Sen. Ed Murray's incremental strategy—widely derided by activists who wanted marriage or nothing—has not only been vindicated here in Washington but may wind up securing rights for same-sex couples all across the country.
UPDATE: Says Jiberish in comments: "and does this change your thinking on obama then?" I addressed that on Countdown—looking a little worse-for-wear (Auntie Dan was hung, darling)—the day after the election. The relevant bit comes after the 4:48 mark.
Share via
2
The voice of the people in WA state was strong, and now it's breaking down barriers.
And Loveschild really REALLY wanted the people to have a say.
And Loveschild really REALLY wanted the people to have a say.
4
Tip o' the hat here to Rex Wockner, who long ago reported on gays and lesbians in other countries winning full partner rights for their families by not hanging up on "marriage," and to my favorite portly bitch Elton John, who got ripped a new one when he suggested U.S. "marriage-or-nothings" were selfishly putting off progress for the sake of mere pride.
5
"Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner’s office 'our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate' from Connecticut, but 'no one was willing to see these documents.'"
WTF? This seems to be the biggest underlying problem. Gay marriage will be worthless if these assholes aren't even following the law now.
WTF? This seems to be the biggest underlying problem. Gay marriage will be worthless if these assholes aren't even following the law now.
6
Good to know R-71 is having an impact outside of WA! It's not full equality, but I don't believe states should be involved in marriage in the first place. Domestic partnerships for all!
8
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive… --
I agree wholeheartedly with Loveschild's prediction in her second paragraph. The voters have spoken, we did not remain silent even in the face of intimidation and threats, and we're closer to justice.
The first paragraph makes no sense, since it was an open election.
One way or another, the pro traditional marriage foes are dead set on silencing the people. Given the poor decision made by the PDC it shouldn't be of a surprise to any citizen that their now legally qualified signature could be overturned by another round of activist individuals.
No matter, the people have seen that their voice and votes do matter, that not remaining in silence even in the face of intimidation and threats will in the end get you closer to justice. Even when those in the higher ups refuse to protect you from possible attacks, we serve a mighty God and HE will deliver us and guide us into victory as he has shown us now.
I agree wholeheartedly with Loveschild's prediction in her second paragraph. The voters have spoken, we did not remain silent even in the face of intimidation and threats, and we're closer to justice.
The first paragraph makes no sense, since it was an open election.
10
@9: La la la. If I was a clotheshorse you'd all be saying that I was confirming stereotypes about how all gay men are fashioned-obsessed, shallow ninnies.
12
@10 Hey now, there's a lot of room between having one shirt and being a fashion-obsessed, shallow ninny.
13
The R-71 effect isn't what you think, Dan.
Defenders of marriage will hurry to pass 'all the rights of marriage' DP bills and then say there is no need for marriage.
Defenders of marriage will hurry to pass 'all the rights of marriage' DP bills and then say there is no need for marriage.
15
OK - Washington State voters and activists absolutely deserve a round of applause and deep gratitude for the victory earlier this month.
Without a doubt the approval of 71 shows a victory for reason and compassion and a thorough repudiation of the irrational and supremacist ideology of opponents of 71.
Thank you all. Seriously.
What's next? Shall we have another vote - this time on the re-establishment of designated drinking fountains? I'm not just trying to be provocative here. This is a historically logical and reasonable concern. Why should we not expect to have a return of "colored only" and "white only" signs on public accommodations?
I think we should encourage it, frankly, but that would be just plain mean and nasty wouldn't it? Why is it acceptable to create secondary accommodations for ANY minority population? Why haven't we already learned this lesson and some of us paid very dearly for it?
Without a doubt the approval of 71 shows a victory for reason and compassion and a thorough repudiation of the irrational and supremacist ideology of opponents of 71.
Thank you all. Seriously.
What's next? Shall we have another vote - this time on the re-establishment of designated drinking fountains? I'm not just trying to be provocative here. This is a historically logical and reasonable concern. Why should we not expect to have a return of "colored only" and "white only" signs on public accommodations?
I think we should encourage it, frankly, but that would be just plain mean and nasty wouldn't it? Why is it acceptable to create secondary accommodations for ANY minority population? Why haven't we already learned this lesson and some of us paid very dearly for it?
17
i hate that separate but equal is returning to the public discourse. remember how the problems was solved last time by giving blacks their own water fountains as long as they called them hydration dispensers?
no? oh yeah. cause it didn't work like that.
no? oh yeah. cause it didn't work like that.
19
Nice job, for someone who looks like he consumed too much nectar of the gods and should have drank more water the night before, Dan.
20
Speaking of D.C. and DP's I think we should call the catholic churches bluff on pulling out of care for the poor if the city confers rights. Them holding a gun to the heads of the poor exposes them for the hypocrites they are.
21
Dan,
When are you gonna wrap your tiny brain around the idea that citing to yourself as some kind of legit authority doesn't strengthen your position, it weakens it. It is circular logic on crack times 1000. But I guess you miss that journalism class. Oh wait, you never went to that class because you don't have a journalism degree. How's that degree in being a pretentious, blissfully ignorant, cuckhold expert working out for you?
When are you gonna wrap your tiny brain around the idea that citing to yourself as some kind of legit authority doesn't strengthen your position, it weakens it. It is circular logic on crack times 1000. But I guess you miss that journalism class. Oh wait, you never went to that class because you don't have a journalism degree. How's that degree in being a pretentious, blissfully ignorant, cuckhold expert working out for you?
22
DP's would be a good step in Rhody. The state is mostly Catholic, and if they can compromise on DP's without a public vote (instead of pushing for full equality now), we can push marriage when RI has an LGBT-friendly Governor in 2011. It's hard to wait, but I think people will understand the need for such tactics in advancing our overall strategy.
Of course, anti-equality groups will probably cite my comment as indicative of the LGBT-equality movement's eventual goal of destroying marriage when they're opposing DPs in RI, because random commenter "nb" is clearly representative of the community as a whole and drives their strategy.
Of course, anti-equality groups will probably cite my comment as indicative of the LGBT-equality movement's eventual goal of destroying marriage when they're opposing DPs in RI, because random commenter "nb" is clearly representative of the community as a whole and drives their strategy.
23
@21 - he was answering a question about his own views with a video in which he explains his views... asshat.
24
See, now you're getting smart. You've got the votes nationwide for the everything-but-marriage R-71 type deal - I really believe it. The people who are the true bigots will vote against it, but they are *not* in the majority, so who gives a shit. I mean, ya drop the word "marriage" to sate the traditionalists, but you keep the rights. The rights are all that really matters anyway.
With equal DP rights under the law, more and more people coming out, the older generation dying off, it's only a matter of time before people say, "Eh, fuck it - why don't we just combine the marriage and DP laws - it's a waste of paperwork separating them"
*BUT* you need to completely change the tone of future campaigns from "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" to "Hey, we gays too, respect tradition and therefore we don't want to redefine institution for you, an institution that we know has been defined by/gender for hundreds of years, however, we *do* want equal rights for our relationships, which are in many, many ways similar to straight relationships." Mark my words: People WILL vote for you. But they WON'T if you keep up the negative bullshit.
I really think this is the way to win.
With equal DP rights under the law, more and more people coming out, the older generation dying off, it's only a matter of time before people say, "Eh, fuck it - why don't we just combine the marriage and DP laws - it's a waste of paperwork separating them"
*BUT* you need to completely change the tone of future campaigns from "Bigot! Bigot! Bigot!" to "Hey, we gays too, respect tradition and therefore we don't want to redefine institution for you, an institution that we know has been defined by/gender for hundreds of years, however, we *do* want equal rights for our relationships, which are in many, many ways similar to straight relationships." Mark my words: People WILL vote for you. But they WON'T if you keep up the negative bullshit.
I really think this is the way to win.
25
So much for the argument that gays don't need marriage because they can use living wills, contracts and legal documents instead.
26
Ah yes....we are the propagators of negative bullshit....seriously?
Personally, I think LGBT people need a Malcom X.
Personally, I think LGBT people need a Malcom X.
27
But, Governor Carcieri is lying. Two days before he stated that he might be open to supporting "separate but equal, but not very equal", he vetoed the domestic partner funeral arrangements thing.
I'll judge the man on his actions, not on his words. And his actions suggest that he confuses gay people with necrophiliacs, and must protect the bodies of dead Rhode Islanders against them.
I'll judge the man on his actions, not on his words. And his actions suggest that he confuses gay people with necrophiliacs, and must protect the bodies of dead Rhode Islanders against them.
28
@26: No, we need our own Niagara Movement.
Malcolm X was a fantastic figure because he drew attention and was incredibly savvy, but all the heavy lifting came out of the Niagara Movement of more than 60 years prior and which lead to the NAACP, SCLC and various other organizations that sought to enforce the equal protection clause.
Unlike the Niagara Movement, we need to have a better sense of organization. No more of this HRC business. Niagara stalled out for years, even after the NAACP got its start, due to a lot of in-fighting and the public shaming of avowed socialists that made up parts of the foundation of these equal rights organizations. Similarly, it's turning out that the HRC is basically a siphon from the GLBT community into the DNC's coffers.
The gay rights movement already had its radicals, its ACT UP, its Mattachine, its forceful uprising-- in the 60s and 70s and for a time in the 90s. It only served to prove that visibility and not force were the key to making headway.
Malcolm X was a fantastic figure because he drew attention and was incredibly savvy, but all the heavy lifting came out of the Niagara Movement of more than 60 years prior and which lead to the NAACP, SCLC and various other organizations that sought to enforce the equal protection clause.
Unlike the Niagara Movement, we need to have a better sense of organization. No more of this HRC business. Niagara stalled out for years, even after the NAACP got its start, due to a lot of in-fighting and the public shaming of avowed socialists that made up parts of the foundation of these equal rights organizations. Similarly, it's turning out that the HRC is basically a siphon from the GLBT community into the DNC's coffers.
The gay rights movement already had its radicals, its ACT UP, its Mattachine, its forceful uprising-- in the 60s and 70s and for a time in the 90s. It only served to prove that visibility and not force were the key to making headway.
29
there's fully equality and there's no equality at all. In the year 2009, domestic partnerships are in fact NOTHING. let's stop being satisfied with being half equal. We don't have to accept that we are less than equal as the bigots and as Dan Savage believe.
30
28: Actually, you're completely misreading history. Mattachine was NEVER "forceful" (as you call it, I prefer to call it "assertive in recognizing their own equality"). The lgbt movement has NEVER had a history of violence as a main strategy although there are times when "force" (which I'm guessing is what you call anything more than clicking a mouse) have been absolutely necessary. "Visibility" is a failed strategy. We've been "visible" for damn near three decades and we still lack basic protections under the Constitution. Every step forward, every bit of progress this movement has achieved has been due to radicals. Every excuse, every delay, every compromise has been the result of those who think we should be begging for equal rights.
31
Lessons of the defeat in Maine
Our discussion of strategy after the setback for marriage equality in Maine needs to be guided by a vision of what it will take to win full equality, says Ann Coleman.
November 11, 2009
I WAS part of a group of more than 100 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists who rallied in Boston November 4 in response to the vote on Question 1 that overturned marriage equality in the neighboring New England state of Maine.
At the rally, sponsored by Join the Impact Massachusetts (JTIMA), the activists there asked a series of questions: Why did we lose? What can we learn from a comparison with Washington state, where our side won? What kind of movement is needed to win full LGBT equality across the U.S.?
Certainly the passage of Referendum 71 in Washington state--which confirms a law that gives domestic partners most of the same rights as married couples, though not marriage itself--is welcome after the defeat of marriage equality with California's Proposition 8 last year. But the passage of Question 1 in Maine--which overturned the state's gay marriage law--is a disappointment and a setback for LGBT rights activists.
Do these election results show us that the people of Maine are less committed to equality than those in Washington state? Does it tell us that society isn't ready for marriage equality? The answer to both of questions is no.
Unfortunately, the No on 1 campaign in Maine was coordinated by the same forces that won marriage equality in the state legislature, with a very narrow, lobbying-oriented approach. The key strategists saw supporters of marriage equality merely as voters and volunteers, rather than potential activists for a grassroots movement that could link up with struggles beyond the LGBT community.
The No on 1 campaign appeared to be the only viable option for activists who wanted to get involved. Thus, JTIMA mobilized about 40 volunteers over the past several months to assist with the campaign effort.
Many of the participants in the get-out-the-vote drive were still relatively new LGBT activists. They've gained a certain level of confidence and experience over the last year by organizing rallies, demonstrations and panels around transgender rights and marriage equality, and by mobilizing for the National Equality March last month.
Many of these activists poured their energy and time in the final weeks canvassing and phone banking in Maine--and they were saddened and demoralized when the election results were announced.
At the November 4 rally, there was plenty of anger and frustration, too. Many new activists wanted to step up the fight for equality, but few understood where to place the blame. Some anger was directed at the entire state of Maine, with calls for boycotts of tourism and lobsters. Others simply concluded that homophobia had won. Most, however, wanted to dissect the No on 1 campaign to find flaws in its strategy, or blame other activists for failing to make Maine their top priority.
But the fact is that our side had more money and more people on the ground in the final weeks. That money was used to run TV and radio ads more often and provide transportation for volunteers and voters. And unlike the campaign against Prop 8 in California last year, pro-LGBT equality groups held rallies and demonstrations.
The effort to build a grassroots campaign came too late. And campaign strategists attempted to keep the issue of marriage equality separate from transgender rights issues, as well as other issues facing the working people of Maine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BUT BEYOND the methods used in the Maine campaign, there's an even bigger problem--the notion that our basic civil rights should be up for a vote. Either our federal government grants us all rights under the 14th Amendment, or some of us will be treated like second-class citizens. There's no middle ground.
By limiting our movement to a state-by-state strategy, we play into the hands of our enemies. In Washington state and Maine, the ballot initiatives exposed the depth of deception and bigotry of organized right-wing forces determined to overturn any legislative gains made for LGBT people.
Referendum 71 was launched by the Washington Values Alliance in an attempt to overturn Senate Bill 5688--signed into law in May, the legislation expanded domestic partnership rights in Washington state to the same state rights granted to heterosexual married couples. In Maine, Question 1 was launched by the group Stand for Marriage Maine to overturn a law granting same-sex marriage that was passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. John Baldacci in May.
Many people find the state voter initiative process invigorating, especially compared to the corporate-dominated politics of Washington, D.C. In reality, the referendum process can be used to confuse voters and shape public debate in a way that's far too limiting to achieve the fundamental changes needed to win full LGBT equality. And the same money and big players who dominate Washington politics have found a way to hijack the state referendum process, utilizing it as a way to illustrate that "the people" are not ready for progress.
While watching the returns on Referendum 71 and Question 1 on election night, I was reminded of the lessons of the civil rights movement.
Civil rights activists started organizing as early as 1945, when African American soldiers came back from fighting for "freedom" in the Second World War, only to find that they still lived under segregation and were denied voting rights. The initial gains were modest and often met by violent repression. But at every step of the way, activists were organizing an independent movement that aimed to pressure those in power to come down on the right side of history.
Whether it was the fight to desegregate schools or the struggle for social and economic justice, the mass civil rights movement that developed through the 1950s and '60s did more to change the public debate on the issues and gain protections under the law than any single campaign tied to electoral politics.
By contrast, the effort to win LGBT rights over the last 20 years has been relegated to a piecemeal, "time is on our side" approach. Calls to wait, be patient and let others work through the legislative process has not only demobilized our side, but cut us off from potential allies. If we wage a clear and uncompromising fight for equality, we have a better chance to win allies among those who see the connections to their own struggles for justice and equality.
What's more, the state-by-state strategy diverts us from taking on the federal laws that give cover to the anti-gay bigots. As long as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy remain intact, the struggle for LGBT equality will be shaped by the right wing and leave the door open to further discrimination.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WE NEED to look critically at the mainstream press and publicly debate the issues before us. We need to talk to our neighbors, coworkers and classmates to find out how the struggle for equality fits into a struggle against corporate-dominated politics--and organize ourselves to create the change we desire.
If there was ever any doubt about whether ordinary people would stand up for equality, the grassroots push in the final weeks around Question 1 showed us the way forward, even if it came up short. Moreover, the Gallup organization has collected data showing a dramatic increase in support for lesbian and gay rights in the workplace--from 56 percent support for equal rights in the workplace in 1978 to topping 80 percent in 1993.
If in 2008, 89 percent of the public thinks that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace, the challenge for us is how to turn that sentiment into an organized force that's willing to stand up and push for LGBT equality in all matters of civil law--no matter who's in office.
The defeat for marriage equality in Maine must be seen from that perspective. Our discussion of strategy and tactics must be guided by a vision of what it is going to take to win full equality--and nothing less.
More...
Our discussion of strategy after the setback for marriage equality in Maine needs to be guided by a vision of what it will take to win full equality, says Ann Coleman.
November 11, 2009
I WAS part of a group of more than 100 lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists who rallied in Boston November 4 in response to the vote on Question 1 that overturned marriage equality in the neighboring New England state of Maine.
At the rally, sponsored by Join the Impact Massachusetts (JTIMA), the activists there asked a series of questions: Why did we lose? What can we learn from a comparison with Washington state, where our side won? What kind of movement is needed to win full LGBT equality across the U.S.?
Certainly the passage of Referendum 71 in Washington state--which confirms a law that gives domestic partners most of the same rights as married couples, though not marriage itself--is welcome after the defeat of marriage equality with California's Proposition 8 last year. But the passage of Question 1 in Maine--which overturned the state's gay marriage law--is a disappointment and a setback for LGBT rights activists.
Do these election results show us that the people of Maine are less committed to equality than those in Washington state? Does it tell us that society isn't ready for marriage equality? The answer to both of questions is no.
Unfortunately, the No on 1 campaign in Maine was coordinated by the same forces that won marriage equality in the state legislature, with a very narrow, lobbying-oriented approach. The key strategists saw supporters of marriage equality merely as voters and volunteers, rather than potential activists for a grassroots movement that could link up with struggles beyond the LGBT community.
The No on 1 campaign appeared to be the only viable option for activists who wanted to get involved. Thus, JTIMA mobilized about 40 volunteers over the past several months to assist with the campaign effort.
Many of the participants in the get-out-the-vote drive were still relatively new LGBT activists. They've gained a certain level of confidence and experience over the last year by organizing rallies, demonstrations and panels around transgender rights and marriage equality, and by mobilizing for the National Equality March last month.
Many of these activists poured their energy and time in the final weeks canvassing and phone banking in Maine--and they were saddened and demoralized when the election results were announced.
At the November 4 rally, there was plenty of anger and frustration, too. Many new activists wanted to step up the fight for equality, but few understood where to place the blame. Some anger was directed at the entire state of Maine, with calls for boycotts of tourism and lobsters. Others simply concluded that homophobia had won. Most, however, wanted to dissect the No on 1 campaign to find flaws in its strategy, or blame other activists for failing to make Maine their top priority.
But the fact is that our side had more money and more people on the ground in the final weeks. That money was used to run TV and radio ads more often and provide transportation for volunteers and voters. And unlike the campaign against Prop 8 in California last year, pro-LGBT equality groups held rallies and demonstrations.
The effort to build a grassroots campaign came too late. And campaign strategists attempted to keep the issue of marriage equality separate from transgender rights issues, as well as other issues facing the working people of Maine.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
BUT BEYOND the methods used in the Maine campaign, there's an even bigger problem--the notion that our basic civil rights should be up for a vote. Either our federal government grants us all rights under the 14th Amendment, or some of us will be treated like second-class citizens. There's no middle ground.
By limiting our movement to a state-by-state strategy, we play into the hands of our enemies. In Washington state and Maine, the ballot initiatives exposed the depth of deception and bigotry of organized right-wing forces determined to overturn any legislative gains made for LGBT people.
Referendum 71 was launched by the Washington Values Alliance in an attempt to overturn Senate Bill 5688--signed into law in May, the legislation expanded domestic partnership rights in Washington state to the same state rights granted to heterosexual married couples. In Maine, Question 1 was launched by the group Stand for Marriage Maine to overturn a law granting same-sex marriage that was passed by the state legislature and signed by Gov. John Baldacci in May.
Many people find the state voter initiative process invigorating, especially compared to the corporate-dominated politics of Washington, D.C. In reality, the referendum process can be used to confuse voters and shape public debate in a way that's far too limiting to achieve the fundamental changes needed to win full LGBT equality. And the same money and big players who dominate Washington politics have found a way to hijack the state referendum process, utilizing it as a way to illustrate that "the people" are not ready for progress.
While watching the returns on Referendum 71 and Question 1 on election night, I was reminded of the lessons of the civil rights movement.
Civil rights activists started organizing as early as 1945, when African American soldiers came back from fighting for "freedom" in the Second World War, only to find that they still lived under segregation and were denied voting rights. The initial gains were modest and often met by violent repression. But at every step of the way, activists were organizing an independent movement that aimed to pressure those in power to come down on the right side of history.
Whether it was the fight to desegregate schools or the struggle for social and economic justice, the mass civil rights movement that developed through the 1950s and '60s did more to change the public debate on the issues and gain protections under the law than any single campaign tied to electoral politics.
By contrast, the effort to win LGBT rights over the last 20 years has been relegated to a piecemeal, "time is on our side" approach. Calls to wait, be patient and let others work through the legislative process has not only demobilized our side, but cut us off from potential allies. If we wage a clear and uncompromising fight for equality, we have a better chance to win allies among those who see the connections to their own struggles for justice and equality.
What's more, the state-by-state strategy diverts us from taking on the federal laws that give cover to the anti-gay bigots. As long as the federal Defense of Marriage Act and the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy remain intact, the struggle for LGBT equality will be shaped by the right wing and leave the door open to further discrimination.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WE NEED to look critically at the mainstream press and publicly debate the issues before us. We need to talk to our neighbors, coworkers and classmates to find out how the struggle for equality fits into a struggle against corporate-dominated politics--and organize ourselves to create the change we desire.
If there was ever any doubt about whether ordinary people would stand up for equality, the grassroots push in the final weeks around Question 1 showed us the way forward, even if it came up short. Moreover, the Gallup organization has collected data showing a dramatic increase in support for lesbian and gay rights in the workplace--from 56 percent support for equal rights in the workplace in 1978 to topping 80 percent in 1993.
If in 2008, 89 percent of the public thinks that homosexuals shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace, the challenge for us is how to turn that sentiment into an organized force that's willing to stand up and push for LGBT equality in all matters of civil law--no matter who's in office.
The defeat for marriage equality in Maine must be seen from that perspective. Our discussion of strategy and tactics must be guided by a vision of what it is going to take to win full equality--and nothing less.
32
Marriage has too much religious and historical baggage to be a valid civil institution. Let churches, civic groups, families, friends, etc. perform non-legally-binding marriages and define marriage as narrowly or as widely (or as bigoted-ly) as they choose, and governments can offer domestic partnerships to both heteros and homos.
34
@30: You've apparently forgotten what a comma means. There certainly was a lot of physical force in various movements, and although I wasn't citing Mattachine as a forceful group, it certainly took its physical blows, which takes a lot of actual strength. And let's not forget that the raid on the APA's annual meeting got some teeth knocked out of people's heads. On our side, of course, but still.
More than that, it takes a mighty big man to infer some kind of faux activist streak in someone else while essentially remaining anonymous. And it's far worse than begging to step in after the voters have decided to scream "we're begging! we're begging! this is wrong! don't take what we've won". I disagree with Dan on a lot of stuff, like the little red-faced dust up I had with him regarding HOW and I-677 during Slog Happy, but I do agree that taking R-71 (which has always been marketed as the last logical step before marriage) and applying it to other states is a winning strategy.
I'll take the advancements in equality that benefit me as a gay man more than the advancements that I haven't made as a native american, for what it's worth. Gay rights seem far more hopeful than getting my people out of this rut.
More than that, it takes a mighty big man to infer some kind of faux activist streak in someone else while essentially remaining anonymous. And it's far worse than begging to step in after the voters have decided to scream "we're begging! we're begging! this is wrong! don't take what we've won". I disagree with Dan on a lot of stuff, like the little red-faced dust up I had with him regarding HOW and I-677 during Slog Happy, but I do agree that taking R-71 (which has always been marketed as the last logical step before marriage) and applying it to other states is a winning strategy.
I'll take the advancements in equality that benefit me as a gay man more than the advancements that I haven't made as a native american, for what it's worth. Gay rights seem far more hopeful than getting my people out of this rut.
35
@31 Fuck you Lonnie Lopez (Seattle's biggest gay Douche Bag) for spamming Slog once again with your shitty "newspaper"
38
The President has been very clear from the start, he is not in favor of gay marriage, he has no problem with domestic partnerships but believes as the majority of americans do that this is a matter for the states to decide not for him and not for the federal government and Dan is not being honest (shocker) when he says otherwise and lies about the Presidents position on this.
O..and every sane person who looks at that map of WA knows damn well what happened, the majority of the counties voted for keeping the rights afforded to homosexual couplings and not for equating them dangerously close (as they're now) with marriage in order to pave the road for the trojan horse of full blown gay marriage. Counties in other states are not beholden to the same silencing grip that a couples of counties in WA are, no matter how much some spin it, cities or sexual libertine towns should not and do not dictate solely what the morals are and what institutions need to be protected in the rest of the states. Democracy works that way.
Not teaching kids about homosexuality in schools, facts say otherwise:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/310071/0_6…
O..and every sane person who looks at that map of WA knows damn well what happened, the majority of the counties voted for keeping the rights afforded to homosexual couplings and not for equating them dangerously close (as they're now) with marriage in order to pave the road for the trojan horse of full blown gay marriage. Counties in other states are not beholden to the same silencing grip that a couples of counties in WA are, no matter how much some spin it, cities or sexual libertine towns should not and do not dictate solely what the morals are and what institutions need to be protected in the rest of the states. Democracy works that way.
Not teaching kids about homosexuality in schools, facts say otherwise:
http://www.foxnews.com/images/310071/0_6…
39
"but I do agree that taking R-71 (which has always been marketed as the last logical step before marriage) and applying it to other states is a winning strategy."
There you have it.
40
wow - the person with love in their name is referencing FOX news, where the men do weird things with Middle Eastern food and the women deliver talking points. There is something very seriously wrong here.
41
Really, Loveschild.
Do you think any of us here believe anything you say here. You have been proven a liar here, multiple times over.
"Nov 4 Loveschild commented on The Catholic Church vs. Gay Equality.
@1 By the way people like Savage are crying foul you'd believe that they were the underdogs. The same story in WA, the funneling of dollars from Hollywood and SF poured in the gay side. But make no mistake the grassroots mobilization with close to little funds was made by the pro-family side.
In the end what counts, is the family, neighbor and good people who make a conscience decision to uphold the family such as the good people in Maine did.
They have taught us all a great lesson of perseverance and courage. And I'm just happy to have played a small minuscule role in the defense of values that Mainers of all religious affiliations (not only catholics) hold dear."
(http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…)
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/statew…
Where are those donors from SF and Hollywood that funneled all that money into the gay side? Are they in your imagination?
Seriously, no-one cares for your opinion, it's a load of bollocks. Find a new way to satisfy your concupiscence. Just go the fuck away.
Do you think any of us here believe anything you say here. You have been proven a liar here, multiple times over.
"Nov 4 Loveschild commented on The Catholic Church vs. Gay Equality.
@1 By the way people like Savage are crying foul you'd believe that they were the underdogs. The same story in WA, the funneling of dollars from Hollywood and SF poured in the gay side. But make no mistake the grassroots mobilization with close to little funds was made by the pro-family side.
In the end what counts, is the family, neighbor and good people who make a conscience decision to uphold the family such as the good people in Maine did.
They have taught us all a great lesson of perseverance and courage. And I'm just happy to have played a small minuscule role in the defense of values that Mainers of all religious affiliations (not only catholics) hold dear."
(http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…)
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/QuerySystem/statew…
Where are those donors from SF and Hollywood that funneled all that money into the gay side? Are they in your imagination?
Seriously, no-one cares for your opinion, it's a load of bollocks. Find a new way to satisfy your concupiscence. Just go the fuck away.
42
So glad not to be living in a country where there is such open, blatant, institutionalized homophobia.
43
"Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner’s office 'our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate' from Connecticut, but 'no one was willing to see these documents.'"
This is a problem well beyond gay marriage. (Something I am for 100%) But the fact that legally expressed opinions are ignored in favour of 'family' supremacy is incredibly wrong and creepy. There are plenty of people who have deep disagreements with their next of kin with respect to their care in case of incapacitation, and with respect to their wishes upon death. The fact is that the only way to make some other person the one to decide on your behalf in case it is needed, is to get married. And that is idiotic. Because I am not married I should not be held hostage by my family. I am not their property, and I would like to be able to make legal arrangements that would not have me stuck for years in some vegetative state because my idiot parents believe that 'there is always hope'. And though straight, I am certainly not about to go out and marry for the sole reason to have some sane person as 'next of kin'. The emphasis on family in the US is totally creepy. Should one really be legally bound forever to the whims of those to whom one by random chance is related by blood?
This is a problem well beyond gay marriage. (Something I am for 100%) But the fact that legally expressed opinions are ignored in favour of 'family' supremacy is incredibly wrong and creepy. There are plenty of people who have deep disagreements with their next of kin with respect to their care in case of incapacitation, and with respect to their wishes upon death. The fact is that the only way to make some other person the one to decide on your behalf in case it is needed, is to get married. And that is idiotic. Because I am not married I should not be held hostage by my family. I am not their property, and I would like to be able to make legal arrangements that would not have me stuck for years in some vegetative state because my idiot parents believe that 'there is always hope'. And though straight, I am certainly not about to go out and marry for the sole reason to have some sane person as 'next of kin'. The emphasis on family in the US is totally creepy. Should one really be legally bound forever to the whims of those to whom one by random chance is related by blood?
45
So. The question is where is the big money from Hollywood and SF? And, it's not there. Monies from the state of Washington are listed as the overwhelming source of donations.
Therefore, the individual who is going on about lack of integrity on the gay side, should realize her comments lack integrity. Which makes her a hypocrite. Got it?
Therefore, the individual who is going on about lack of integrity on the gay side, should realize her comments lack integrity. Which makes her a hypocrite. Got it?
46
I feel it is early to judge the Obama administration on LGBT rights. It looks to me that right now they are focused on passing extremely important legislation - the health care reform, and until then they will try to be less divisive as possible. Obviously after the health care reform passes, they will have to take a clear position on LGBT rights, and act acoordingly. Until then we have to keep scrutinizing this administration, with constructive critique. In a sense the jury is still out on the issue.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Stephen Fry v. the Catholic Church by Dan Savage
-
Neologism Needed by Dan Savage
-
Palin's Cheat Sheet by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Toilet Brush Off by Dan Savage
-
Straight Up by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
Tea Party Crowd Believes That Only Good Spellers Should Vote by Dan Savage
-
Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father by Dan Savage
-
The Green Police Super Bowl Commercial by Charles Mudede
-
Was This On Slog Yesterday? by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (46) RSS