Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 16 members and 676 guests online.
|
Big Gay Picture: The Coming Republican Anti-Gay Crap-festIf the Republicans choose to employ this “Gay Strategy,” will it work? Since polls show that the younger generation is far more accepting of GLBT folks than the older generation, this strategy might be disastrous for Republicans in the long run — much the way Governor Pete Wilson’s early 1990s war on illegal immigrants (but not the rich white folks who employ them) completely destroyed the current prospects of the California Republican Party. In the end, the Republicans will be on the wrong side of yet another important social change.
But if the actions of the Bush administration and their “amen chorus” among the Republican faithful over the last eight years are any indication, this is not a party that thinks in terms of the long-term. And what’s to stop them from climbing onto the coattails of the next regressive social movement after this one? Once a social issue is “resolved,” people tend to have short memories about who was responsible for holding things up. Alas, I think the Gay Strategy really could have some traction for the Republicans, especially if the anxiety over the economic downturn has lessened by 2010 or 2012 — or, correspondingly, if it has worsened considerably. We’re fooling ourselves if we think the issue of same-sex marriage doesn’t have real potency, and it’ll have even more power if judges in California overturn Proposition 8, which might very well be the appropriate legal response, but which would be an absolute political disaster for our cause. Who wants to be told their vote doesn’t matter? If the California Supreme Court really thinks the proposition is not valid, they shouldn't have allowed the vote to go forward. (All that said, now that the religious right is spitefully warning of a "revolution" if Proposition 8 is overturned, part of me wants the Supreme Court to do just that.) So what do we GLBT people do? Color me among those who think courtroom victories are no longer the answer. In a way, these court victories allowed us to leap-frog over the cold, hard slog we still need to do win over a majority of hearts and minds. Yes, the courts are an equal, perfectly valid branch of government; no, civil rights should never be put up for a popular vote; and yes, the only way African Americans were ever given their full rights in the South was as a result of direct intervention from the courts. But let's be realistic: even in the 1960s, the idea of civil rights for African Americans at least had regional support, in New England and elsewhere. In 2008, few American states are yet willing to support full equality for GLBT Americans. Would same-sex marriage currently find approval in a statewide vote even in Massachusetts, where it’s been legal all this time? I’m not sure I’d chance it. The point is, we desperately need to move beyond courtroom victories — not that what I think matters much anyway; judges read the election returns as much as anyone, and after the votes in California and elsewhere, I’d be shocked if another state court sticks its necks out for us any time soon. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court didn't overturn anti-miscegenation laws until 1967, when there were only 16 states where they still existed. Here's the truth: the marriage movement is dead in the water until we GLBT people start winning legislative victories, and, more importantly, statewide voting victories. During the California election, we were told that same-sex marriage was “the” civil rights issue of our era. It wasn’t hyperbole. And like every civil rights movement before ours, we have the tide of history on our side.
I'm delighted and encouraged by the boycotts and protests that have erupted in the face of Proposition 8's passing. But let’s not kid ourselves: this battle is just beginning. Social change is never easy, but it’s made that much more difficult when one political party cynically chooses to improve its prospects by exploiting and inflaming existing prejudice, as the Republican Party has done with blacks and will continue to do with gays.
We will win in the end, but you heard it here first: things
are going to get worse before they get better. Submitted by on Wed, 2008-11-19 22:49.  "The will of the voters"Submitted by
Lyle Masaki (3516 points) (4428 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 10:13.That little sound bite needs to be squashed with talk about out-of-state funding, an issue that certainly has resonance with a good number of Californians considering that a bunch of Texas Republicans were spending a lot of money trying to convince California to split its electoral vote (and, therefore, give more electoral votes to the Republican candidate). "The voters have spoken" does resonate but there's also a lot of tension about out-of-state interests trying to manipulate voters.
 The Republicans will fling all sorts of crap at usSubmitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 11:20.But they're not going to win. There are too many out us, and too many closeted them. Just rememebr, every time you hear some Republican or Fundie Freak foam at the mouth about gays it means one thing and one thing only. They're closet cases.
 That's what the courts are forSubmitted by
gayatheist2 (15 points) (3 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 11:25.I have to disagree with the article that "the gay marriage issue is dead in the water", and the suggestion that the court is no longer the answer. The court is merely doing its job in deciding the common law definition of marriage, and in interpreting the Constitution. Gay marriage wasn't a serious issue, until court rulings. The voter Amendments to state constitutions have been a reaction to this. But really what is the answer? Backing down, not trying, means they win and we lose. With each new legal victory, we strenghten the idea that the common law definition of marriage has changed in the U.S., and increase momentum for further changes, in more states. It's too soon to say we've stalled in the courts. Victories here are still happening, and I'm reasonably confident Prop. 8 will be overturned by the court. It was such a narrow victory anyway. The Yes side gained traction from that very clever ad they produced with Gavin Newsom speaking, saying "whether you like it or not". That produced a reaction in people, which shouldn't have been what the issue was about. Even still, once that started to wear off a bit, the No numbers came back up. But the No side just didn't have enough time. There is evidence from the inter-racial marriage debate, that public opinion changed, after the laws were changed. I'm not sure inter-racial marriage could have won in any state on a popular vote at the time. Maybe someone could prove me wrong on this? It would have been a difficult battle.
 The court victories were importantSubmitted by
 But now we need some electoral victories. This isn't a legal argument, but a practical one. I actually think that without an electoral victory at some point, future legal victories might do more harm than good. By the time the Supreme Court made inter-racial marriage legal, many states had overturned their bans, both judicially and legislatively.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes  Civil rights have NEVER been granted by popular voteSubmitted by
db (3165 points) (658 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 12:11.While I agree that some electoral victories would be great I think it's important to note that civil rights have NEVER been granted by popular vote in this country--at least not initially. It's always been up to the courts or legislators. The majority almost always has an animus to the minority and to make something as important as civil rights a popularity contest won't work.
Yes, but constitutions can be amended by popular voteSubmitted by
Which is what's happening here. I agree the courts play a role. But they can only take us so far. And at this point, i think they've taken us as far as we can go. Again, this is a practical argument, not a legal one. After these votes, very few courts are going to take up our cause (IMHO). Now we need to move the ball ourselves. It's a reciprical relationship, but (to really mix metaphors) the ball is now in our court.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes If you are right...Submitted by
OneWorld (321 points) (81 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 14:20.then Americans need to amend their constitutional amending formulas. It's ridiculous and unjust!
The popular voteSubmitted by
Lyle Masaki (3516 points) (4428 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 14:32.On the other hand, in some cases (okay I just know about Hawai'i, but it can't be the only state) these court rulings wouldn't have happened if the popular vote hadn't put non-discrimination language to the constitution that includes sexual orientation. The Hawai'i case that was the first major case of a court overturning same-sex restrictions is interesting. Even though the constitution bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the Hawai'i State Supreme Court ruled that not granting same-sex couples marriage licenses was gender discrimination. They basically said that saying "You could get married if one of you were a different gender" was the same as saying "You could get married if one of you were a different race." From what I've been able to gather from reporting on other court cases, every other court has ruled that its discrimination based on sexual orientation, which I find interesting. As disappointed as I was in how the voters of my old home state went for discrimination, in hindsight it's fortunate that their amendment was written in a way that it gave the state legislature the power to write a law banning same-sex couples from being given the rights of marriage, because it gives the legislature the right to undo such a law, which just might happen.  We are the LAST minority to come forward....Submitted by
Dean (428 points) (95 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 12:33.I agree with Michael above, however keep in mind that we are the LAST minority to come forward out of all others and ask for those rights that should be given to us automatically by birthright as a human being. At this time even non-resident aliens have more rights under these laws of both the state and federal government than we do as what should be a protected minority. Remember, they are ALL politicians.... and to borrower a line from a movie... They're politicians, "which means when they're not kissin babies, they're stealin their lollypops. It also means that they will keep their options open"... which means that the Democratic Party will jump on the liberal anti gay "crap" storm if it means they're going to stay in office. Libral, yes, but still the crap storm. I've worked for too many of them in the past to know enough that these are not people that can be trusted to do what is right, regardless of the outcome. Regardless of what's been said, we will have one hell of a fight to win.
 And the last minority it's still okay to hateSubmitted by
Carl (250 points) (51 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 15:06.I would add. The whole brouhaha post Prop 8 exposes the fact that it's still very acceptable to hate gays and deny us our rights. There are really no negative repercussions for those who supported Prop 8. I feel like we have been thrown under the bus by every other minority. Of course, divide and conquer has always been a very effective modus operandi of oppressors to keep the oppressed down. I agree with the article, but I am not going to hold my breath for Obama and the Dems to actually accomplish anything. They have been absolutely useless for the last 8 years, and the way it is starting to look, we're really just going to have more of the same, not the great "hope and change" we were promised. Not that I bought that BS to begin with. I would love to eat crow and say I was wrong, but sadly, I don't think I will be. I don't think the Dems are any more our friends than the Republicans are, they just talk nicer to us, so they can get our votes. For the first time in my life I've actually thought that the gay community needs an equivalent of the Black Panthers. A faction that resorts to violence to make it's point. And this is coming from a lifelong pacifist. I know I would never actually resort to violence (I don't think), but I am so bloody tired of the abysmal treatment we receive in this country. I've also considered becoming an ex-pat, but my partner would never go for that.
 Hate versus hate?Submitted by
LoTr1985 (300 points) (63 posts) on Fri, 2008-11-21 00:17.
For the first time in my life I've actually thought that the gay community needs an equivalent of the Black Panthers. A faction that resorts to violence to make it's point.
MLK did more for the civil rights movement w/ his non-violent protests than the Black Panthers could even think about doing and their name still invokes a lot of discord, even among blacks. Violence makes no point that won't be answered w/ more violence, which is not what we need. Violence only begets violence, especially when someone is looking for a fight.
but I am so bloody tired of the abysmal treatment we receive in this country.
I know we're angry but this needs to be put into some perspective. There are still numerous countries around the world where even one little inkling of being a homosexual, not even practicing it even, will get you killed--by the state. Let's be a little real here. Compared to those individuals who are scared to even breathe, we've got it easy.  What do you mean?Submitted by
j U d E (3081 points) (793 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 15:17.
we are the LAST minority to come forward out of all others What do you mean by that? The LAST minority to come forward at the moment, or the LAST one ever?..
It confused me. -----------------------------------------------------
I'm glad you asked, this isSubmitted by
Dean (428 points) (95 posts) on Fri, 2008-11-21 18:26.I'm glad you asked, this is a very sensitive subject and is bound to be interpreted in many different ways by many different people. What was meant by that statement is that we, as a community are one of the last minority groups to come forward and ask for what should be ours automatically. At the moment I guess you could say, because yes there are other minority groups, most if not all of which however are recognized and protected under the laws for discrimination of this type, but none more hated or shown more bigotry than ours at this time over this issue. And again this is IMPO. Wow, that was bothSubmitted by
Roxi (10 points) (2 posts) on Thu, 2008-11-20 20:26.Wow, that was both thoroughly interesting and depressing. If gay marriage becomes an issue for the legislature, and not the courts, then it will surely be decades until America has full marriage equality. That is so sad. And I am sorry to say it also makes me thankful to be Canadian.
I don't think "Minority" describes us at allSubmitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Fri, 2008-11-21 09:11."Plurality" is more like it.
"* Support Full CivilSubmitted by
Hawk (30 points) (6 posts) on Fri, 2008-11-21 18:06."* Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples (including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act). " This is the way to do it... I, myself and many others don't care if they call it "marriage", call it Yankee Pot Roast for all I care, just give me the 1100+ Federal rights as everyone else. As well as the Medical/Emergancy/Death stuff across the country. Destroy DOMA, call it Civil Unions across the board, and give us ALL the same rights, I don't care if is called "Marriage"... Yes, it has always taken the courts/government to put in Civil Rights for people, not majority. This is not a popularity contest people. Being in people's faces talking about our story's etc, and they call it "gay agenda". So that in it's self is a double edge sword to try to get "majority" on our side first. Is it going to get worse before it gets better, YEP YEP. As someone stated already we are the LAST real group to get our "equal" rights. So we will have the hardest battle. Most Dem's even don't want us "married", i.e. Clinton and the WAY majority that made DOMA into law. Kill that mistake, and give us the rights and call it what you want. And YES, I am tired of being a 2nd class citizen... how about you??? Get your butt up and help the movement...  America the QueerSubmitted by
Zach (27 points) (5 posts) on Fri, 2008-11-21 22:03.Hey nice Canadian boy here. I've lived in Orlando, Vancouver, and Toronto and visited New York, San Fran, LA, and Vegas. I just have to say that your country has far more cute little gay boys running around then mine (sadly). I would estimate that your major cities are at least twice as gay as ours. What the problem with your backward country? We have gay marriage in Canada and the fires of hell didn't rain down on us. We are the country in the world most like yours and it clearly is fine here. The problem with your country is total lack compassion. I thank god every day I was born a Canadian! (However I do like to vacay with you guys). Anyways all I’m trying to say is F*ck the USA move up here with us. Our education system is better, our health care is better, and clearly our marriage and hate crime laws are better. If you’re sick of the stupid dated war you're fighting down there move to Canada where we don’t let stupid people like Elizabeth from the view, or Phelps, or Palin spread their messages of hate. xoxo love Canada!
As a an outsider it isSubmitted by
Sacha (6 points) (1 post) on Sat, 2008-11-22 10:47.As a an outsider it is really hard to understand how a country like the US who is so obssessed with personal liberties (such as carrying a gun) is against same-sex marriage. It is a part of those personal liberties to choose who you want to get married too. Anyway. Good luck with that battle. Worst come to worst, you can always move to Canada.
Yeah, I agree, I getSubmitted by
Roxi (10 points) (2 posts) on Fri, 2008-11-28 00:10.Yeah, I agree, I get confused about these things too. lol, I really don't understand WHY there has to be such a huge fuss about gay people wanting to marry in America. I just get soooo frustrated when I read about the protests against gay marriage and the passing of shit like Prop 8 in that country. Its like, how can the people and voters be that dumb? lol, I know its a different culture down there and conservatism is alive and well but still! Really really really bizarre. And at this rate it will be FIFTY YEARS before Americans have full marriage equality. :(
 Brent is absolutely rightSubmitted by
Psionycx (7936 points) (1610 posts) on Sat, 2008-11-22 18:56.And I think that altogether too many mindlessly idealistic gay rights activists have been in deep denial because they don't want to hear it. I've been saying for a long time (and getting hatefully flamed for it) that we have not yet succeeded in winning over the real group that ultimately settles the matter of civil rights - the general public. Activists like to whine and shout that the rights of the minority should not be subject to the will of the majority. Well, and I hate to be the one to break this to everyone - they are. Pretending otherwise amounts to self-deceit and ultimately costs us dearly. In the wake of their recent electoral defeats conservatives are already seeking new relevance for themselves by renewing their focus on social issues and the "culture wars". The Democrats managed to carve deeply into the Republican voter base by going after the GOP's glaring incompetence on economic issues and their mishandling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ironically, they were aided by conservatives' decisions to decouple their candidates from the gay issue in California, Arizona and Florida. The ballot measures made it possible for people who were opposed to same-sex marriage to still vote Democrat (for economic, racial and military reasons) while opposing same-sex marriage at the same time. These ballot measures have proven thirty times now that the will of the voting public can override the will of courts and legislatures. So strategies that focus solely on convincing judges to rule our way are doomed to failure in a majority of states. Even worse, this last election was not so razor thin as previous ones. The Democrats may now be faced with the possibility that they can gain more votes by not supporting us. Our narrow focus on judges and politicians has created a situation where conservatives can act us against us both through popular votes, as well as pressuring Democratic lawmakers that they can deliver more votes from the Right than the Dems would lose with the loss of the LGBT voting block, at least in Midwestern and Southern states. Anti-gay groups were able to slander us and tell outright lies because we really weren't interested in countering those lies so much as we were interested in laying out our demands. That allowed them to gain the upper hand by telling (patently false) horror stories of priests being arrested for not performing same-sex marriages or kindergartners being being made to reeanct gay weddings as part of their education. Bitching about the Democrats, which a lot of people are doing, is nothing but the highest demonstration of how simple-minded our strategy has become. All we care about are judges and politicians, public- opinion be damned. But we cannot win unless we can convince enough people to support our equality. It doesn't matter if that's "unfair". That's the way the law works in a Democracy. Period. I have no doubt that conservatives are going to start beating the anti-gay war drum. Whether it's short-sighted strategy is irrelevant. Rove's anti-gay strategy won in many places but it wasn't a remedy for GOP economic incompetence. However, as we are already seeing with the Catholic Church making increasingly nasty anti-Democrat proclaimations and Evangelicals doing the same, it becomes clear that abortion and gays are going to be the main planks of the conservative political strategy for the next few years. So as much as we may want to ignore the words of people like Elizabeth Hasselback and James Dobson, we need to ackowledge that a lot of people don't ignore them. Also, I have found that it is true that many, perhaps most, straight people don't actually understand what rights gays do and do not have in most states, or at the federal level. So it really is easy for conservatives to project false claims that we're just trying to "steal" marriage for our own pleasure. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
by 
Equal Protection Under Law
Too many people are trying to convince others about accepting "gay marriage" - something you will never convince many people to accept.
What you need to explain to them is "Equal Protection under Law" - a concept that directly affects every aspect of their lives. Once they understand the monumental importance of enforcing the principle of Equal Protection, they will accept that gay marriage is important - not because they like gay marriage, but because it shows that the fundamental element of democracy - Equal Protection under Law - is alive and functioning properly - and therefore still protects them and their interests.
It is no different than educating people about the importance of Free Speech - that you must protect unpopular speech for unpopular people if everyone, and anyone, is to enjoy Free Speech. Educate people on the greater principles and how upholding them is crucial to them enjoying liberty and justice. People will more easily understand it is in their own self interest to uphold these principles, and will more likely act accordingly.
It's the difference between saying... "you should support gay marriage" vs. saying... "Is it okay for two or more of your neighbors to vote away your rights because they decide they dislike you and outnumber you as an individual? That's why Equal Protection under Law is so important - to ultimately protect your rights and everyone else's - whether or not you approve of other people or they approve of you."
Still...
Most Important Thing
Newt Gingrich
The Democratic Party is getting a free ride
Because of America's two party dictatorship, the Democrats are getting a free ride! Yes, the Republicans are more openly and more viciously anti-gay. But the Democrats do not support equal marriage either. Both Obama and Biden did not and do not support marriage equality (i.e. gay marriage)!
I think the lgbt community has to demand more from the Democratic party! It seems as though the anti-gay rights movement is pulling the politicians towards their hate-filled agenda (and it has worked by pulling both the Republicans and the Democrats further and further towards their socially conservative agenda). Unless the lgbt community demands more, they will not receive better treatment. DEMAND EQUALITY from every politician representing you from every level of government! We can't settle for anything less than EQUALITY!
That's where you're wrong
Every major Democratic official, and several major Republicans, in California opposed Proposition 8. Obama and Biden both were opposed to Prop 8, with Biden reaffirming it several days before the election on the Ellen Degeneres show. Maybe they don't support the word "marriage" but they do support equal rights for gays and lesbians. I think in four years you'll be pleasantly suprised at how much an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress will have accomplished from a gay rights perspective.
On a more interesting note, has anyone else heard that the highest court in Nepal just issued a ruling that made gay marriage legal in Nepal? That's extremely suprising given that Nepal doesn't have the greatest history supporting gay rights. Here's a link to the news story outlining the historic ruling: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=&id=7c190914-f498-427c-ad0b-97559a3aae71&&Headline=Nepal+SC+approves+same-sex+marriage
Prop 8 could have been defeated if the Democrats cared more
As has been shown in several
AMEN!
I've found it a bit odd @ how willing everyone is to place the blame everywhere but @ their own feet. The truth is the entire opposition was just badly handled. Very simply put.
I said this somewhere else but let's clean up the gay house before we start throwing stones @ other ones.
Good idea but...
Which comes first?
If there is a breakdown in leadership in the gay community (which this has so obviously brought to light) you must start w/ that first. If there is a vacuum at the local level, there is no way you can then move it to a state and/or national level, which is what the Democrats represent.
That's like trying to change your drink from milk to orange juice except there's a gigantic hole in the bottom so everything falls through. You can't have a strong house w/out a strong foundation. You will not have a strong gay presence in the Democratic party without a strong gay presence at the local level. You just won't.
Fix that first then you can move onto fixing other things. Otherwise, it all breaks down and no one wins.
It's all about what other people have to do?
You missed the point
What is it w/ ppl on this board taking things so literally? Let me try and spell this out. Let's try this again.
I wasn't excluding myself when I was talking about gay leadership. And I certainly wasn't complaining. I can't force ppl to take a good hard look at the structure and organization and how it effects not just one issue but the entire movement. I can campaign to be a leader and an organizer but if ppl aren't up for it, and they don't want to get their act together, that's their issue and I'll just have to keep pushing for change in the best ways I know how. And that's my job. To never give up and keep fighting, even if it's in vain. And I do that everyday so yeah, thanks.
But here's the very basic truth--you can work all day and night but what are you working for if there's no plan? No basic strategy for victory? No basic framework for success? You need some kind of battle strategy and you need effective leaders. That's why this country is in an absolute dump hole right now. Complete lack of leadership at all levels and complete lack of accountability. We aren't in the mess in Iraq b/c our soldiers and marines didn't do the work. We're in this mess b/c there was a complete breakdown in leadership and accountability. Our soldiers and marines (my brother is one) are more than willing to do what is necessary but they need a battle strategy and commanders who know how to organize, delegate tasks, set priorities, and expedite the mission.
And do we need to talk about the financial industry which operated on the model of individual success versus the success of everyone? Which was given a mandate of "regulate yourself...no one in charge to make sure you aren't screwing the pooch...that'll be good for the economy!" Do we?
And this works in EVERY sector of the society. Even if you're simply talking about running your household. I'm a grown person. But when I go home to visit, my mother sets the rules. Why? Because it's her house. I can certainly argue and present different ideas on how to do things better (which I do frequently) and she asks for my advice on things she knows I excel at, such as computers, electronics, and the like. She also knows my weaknesses, the biggest of which is procrastination, and she takes steps to ensure that this weakness doesn't affect her ability to have a smooth running church and household (she's a pastor so it's one in the same some times). As the leader, she can either choose to accept the changes I've proposed or not. And she makes rules and plans of her own which I either abide by or don't but she makes it clear what the consequences of that are. She always let's me know what the "plan" is for when I come home to visit and we can talk and adjust as needed, especially if I want/need to do something (which she always asks b4 I even get home). But ultimately, it's her responsibility to set clear rules and guidelines b/c it's her environment that's on the line. She appreciates me when I offer advice but knows when to say "enough is enough. This is my decision." But she'll reap what she sows and she takes full and complete responsibility for that.
If you're an entrepeneur who owns your own business and has employees, do you just let them do whatever they feel like doing with no basic overview of the goal? No basic framework for what needs to be achieved? No sense of accountability to see if those goals have been met? No clear idea of what the message is? No understanding of what works and what doesn't? The most basic of companies from 1 to 1 million have a leadershp structure and that leadership structure has a direct effect on the ability of the workers to do their jobs. I got laid off after one company took over another (and we're talking multi-billion dollar companies here) and it wasn't because I wasn't doing my job. It was because the orginal company's leadership structure failed and decided it'd be a great idea to buy a business that had billons of debt on their balance sheet from the subprime mortgage mess before it bought our company. And then my CEO failed in his due dillegence to take this into consideration before he decided to let my company get swallowed hole by these idiots. And now? Thousands of people out of a job, a family company (which would have survived this mess, even thrived, b/c we never had anything to do with mortgages and would have made a killing in the institutional sector) is obliterated, and the big fish is in big trouble.
Why do you think Obama's campaign absolutely crushed it @ the grassroots level? It's b/c we had leaders who had a central plan of action and were able to direct the worker bees (myself included) so that our efforts were concentrated and effective. We got the message out (a clear, concise, moderated, and controlled message).
We need a direction. You knocking on one door saying one thing and me knocking on another saying something else (regardless of whether we're on the same side) is confusing and splinters. That's the point here. Not an absolution of personal responsibility. That's ridiculous. It's about hundreds of thousands of us moving in the same direction.
I'll have to disagree with
I'll have to disagree with you slightly here. Obama and Biden did come out against Prop 8 and they do, more or less, support most gay rights. They don't however support equal rights for gays and lesbians if they don't support gay marriage. Keep in mind that opposing Prop 8 and supporting gay marriage are two different things.
The Democrats do offer the better alternative right now(a much better alternative), but they still don't support the community completely. If Obama and the Dems thought us to be "equal" to every heterosexual citizen in this country, gay marriage would be as supported as any other fundamental right.
I beg to differ. Obama just announced his
commitments to GLBT issues and they include the following:
* Expanding hate crimes legislation.
* Support for the Employment Non-Discrimation Act (ENDA).
* Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples (including the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act).
* Repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” policy. * Ensuring adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
* Developing a comprehensive new national HIV/AIDS policy and confronting the stigma - too often tied to homophobia - that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
You really think a McCain administration would support full civil unions? I'd bet my life against it. Nor would McCain have done anything about DADT or gay adoption.
Do I want full marriage equality? You bet, but I'm going to operate in the real world and right now it's a world where even the liberal state of California voted against us. Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the Democrats and Republicans and that is why I call myself a Democrat.
Yes Michael, I agree that
Yes Michael, I agree that there is a significant enough difference between the Republican and Democratic party on their gay rights policies. However, that does not mean that the democrats have enough pressure on them just yet. There is more they should do and we need to demand that they do more.
Examples:
1) Does ENDA protect transgendered individuals from unjust employment terminations?
2) What about representation? How many LGBT-identified individuals have the Democrats recruited to run for office?
3) How much effort did the Democrats put into defeating Prop 8? Into educating Californians that they are amending the state constitution to take away a pre-existing right? With all that extra money that Obama had?
4) Wait, which party was in the white house when DADT was introduced?
5) Do you have human rights legislation that protects you from discrimination when seeking adequate housing, etc?
All I am saying is, this time around let's not give the democrats are free ride! They have the house, the senate, and the white house: we better see results. Maybe they need some continued pressure and continued reminders. But of course, I agree that the Democrats are better (not good enough for me but better).
Until three days ago
Barack Obama was my senator. Before that, he was my State Senator. What Michael says above is spot on. He's a very good man who will do everything in his power to make good on his word. He may not personally believe in same-sex marriage, but he also doesn't force his own religious/personal beliefs on his constituents. Nor does he agree with enshrining discrimination anywhere, let alone in any constitution designed to protect rights - not take them away.
If he can tackle repealing DOMA and approach Equal Federal Rights for LGBT couples that would be a huge gain for the community. All of his LGBT agenda issues are extremely important, but this is at the top of my wish list.
Full marriage equality is the ideal. If we can get those 1100+ Federal rights and benefits for same-sex couples that would be light years ahead of where we are now.
Gee Lee, Obama gives you so much "hope"
You say, "He's a very good man who will do everything in his power to make good on his word." Wow, I wouldn't say that about any currently elected politician that I know of but I guess each will be crushed in their own time.
I would still say congress needs more progressive pressure groups. Politicians need constant reminders to do the right thing. But I too wish you are right about Obama.
A few comments
UK Perspective
One thing to keep in mind
While there will certainly be the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich trying to fan the flames of hate, over the next year or two, we're going to see an internal reassessment of the Republican party, and a major element of that reassessment will be about their rigid association with the fundamentalist whackjobs. It was an unholy alliance--classic fiscal conservatives and religious evangelicals--and many in the party recognize that the Christianists represent both a dwindling electorate and a negative image.
This isn't to say that the fundamentalists won't put up a fight, but my gut feeling is that the Prop 8 debacle forcefully brought home to gay men and women how complacent we've become and how much more we need to fight, and that many straight allies--struck by the concept of taking away a group's rights--were horrified as well.
Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/
I hope you're right
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes