Gay rights activist (Cleve Jones) calls for march on Washington

[jefferson_dem]

Source: AP

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — An activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk announced plans Sunday for a march on Washington this fall to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights for the lesbian, gay and transgender community.

Cleve Jones, whose character in last year's award-winning movie Milk was played by Emile Hirsch, said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Coming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.

In an interview Friday, Jones said a confluence of events — a new president, the success of Milk which earned Sean Penn an Oscar, and Proposition 8 — makes this the right time to intensify the fight for equality.

"All of this working together has opened this new chapter," Jones said. "I intend to make the most of it."

Jones stirred up a crowd of thousands just blocks from the Salt Lake City headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Sunday. The church was part of a coalition of conservative groups that worked last fall to pass California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

Mormons were among the coalition's most vigorous volunteers and contributors, but Jones said he's had thousands of e-mails from Latter-day Saints who apologized and said they were uncomfortable or ashamed by the faith's participation.

"It's unfortunate that a church and a people who experienced persecution in the past could not come to some accommodation that would allow them to maintain their faith without so vociferously seeking to deny other people their rights," Jones said.

Gay marriage is legal in six states. A handful of others allow civil unions for same-sex couples and about 40 either bar the recognition of same-sex marriage or have explicitly defined marriage — through legislation or constitutional amendments — as between a man and a woman.

<SNIP>

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-06-07-gayrights-march_N.htm?csp=34

[sniffa]

1. Awesome - we have enough time to save up for the trip

:thumbsup:

[xchrom]

2. recommend -- but according to many on DU --

obama has more 'important' things to deal with.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

3. But we don't. n/t

:kick:

[Missy Vixen]

4. K&R

I heard President Obama restate his support for civil unions on the "day at the White House" special, and I just let out a groan.

He doesn't get it.

[John Kerry VonErich]

5. Doubt it would do any good.

They're still gonna play the "License Card" As I said before, in order to get marrage equality, then get rid of the marrage license law.


edit: poor choice of wording. sorry bout that

[zeemike]

6. It will not work in favor of progressives.

First because marches on DC have been marginalized and ether ignored by the media or used by them in a negative way.
And second the congress is funded by and owned by big bis, and will just ignore any protest however big.
Third it is a one issue march which will be used by fundamentalist as proof that the liberals are amoral and only interested in moral decay...i am sure they will have video of every outrageous act committed by the protesters and make sure it is widely distributed.
It will be demonetized in the press just like Code Pink is.
And at the end of the day the majority of people will have the impression that progressives are a bunch of wackos.

Karl Rove could not ask for a better plan.

[Tesha]

7. I guess "it's just not the right time", ehh? (NT)

[zeemike]

8. No it is the right time alright.

But it is the wrong tactics.

[KamaAina]

9. Suggestions from the floor are encouraged

Like the man said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

[zeemike]

10. Are suggestions really wanted?

Or are you just looking for a cheerleader.
My suggestion would be to join together all the progressives into a march to correct the problems with our democrocy...which would mean getting the corporate influence out of DC and allow our representatives to actually represent us.
If that could be done then you would see real change for everyone and not just a single issue.
Divide and conquerer is what works for them, and as long as they can keep us busy with single issues we will never progress and things will remain largely the same.
The truth is that the powers that be could care less one way or the other about gay marrige...but their base does, and they will use that base to support their own agenda.

[readmoreoften]

12. The march will be demonetized in the press? What's the exchange rate for a gay couple?

Yeah there's a difference between a gay pride parade and a march on LGBT issues. Don't get your panties in a bunch, there won't be leather daddies marching at a political rally.

[zeemike]

13. Does not matter...they create the images not you.

And they will spin things the way they want to spin them.
Division is the goal. And as long as they can keep one grout fighting for gay rights and the other group fighting for health care and so forth we will have the same system and the same problems.
The solution is to attack the problem not the symptoms. And lack of gay rights is not the problem, nor is the health care...it is a problem but not THE problem.

[readmoreoften]

15. Of course it is not the root problem. The root problem is the capitalist state that keeps us divided

But instead of telling gay people not to march, we should be instilling working class solidarity in straight people, and pointing out that they are being used as tools.

[zeemike]

16. I don't think it has anything to do with capitalism.

It is about power and control, and that is common in all economic systems.
But what it is about is the controlling of our political democratic system.
And long ago the super rich found that they could buy them selfs congressmen and judges and control a political party with the wealth that they had.
And once they had control of the media no one could oppose them.
And I am n ot telling gay people not to march, I am just saying that it will not attack the problem...and besides they will git what they want because it does not effect commerce and business interests. But those same interests will use homophobia as a hammer to keep their base energized.
I feel we must put aside our special interests and concentrate on attacking the real problems...the things that make our democracy only a democracy in name.
But I guess some would be satisfied just to marry and could care less whether they were ruled by the ologarchs....but not me.

[pup_ajax]

17. There might be ...

... and good on them if they are!

[cslinger59]

11. Just for the record.....

I am a straight, white, gun owning, Catholic, male and I could care less who you want to be with and don't think we should be wasting our time and money trying to legislate it. Homosexual relationships might not be for me personally but I certainly don't feel I have a right to kick your door down and wag my finger at you telling you what you can and cannot do. Personally I think the quicker we make this a non-issue the better for all of us it will be.

So in short, good luck in your quest. No reason two people shouldn't be allowed to be happy together, get married etc. Seems like a personal choice to me and one that I or the government or everybody else has no business getting involved in.

At any rate just remember that just because somebody might fall into a group that you feel HATES you or the thought of equal rights for you etc. doesn't always make it so. Equal rights and protections for all Americans as far as I am concerned.

Chris

[readmoreoften]

14. Welcome to DU. You're right. It takes a lot to keep the working class divided.

I'm a lesbian atheist and I have no problem with white, male, Catholic gun owners. Working class white male Catholic gun owners have nothing to gain from working class gays, blacks, women, and immigrants being kept down. As one 19th century industrialist put it: all I need is to do is arm one half of the working class to kill the other. All this in-fighting does nothing but divert our taxes (our wages) to state security (to *protect* us from one another) and to drive our wages down (women/latinos have less value than men, therefore they should be expected to earn less, and when this is accepted by males/non-latinos the downward spiral for everyone begins...)

For example, a job at Widget Co. accounts receivable pays $15 an hour in 1982, the company replaces men with women for $7. Men complain that "women are taking our jobs", women rightly complain that they need to feed their families, talking heads on TV debate the issue in terms of gender rights, and only leftists and union folks are pointing out that the employer is making bank. Now the job is an $7 job and men don't want it. It becomes "woman's work." Soon everything is low pay "women's work". By 1992, women are still working the accounts receivable job for, say, $8, the men in the same job are earning $11 and male and female workers are bickering amongst themselves. Widget Co has made a killing for a decade because of a divided working population.

Straight white males have every reason to be at the front of the line demanding that that gay couples don't get shafted by big business or the state that protects them.