Y'know, there's a germ of a movement in foreigncorrespondent's thread

[Oeditpus Rex]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1045092

Maybe there's a windmill nearby, but it got me to thinking — what if a whole bunch of heteros did elect to give up some rights not presently afforded the GLBT population, and did so publicly, via letters to the editor or even press releases/conferences, etc. if they were organized?

Would it come across as just an empty gesture or could it actually lead to some progress?

My wheels are spinning on this because I'm just not that familiar with the politics involved. What say you?

[jgraz]

1. I will happily give up my right to marry. Ever. Again.

:hide:

[enigmatic]

3. Me too

I've always said that, and I'd do it happily.

[EFerrari]

2. I've thought about this so many times but the logistics escape me.

Yes, we make a circle around our GLBT brothers and sisters. In any way we can.

[Oeditpus Rex]

4. Yeah, me too

I can organize groups and (especially) media stuff, but I need someone to explain the ins and outs of such a movement — like, reasons it shouldn't be done, if any, or things to be aware of if it's gonna happen.

[EFerrari]

5. Imho, while we figure this out, the most important thing

is to stand with our bros and sistahs.

That's all. To look for opportunities to provide support or swell the crowd or whatever is needed.

[lonestarnot]

6. One problem with that, rights cannot be foregone.

[EFerrari]

7. You're not Catholic are you?

lol

[lonestarnot]

22. nope. I have forgone formal affiliation with any Church at the moment.

I am just a believer that doesn't go to Church right now.

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. Of course not

It'd be symbolic.

I'm just sort of thrashing around in the dark, wondering if it'd be effective symbolism.

[some guy]

9. It seems to me

that it's very difficult to give up a right without hurting oneself, or those one cares about. That's part of the problem - GLBT rights are denied as a means of punishment.

For creating awareness, the first idea that comes to me would be if supporters of GLBT rights decided to attend weddings, and at the part where the person presiding asks, "Is there anyone here who can show just cause why these people should not be joined..." stand up and raise an objection that marriage is a discriminatory practice.

The benefit of this is many people advertise their weddings in the local papers, so it would be pretty easy to find weddings to disrupt, so you wouldn't necessarily disrupt the wedding of someone you even knew.

Other than that, I don't have any ideas right off. If someone you loved was in the hospital, would you refuse to go see them on the principle that GLBT partners can be barred from seeing their partner? It seems to me all that does is hurt the person you love, who is already suffering.

:shrug:

[Oeditpus Rex]

10. I wouldn't propose

that anyone surrender a right that would affect someone else.

Anyway, as lonestarnot pointed out, we can't actually give up rights — unless we're under arrest or something. The most one could actually, practically do would be to turn down a job offer from a company that practices discrimination, or something on that order. And I'd hope we'd all do that anyway.

As for disrupting weddings, that seems too Fred Phelps to me.

[some guy]

11. I didn't say it was a good idea

just the only idea I had.

The question has been posed on DU before; it's difficult to answer.

[Oeditpus Rex]

12. I wasn't aware of that

Dammit. I hate being redundant. x(

[some guy]

13. I think it was

before the 2004 election; on the topic of GLBT Dems supporting the nominee, even if the nominee didn't speak out in support of GLBT issues, because the most important issue was beating Bush, and GLBT issues needed to take a back seat to that effort.

[Oeditpus Rex]

14. I wasn't around then

I joined... I think it was a day or two after that election. But the subject came up again for the mid-terms. I agreed with the "back-seaters" then; I don't now, thanks to quite a bit of eye-opening here.

Maybe I'm trying to make up for my erstwhile ignorance and insensitivity.

[Sapphocrat]

15. You'd be in good company.

Brad Pitt and Charlize Theron have each said s/he wouldn't marry until we could.

[Oeditpus Rex]

16. That's a noble jester... uh, gesture

But it seems it would work only for those for whom marriage is in the cards. For fugly old uckers like me, it'd just be a joke. :(

[foreigncorrespondent]

17. Really nice thought!

All it would take is for enough heterosexual people to begin handing their marriage certificates back into city hall. Of course it would have to be done right around the country on the same day, etc.

On top of that requesting political leaders live for one week like queers live all their lives. Of course I have suggested this over and over again to get people to just try to live like a gay/lesbian binational couple has to live, no one has the guts to do that.

But the funny thing is, my thread, it isn't about gaining the support of those we already have it from (i.e: people like yourself willing to go as far as losing their own rights in order for the queer population to win theirs.) My thread really began because a group of people who enjoy all the rights but continue to deny us came out in a thread today once again telling us to wait, etc. And only one person had the balls to stand up in my thread and tell me to wait. I give that person credit for having the balls. One person in this other thread even had the nerve to use the "you people" bullshit. When I saw that I saw red, and my thread was born.

[Oeditpus Rex]

18. I wasn't thinking so much of gaining support from the supporters

or, to steal a metaphor, of teaching the choir to sing, but of teaching them to sing more loudly.

I think the idea of het couples turning in their certificates is a good one. Don't know how many would do it, and it'd take a helluva lot of organization, but it's also the kind of thing that would snowball through the internets.

I'm just really tired of this crap. Civil rights issues light me up more than any others, and this one is so... ARGH! So many people simply refuse to even consider looking at The Right Thing to Do — not necessarily accepting it, but just considering it, ferchrissakes — and they're sooooooooo convinced that they're right, and that just makes me want to break things.

/rant

[Jamastiene]

19. The US government would shit itself if more and more

straight people refused to get married. If the marriage rates went way down, they would have to get off their asses and give equal marriage rights to all or accept a country where the majority are unmarried people. They would shit themselves.

[EFerrari]

20. kick for a good idea

[Connonym]

21. kick because I think needs discussing

[blm]

23. Count me IN on that - I think this is a strong route to take.

.