GLAD hailed "civil unions" a momentous victory; why don't people know GLBT history or strategy?

[HamdenRice]

Most people are clueless about the history of the GLBT struggle, which is why they seem to be unable to put the loss in California in perspective, and unable to figure out where to go from here. Few seem to want to think either historically or strategically at this point.

Instead we get mostly emotional venting -- and much of it blatantly racist.

I realize that people want marriage rights now, but the idea that civil unions are some horror show, or worse, in any way comparable to slavery or Jim Crow, is truly bizarre, as well as an insult to anyone whose family went through slavery and Jim Crow and preserved the oral history of its horrors.

The litigation strategy of the mainstream GLBT organizations -- Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund -- like the strategy of the traditional African American and Latino civil rights organizations (with whom the GLBT organizations consulted closely), was a very intelligent, very strategic, very long term strategy in which civil unions were a major victory and stepping stone.

The idea was to struggle for civil unions that provided all the rights and benefits of marriage, first. Once the population got used to the idea of gays and lesbians having all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of marriage through civil unions, then it would be one last small step to abolish the semantic difference between civil unions and marriage.

One of the most important GLBT organizations to litigate these cases is GLAD. Here's a link to their explanation of how they litigated the case in Vermont that led to what they called "A Momentous Legal Victory" in attaining "civil unions" in Vermont.

So if GLAD supported civil unions how are they now "worse than slavery"?

If you go to the GLAD website, you will find this about civil unions in Vermont:

http://www.glad.org/work/cases/baker/civil-unions

GLAD’s Role in Winning Civil Unions

GLAD represented the plaintiff couples in Baker v. State, the landmark case that set the stage for the passage of civil union legislation the following year, together with co-counsel Beth Robinson and Susan Murray of the Vermont law firm Langrock, Sperry, & Wool.

A Momentous Legal Victory!

Thanks to the December 20, 1999 ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker v. State and the subsequent work of the Vermont state legislature, which enacted the civil union law in response to the court decision, same-sex couples are now able to enter into “civil unions” in the State of Vermont.

A civil union is a comprehensive legal status parallel to civil marriage for all purposes under Vermont state law. According to the Vermont civil union law, spouses in a civil union will enjoy the same state law protections and responsibilities as are available to spouses in a marriage.

<end quote>

Earlier, in 1992, GLAD helped sympathetic legislators in Massachussetts draft that state's first domestic partner ordinance.

That's why it sounds to me that many advocates of marriage who are calling civil unions and domestic partnerships somehow evil -- however, well intentioned and emotionally committed to the cause they may be -- simply don't know their own community's history.

And that's sad, and is leading to lots of ill-will and misunderstanding.

We're now almost at that end point that organizations like GLAD and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund envisioned almost two decades ago, but there have been huge and terrible setbacks, such as in California.

But the idea that civil unions are some kind of evil almost like slavery is bizarre, ahistorical and counter-factual. It was the GLBT organizations that fought for equal civil unions in the first place.

In fact, the strategy worked: the majority of Americans came to support absolute equality via civil unions, except for "the word," "marriage." Civil unions do not now provide absolute equality across state lines, but that could be remedied.

The strategic question now is whether: (1) to continue pressing for "the word," "marriage" or (2) to continue pressing for absolute equality for civil unions as a stepping stone to getting "the word" marriage some time in the future.

Right now the symbolism of "the word" has become so overwhelmingly important to the GLBT community that the leadership and legal strategists of the GLBT movement probably cannot go back to option 2. But I also don't see how they can press for option 1 in the US Supreme Court, without risking an even worse catastrophe -- namely, a definitive federal opinion that equal marriage rights aren't required by the 14th Amendment. That would set the struggle back for decades.

I suppose the best thing to do is wait for at least one Obama appointment to SCOTUS and then gamble on 1.

And btw, talking about strategy should not be construed as not supporting full marriage equality, although some will try to do so. I fully support equal marriage rights. As a pragmatist, though, I'm interested in figuring out how to get there, not on how to display the most emotional outrage, nor how to alienate the highest number of supporters outside the GLBT community.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cliffordu]

2. K&R. Good piece.

[CTyankee]

3. Why did the "word" strategy win out over the equality for civil unions?

I'm interested in knowing the rationale here. Could it be that the strategists feel a bolder step is needed? I've heard some say that CU's will become the "separate but equal" for gays that it was for blacks. What do you think of that argument?

[HamdenRice]

6. I think the strategy was going as planned, and they did not anticipate ...

such a well organized, well financed backlash.

When Loving v. Virginia was decided by SCOTUS, there was already widespread support for ending bans on interracial marriage. It was like knocking down a termite infested house.

When organizations like GLAD and Lambda realized that the majority of Americans now supported complete equality through civil unions, it was logical to go for "the word."

Sadly, that did not happen and the damage of the backlash is severe.

[CTyankee]

17. I've seen a few of the ads they ran in CA and their focus was on kids.

Basically, they seemed to say that your kids would be forced to learn in public schools that it was okay for gay people to marry and you as a parent wouldn't be able to object to it. Obviously, given the amount of money that was put into this ad campaign, they had focus tested their messages carefully. I know, it doesn't make much sense to me either but obviously it did to a swath of CA voters...

[dsc]

70. that is not even close to true

Both a majority of blacks and whites opposed interacial marriage in huge numbers.

[QC]

72. 72% opposed interracial marriage in 1968, a year after the Loving decision.

http://www.marriageequality.org/index.php?page=polls-and-studies

[HamdenRice]

84. Yes, but within a year or two those percentages changed

Moreover, the abolition of miscegenation laws had already swept through the north and west. The abolition of anti-miscegenation laws in the north and west showed that legislative majorities were in favor of abolition.

The theory of Supreme Court politics at the time was to be just ahead of the curve, but not far ahead of it.

[dsc]

88. The legislature of California did remove the marriage law

the governor vetoed. And the rest proves our point. The court decision lead to an immense change of public opinion.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. But, you said:

"When Loving v. Virginia was decided by SCOTUS, there was already widespread support for ending bans on interracial marriage. It was like knocking down a termite infested house."

And that is not supported by the facts. When one is attempting to characterize and also lecture others, the standards of honest exchange for that person are very high indeed.

[cali]

7. you didn't ask me, but how can civil unions which confer

greater rights be reasonably compared to separate but equal which codified a system of hidious oppression?

[CTyankee]

11. I hear you but I think the reasoning is that CU's just by being different from marriage

will be all the more vulnerable to watering down since it wouldn't be marriage itself and therefore wouldn't affect the religiously insane's marriages.

[cali]

14. I think marriage is the goal, but if CUs can be a useful stepping stone

than why shouldn't they be utilized in that way?

[CTyankee]

22. Well, I think they reason that if they can isolate gay rights in CUs it's just easier

to target them as stepping stones with no fallout to "marriage" which of course would be separate. I think that ultimately they will lose as the equal protection argument seems to be evolving stronger, as in CT. Gays will start marrying in CT I believe this week, as a result of this stronger court decsion in our state supreme court...

[awoke_in_2003]

87. the problem with the words "civil union"...

is all the laws concerning property ownership, beneficiaries, medical decisions, estate settlement, health insurance, etc, use the word marriage. Are we gonna go back and change all those laws to say civil union? Doubtful.

[cali]

111. you don't have to. See the Baker decisison and

Vermont. Having said that, the point I'm trying to make is not that civil unions are equal to marriage, just that they can be a stepping stone and can provide protection for gay and lesbian couples.

[karynnj]

119. Why not?

If that could be done and if it could pass at the federal level - it will do a lot to real equality. At that point, my guess is that language will follow practice. There is already no way to stop people entering civil unions from calling them marriages and having weddings. Getting the rights might actually be the bigger tougher issue.

[ourbluenation]

4. so when do we know when it's time to start using the word marriage? I say now. n/t

[cali]

9. well, i guess it depends where you are.

In Vermont, we're ready to use the word marriage and we'll almost surely succeed. In other places, it might be possible to get some form of civil union but not marriage.

[CTyankee]

26. We can in CT! n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I don't know.

Maybe the same way Plessy v. Ferguson was a step forward over slavery in the 19th century, and Brown v. BoE was an acheivement in the 20th?

[cali]

10. Slavery was abolished years before Plessy was decided.

In fact, Plessy was a step back.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Seperate but equal is a step forward from slavery.

Actual equality was a step forward from seperate but equal.

In the same way that civil unions was a step forward from blatant homophobia. And marriage will be a step forward from civil unions.

[HamdenRice]

16. OK here's some pragmatic history: NAACP and Thurgood Marshall argued separate but equal cases

to get to Brown. Like the GLBT organizations, they took a decade long strategic look at what they had to do. Marshall's biography goes into great detail about how much work he did PREVENTING civil rights cases from going forward that he did not think were appropriate for that moment in the execution of the strategy.

Grow up and think strategically.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. the NAACP and Thurgood Marschall were never content with "seperate but equal."

And thank god for that.

[HamdenRice]

21. No one said content: I said they used it strategically

Grow up.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Nobody's actually against civil unions, just not content with them.

Grow up yourself.

[HamdenRice]

27. Are GLAD and Lambda homophobes?

Because that's what's flying around -- that if you even mention CUs as a strategy you're a homophobe. That Obama would be tombstoned if he came on DU.

Obviously, GLAD and Lambda don't think so.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Are GLAD and Lambda content with civil unions?

Were Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP content with seperate but equal?

[HamdenRice]

32. Thurgood Marshall/NAACP did not struggle to establish "separete but equal"

but GLAD did indeed draft legislation for civil unions.

You have no grasp of history -- or are being intentionally dense.

[TexasObserver]

Civil Unions ARE better than nothing, but they're not better than marriages.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

Since "boy" and "man" are both words that describe a male, does it really matter if you're called "boy" instead of man? Sure it does.

You're being disingenuous. If you want to know if something offends gays, don't infer, ASK THEM.

[TexasObserver]

48. No, Plessy v. Ferguson was a step back from the advances following slavery.

You're attempting to conflate events separated by 30 years.

You see, after the Civil War, a number of measures were enacted during Reconstruction which gave blacks constitutional rights, among them the right to be free of slavery, and the right to equal protection under the law. After Hayes became president, the process of overriding and withdrawing rights given by the constitution or statute began by those who wanted to relegate blacks to permanent second class status.

The aggrieved party in Plessy v. Ferguson was a free man who had very limited black lineage, but he was still considered black under Jim Crow laws. He was something like 1/8 black. He held a ticket on a train, but when the train ordered him to leave his seat and move to another car, he refused and was arrested.

Separate but equal was only separate. It was never equal.

However, of course the state of separate but equal treatment was better than slavery, but that's like saying verbal abuse of a spouse is better than physical abuse.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Thank you.

I've been saying this for years, that people are risking losing the fight altogether for the sake of a word.

It is the rights, privileges and responsibilities that matter - not the word 'marriage'. My sister has the word. She married her partner three years ago. And today she has no fucking rights at all under the law. Repeated polls have shown that the populace as a whole supports equal rights - but stop short of calling it marriage. Fine. Put the rights on the table without the word and get that in place. Those who are united by civil unions will call themselves 'married' in any case, and will likely formalize it with a marriage ceremony as they are already doing. Eventually, after seeing that civilization didn't collapse, the distinction will disappear completely.

[Karenina]

24. Great post!

And your sensibility to frame it as EQUAL RIGHTS is spot on.

There IS a strategy to be implemented with language.

I love the German thing of capitalizing nouns. Helps to keep things clear.

[northamericancitizen]

12. Thanks for this post. nt

[tribeofdot]

15. The problem is...

These civil unions when they are given are anything but the equal contract promised.

I would be more inclined to support the civil union compromise if I thought it would ever materialize as promised. As a mirror image of marriage.

The facts are many states have outlawed both gay marriage and civil unions last I checked and the federal government isn't doing much yet, but I am hopeful.

[HamdenRice]

20. Defense of Marriage Act among other things gutted its promise

It was the most cowardly thing Bill Clinton did. I think he signed at late at night to try to keep it out of the news.

But DOMA is probably unconstitutional, and if GLAD and Lambda, Obama and the Democrats, want to pursue full equality for civil unions, while they wait for the backlash to die down, there's plenty they can do. Repeal or litigate DOMA, and pass federal legislation recognizing all state civil unions.

[tribeofdot]

29. I'm very hopeful..

That Obama will come to the rescue on this, And make good on that promise. He has said many things against that cursed DOMA law which gives me a lot of hope and faith in the man.

[cali]

23. not true. Please go read the Baker decision

Under the VT Constitution gay and lesbian couples in civil unions UNDER THE VT CONSTITIUTION have every single last right and responsibility that straight married couples have under the same constitution. Period. It is exactly a mirror immage of marriage. no wriggle room at all. Having said that, CUs here (and remember we were the first state to enact anything close to marriage) have indeed served as a stepping stone. At the time they came into existence 9 years ago, vermonters were very divided. Now most Vermonters not only support CUs by a huge majority, they support marriage- albeit by a smaller majority. And now, we're almost certain to change from CUs to marriage via the legislative process- and we'll become the first state to enact marriage that way.

[tribeofdot]

30. Interesting...

But what of that DOMA bill?

[Terran]

33. You are right about that.

State-sponsored civil unions mean little against a backdrop of a federal government that hasn't agreed to recognize CU's as being co-equal to marriage. The benefits of marriage flow almost exclusively from the federal government, i.e., tax treatment, social security survivor benefits, etc.

[cali]

68. and so does gay marriage. gay marriages are not recognized by the fed gov't

one degree more than civil unions. gay marriages in MA entitle the participants to exactly NO federal benefit.

[jonnyblitz]

19. self delete. fuck it

nevermind.

[justiceischeap]

31. Same-sex marriage: A History Lesson

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

We were just fine until Christianity came along. So if you want to talk about history and putting things in perspective let's really talk about history and perspective. If you want to talk about modern history then the gay civil, equal, human rights movement began June 28, 1969 in NYC at the Stonewall Inn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots

If you want to talk about terminology, let's talk about the fact that in some states (Florida as recent as 11/4/08) have BANNED not only marriage between same sex partners but DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS and CIVIL UNIONS too. It doesn't matter what you call it, the fact STILL remains that as LGBT'ers we are discriminated against. We are discriminated against based on religious morals and lack of education. We have been fighting this a LONG time and quite frankly are tired of being told how to fight, when we should fight and what we should fight for.

Back to your original argument. I would be ALL for Civil Unions if it were federally protected because if I chose to get married, I sure as hell wouldn't walk around and say, "I got civil unioned." I mean I don't think straight people who get hitched at a JP go around saying they got "Justice of the Peace'd." I firmly believe that the gay and straight communities working together could change the terminology but it's getting to the point where people are voting to take away any chance we have at becoming a legal entity as seen by the government and that seems to be the perspective a lot of folks are lacking.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
-Pastor Martin Niemoeller

[AntiFascist]

34. First of all this is not a Federal issue at the moment, it is a state issue...

as far as Prop. 8 is concerned, we do not have civil unions in the state of California, so pushing for them is not an option here, and I'm sure that Lambda Legal would agree with this.

It could very well be that the Federal government will want to leave marriage rights up to the individual states, as it has always been.

[HamdenRice]

35. Here's what I mean by federal

Prop 8 amended the California constitution, so it cannot by itself be unconstitutional under the state constitution.

So it has to be attacked as unconstitutional under the US constitution. A state constitution can be unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

The problem is, whether its federal constitutionality is litigated in the State Supreme Court or federal courts, it's going to go up to the US Supreme Court. And there, I don't think it would win -- yet.

[FreeState]

36. Wrong - it can be ruled unconstitutional under CA law

California Constitution:
Article 1 Sec.7

b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html

[HamdenRice]

37. Any later amendment overrides what's in a law

A fundamental rule of legal interpretation. A constitutional amendment cannot by definition be unconstitutional.

[FreeState]

39. Wrong - you can not amend it to to modify it you have to revise it

See this post:

"The California Supreme Court did in fact rule, for the first time, that Gays are not just another minority group, but a “suspect class” of minority. This status has only previously been extended to race, sex, and religious minorities. This means that discrimination against a “suspect class” triggers “Strict Scrutiny” on the part of the courts, and this analysis requires the government to come up with a “compelling state reason” for the discrimination. Historically, once a minority group has attained status as a “suspect class” discrimination against it has always been prohibited because the government has never been able to come up with a “compelling state reason” for the discrimination.

This analysis will survive Proposition 8. Gays are still a suspect class and the government will have to come up with a compelling state reasons to justify denying them fundamental rights including marriage.

This means several things; The court may rule that the California Constitution cannot be amended to take away fundamental rights from a suspect class by a simple majority vote. They may well decode that a constitutional convention is required to take away fundamental rights. This requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=221&topic_id=90019&mesg_id=90019

[AntiFascist]

38. The statement above is absolutely WRONG, and I wish I could wave a magic wand...

so that people would quit repeating it.

Prop 8 was drafted before the CA gay marriage ruling, and it did not properly take the gay marriage ruling into account. Right now, lawsuits are filed arguing that Prop 8 should now be considered a broad revision to the constitution, not an amendment, in which case it would have to pass through 2/3 vote in the legislature, or come out of a constitutional convention, neither of which are likely to happen.

This does not need to be taken to Federal court, nor should it be. Please sse my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4423010

[FreeState]

40. Thank you - I linked to your post on it as well, I wish the miss information would stop spreading as

well - it does not help the cause when people are confused over what it going on.

[justiceischeap]

41. Recent Editorial on the legalities of Prop 8 from the LA Times

Is Proposition 8 the last word on same-sex marriage in California? A debate that started this year in the state Supreme Court met its latest verdict at the ballot box Tuesday. But in the coming months, the issue will be back in front of the court, which has to sort through two important legal questions.

Proposition 8 adds a provision to the California Constitution that says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," effectively overruling the court's May 15 decision allowing same-sex couples to wed. After the initiative passed, its opponents filed a legal challenge, claiming Proposition 8 should be invalidated because it was not enacted under the proper procedures for changing the state Constitution.

<snip>

The second question is whether Proposition 8 means the state must nullify the roughly 18,000 same-sex marriage licenses issued in recent months. Although the answer is not clear-cut, retroactivity is generally not favored in the law because people are entitled to conduct their lives in reliance on the law as it exists today, without having to anticipate how it might change in the future. Same-sex couples who got married may have decided to move in together, to buy property or even to adopt children in reliance on the personal commitment and societal legitimacy that accompany marriage.

More at the article http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-liu10-2008nov10,0,3403185.story

[AntiFascist]

45. That editorial glossed over some important facts...

with the CA gay marriage ruling this is the first time that gays and lesbians are given a Suspect Classification, which places them at the same level as other recognized minorities. Also, marriage is now considered a Fundamental Right. There are strict guidelines for taking away Fundamental Rights from a Suspect Class.

The distinction between broad and narrow changes to the CA constitution can be determined quantitatively or qualitatively. It can be argued that qualitatively, granting marriage rights to gays and lesbians significantly changes the governmental plan it at least 3 major areas of the state constitution. This was not the case for the other propositions cited in the editorial.

[justiceischeap]

50. I'm in agreement with you

I read the majority opinion on the In Re: Marriage Cases and saw that part. I also saw that the Justice who authored the opinion was quick to point out that incest and polygamy do not fall under protected classes. You gotta wonder how much that chapped the Mormon churches ass... It makes me think retribution when I see that. It also makes me think about Mitt Romney and his chances of success in an upcoming general election because of his Mormon religion.

I'll take my tinfoil hat off now. ;)

[HamdenRice]

42. Amendment procedure is a state issue; but equal protection is now federal

It can be addressed in both courts. But if the amendment procedure is found valid, the state court opinion is moot.

[AntiFascist]

47. I understand...

but the strategy of taking this to Federal Court in order to establish universal civil unions is not a good one considering the current makeup of the Federal Supreme Court.

[Duncan Grant]

43. Excuse me, that was 9 years ago; GLAD doesn't advocate for civil unions in 2008.

Truth be told, Democrats would never tolerate an incremental approach to the civil rights of other members of their constituency. The question is why is it acceptable for gay people?

There is no context which will remove the stain of complicity from the Democrats who voted in favor of "Yes on 8" in California.

The strategy should be for Democratic constituencies to support gays to the degree that gays support them. I have no doubt that we wouldn't be in this position if the constituencies would remember their own history.

http://www.glad.org/work/cases/kerrigan-info

[HamdenRice]

44. Wrong again

"Democrats would never tolerate an incremental approach to the civil rights of other members of their constituency."

Of course they did for decades, for African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans and Native Americans.

Read some history. Start with the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party and LBJ's response.

[cali]

46. and lest we be forgotten- for women.

[Duncan Grant]

64. A pity that the approach they worked against seems acceptable for gay marriage. (nt)

[Duncan Grant]

63. I assumed that the word "contemporary" was implicit. My mistake.

Let's try: "Contemporary democrats would never tolerate an incremental approach..."

Everyone understands the value of reciprocity -- from politicians to school children.

Democratic constituencies turned their bigoted backs on gay people and removed their state sanctioned rights. SHAME.

[TCJ70]

49. I've had that same strategic thought...

...why not push for equal Civil Unions and THEN work towards the word marriage? After all, it's about rights, not words...right?

[Neecy]

96. it isn't just words

Civil Unions don't even approach legal marriages when it comes to rights, particularly in the area of immigration rights for our partners. There are tax and social security benefits that don't carry over into Civil Unions. Insurance benefits as well.

Civil Unions, as they are currently defined, are pretty much an empty shell, a bone tossed to make us 'feel better' and that 'progress, while it may be slow, is coming'. That's crap.

[Sgent]

127. Those "rights"

didn't exist for gay marriages either.

[TCJ70]

131. Well, this is just my thought...

...but I would start by increasing the rights associated with Civil Unions. Since the words are what everyone is getting caught up over, why not work with the words already put in place?

[BornBlue]

51. Great Post

I think the biggest obstacle that we face is we are now a nation of instant gratification, no one wants to put in the long term work any longer. This goes far beyond GLBT rights.

I think the strategy of slowly changing the publics mindset is the only way to achieve equality. When people are exposed to something new, it is only natural for there to be a large amount of resistance, we cannot force them to accept our way of thinking. Right or wrong, they have their minds made up. Compromise is the best way to win this fight in the long run. And to our GLBT brothers and sisters, my heart breaks for you that your rights do not matter to a large percentage of this country. My promise to you, is that I will try to open minds one at a time, so future generations will be able to enjoy the rights that you have wrongly been denied. I think I have already got my BIL on board after one night.

We can do this, but like anything it has to start from the bottom up, changing one person's perspective at a time, and not expecting too much in the first couple rounds. Change does come slowly, but when it finally happens, it is that much sweeter.

[AntiFascist]

53. We can also do this from the bottom up on a state by state level...

CT and MA now have legalized gay marriage, would you undo their rights for the sake of the entire country? Other states already have civil unions.

[BornBlue]

55. Of course not.

I would not advocate striping rights from anyone, my post was more for states that have no legalized gay unions of any sort.

[AntiFascist]

66. Ok, so you would want civil unions at the Federal level...

but also leave states alone as far as their own specific gay marriage rights.

You realize who we are up against? If we ask for anything at the Federal level then it is likely that the Religious Right would demand that we take away something else at the Federal level, such as the right for gays to call themselves married, which sounds like the point of this whole thread.

Also, this would make the situation in California tremendously complex where you have existing gay marriages, registered domestic partnerships, and then also the Federal civil union.

On edit: better yet, here would be an acceptable compromise - at the Federal level call it a civil marriage (as opposed to a religious marriage, which can be dictated by individual churches). That way, states which already have legal gay marriages could then be considered civil marriages at the Federal level. The Religious Right wouldn't be upset about having marriage completely "destroyed" in favor of something called a civil union.

[Zenlitened]

52. I can't find the link on the GLAD website...

... where the strategy includes ROLLING BACK marriage rights.

However, I did find this info, at the bottom of the page to which you linked:

...Civil unions were a good first step, but they do not go far enough. Civil unions create separate institutions for different groups of people and do not provide access to federal protections. Same-sex couples want and need what everyone else has—the right to receive the full protections bestowed by the state and federal government that come through marriage.

[Duncan Grant]

65. Thank you. Wish I had found that!

:applause:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

54. are you sure someone said that no marriage was worse than slavery

or did they say, that gays suffered as much as slaves. historically this would not be inaccurate since i am sure there were gay slaves. given any oppression since their will be gay people in any oppressed group, the gay person will suffer the groups oppression + the oppression of homophobia.

i find your post condescending in the extreme. the fact that you seem to think that people less than a week after a devastating civil rights loss cannot be emotional, make me feel that may be you are not passionate enough about this to understand why some of us are emotional and upset.

yes, i believe that at first their needs to be a federal civil union law before their will be marriage.

that being said your condescencion, is unacceptable and frankly quite nauseating.

[HamdenRice]

58. I'm sorry you feel that way

but I tend to concentrate on how to engineer a solution, rather than on getting emotional. If that puts us on different "sides" of this issue, although we want the same outcome, that would be pretty sad.

You well know that there have been a lot of vile posts saying suggesting various kinds of "bring back slavery" scenarios because a majority of African Americans in California voted for Prop 8. So did a majority of Catholics, but I haven't read many hateful posts directed at them.

I'm not sure why you take this analysis to be condescending. It wasn't intended to be. I have no problem with people being emotional, but if that emotion causes them to strike out blindly and say vile, racist things, I'm going to object. Can you imagine how many times we've been "disappointed" by white people or other allies, and learned to stop, think strategically and not lash out? Maybe it's a black thing.

But at least you acknowledge that despite what we would like to happen, there "needs to be a federal civil union law before their will be marriage," which I suppose means that DUers who want to think strategically and recognize that political fact, but would like to see full marriage equality, will not be excoriated as homophobes.

[Zenlitened]

61. False.

there have been a lot of vile posts saying suggesting various kinds of "bring back slavery" scenarios

[anigbrowl]

116. Regrettably not.

There was a lengthy thread to that effect yesterday or the day before (discussing it as a hypothetical, not advocating it). However such discussions are framed, i don't think they're any more helpful than the 'you lost, get over it' rhetoric from the winning side.

[Karenina]

62. How many times has the non-white LGBT community

been left twisting in the wind, COMPLETELY IGNORED by the dominant culture gay community???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4430830&mesg_id=4432018,

"Unfortunately work like this, efforts among LGBT people of color to dialogue with and work within communities of color, are among those given the least amount of resources and investment by LGBT organizations even as it becomes increasingly clear the key role that people of color can play in advancing LGBT civil rights. It is also clear that the work to build the necessary coalitions that strengthen the potential ties between communities of color and LGBT communities is something that needs to occur before we are facing a political crisis and not in the final hours of a campaign.'

[jonnyblitz]

78. holy crap you are so full of shit.

people used slavery as an ANALOGY, an extreme analogy yes, but NOBODY suggested various kinds of "bring back slavery" scenarios! you have totally destroyed any credibilty you might have had! I kind of figured you were fucked when I saw the bizarre and relentless way you went after the DU atheists in the religion/theology forum earlier on. holy CRAP!! I can't believe how you TWIST things. :crazy:

[HamdenRice]

90. The analogy?

The analogy is stupid and offensive. Imagine if someone "analogized" Prop 8 to the holocaust. How do you think a Jewish person would react to that.

It's stupid, racist, and offensive to make "analogies."

But it goes further. There were several posts proposing a referendum on bringing back slavery to see how we "feel."

More stupidity, racism and offensiveness.

As for atheists -- I'm an atheist. But if an atheist says that Christians should be shut up in mental institutions and have their children taken away -- which some were arguing for -- I'll call them out for it just like I'll call out anyone who posts stupid, offensive stuff that is racist.

See how it works?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

93. actually you are wrong again. first of all gay did die in the holocause so jewish people

arent the only ones who get to be offended. just because no one care that we died, doesnt mean we didnt

the analogy wasnt offensive. it was to prove a point: lets roll back all civil rights, and see what society looks like.. do we like this view? NO.

[HamdenRice]

94. That's not what the analogy is

It doesn't matter that there were gay people in the holocaust nor that there were gay people in slavery or who participated in the civil rights movement. It is not an analogy of Jews in the holocaust to gays in the holocaust or Blacks under slavery to gays under slavery.

The analogy that is being made is between the loss under Prop 8 and slavery (or the holocaust).

What these people are saying -- and like it or not, this is how the communication is being received -- the situation of gays in California after their loss under Prop 8 is analogous to the situation under slavery.

Even if you disagree, for whatever reason -- perhaps you think the situation of gays after Prop 8 is like slavery or the holocaust, or perhaps you think that an over the top analogy is OK -- this is how it is being understood and will continue to be understood.

Try telling an elderly Jewish person that the situation of gays in California after Prop 8 is analogous to the holocaust.

If the goal now is to build support for GLBT rights in the communities that abandoned the GLBT community in California on election day, what is the pragmatic benefit of pissing them off by using an analogy that your target audience perceives to be both stupid and racist?

Do you think that if the GLBT community launched a public campaign in the African American community to build support, and that campaign was based on analogizing the situation of GLBT people now to slavery, do you think you would win more votes or lose more votes? Please answer because I'm completely puzzled by where this is supposed to be leading.

Is there some benefit to this strategy that I'm missing?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. i think you need to link to what you are talking about, how many people are saying it

etc.

because quite frankly i think we are talking about different things.

i think you bristle far more easily if there is a perceived attack on your race than you do on homophobia.

[HamdenRice]

99. I'm sure I do, we all do

because we understand our own situations and sensitivities better. But we can also have human empathy for what others are going through also. That's the essence of coalition building.

Part of that is accepting that other groups will perceive things differently from us. There seems to be an unwillingness on the part of some GLBT people to take the pragmatic advice that going into the black community making jokes or analogies about slavery is a non-starter.

Yesterday someone started a thread with this subject line and first graph:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4429202

CA black ministers agree to go back into slavery if the "majority" votes for it?

...

By this logic then, the will of the voters being moral and right, these same black ministers would willingly go back into slavery if the majority of voters in California voted for such a thing to happen.

<end quote>

Some straight white people called this out and some GLBT people of color called this out, but some GLBT people defended it and suggested that anyone who was offended by this was a homophobe.

I know you're a smart sensitive person, so I have to ask: are you not able to see why this post was offensive?

Is this kind of rhetoric how you anticipate getting the support of the African American community?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. i think its perfectly ok to point the complete lack of logic in this

i do not see this post as offensive. this is the exact kind of post i was alluding to.

ministers and other leaders have a moral obligation to atleast understand tyranny by majority.

i think you are determined to see any thing that equates or draws analogy to slavery as a racist issue. maybe because you dont see our oppression as particularly important to the oppression that occured to your ancestors. so how dare we even try to use the oppression of black people as an analogy that morality is not determined by majority and numbers.

i think your attitude about this is pathetic. really sad and pathetic.

[HamdenRice]

102. My family has been in this country for over 200 years, most of it as slaves

My father could recite his geneology going back to Mama Suki and Africa Jones.

We've still had more generations in this country as slaves than as free people. The stories about slavery are not pretty, so I won't bore you with them.

But nothing, frankly, that any of us is going through compares to slavery. Any analogy of any social condition existing in America today to slavery trivializes the reality of slavery which was passed down in my family's oral history.

If you can't understand that, if you can't understand why trivializing slavery by using it as an analogy or suggesting any black person would "willingly" go back to slavery, is offensive, why on earth would you expect me to understand how you feel about Prop 8?

The answer seems to be that you don't want mutual understanding on the basis of "trust me how I feel about Prop 8 and I'll trust you how you feel about slavery" and vice versa. That is the basis of all coalition politics.

Your inability to grasp that is what is sad and pathetic -- much more so than the actual issues at hand.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

103. but no one is trivializing slavery. you're just insisting that they are.

they are trying to draw analogies to why the majority rule argumetn doesnt always work

however you are determined to see this, in one way.

[HamdenRice]

105. Yes I'm determined to see it this way as do the majority of African Americans

What can't you grasp about different groups seeing the same thing differently?

What if I said, hypothetically, "I can't for the life of me understand what the fuss is about Prop 8? You're in the same position you were in a few months ago. You have civil unions. blah blah blah."

I would never say that because I have no idea how GLBT people feel about this issue. I trust your perception of your own situation and sensitivities.

You don't trust my perception of my own situation and my own sensitivities. You won't even listen to African American GLBT people who are saying the same thing.

Where does this staggering, stupefying arrogance come from -- my experience and perception is wrong; your perception of my experience and sensitivities is right?

This is how coalition politics work: I don't question Jews' perception of the holocaust; I don't question Native Americans' perception of the Indian removal and genocide; I don't question how Puerto Ricans feel about being citizens of the last colony on earth; I don't question what it feels like to have a state vote to deny my marital rights. You know why? Because my grandparents weren't in the holocaust, my people didn't go through the Trail of Tears and pass down those stories, and I don't have the bizarre situation of being able to vote for president in New York, but not in San Juan or Ponce, and I don't have the experience of not being able to marry.

What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

Go ahead -- go into your nearest Black community and campaign for a change of understanding of GLBT issues using slavery as the analogy. Don't trust me -- do the experiment. Go ahead discount what I'm saying and what your African American GLBT brothers and sisters are saying because you apparently know best for us -- and what's best for your own campaign.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

107. i have spoken to african american glbt friends. they feel much the same way i do.

why would you assume i havent spoken to them? they feel that their community betrayed them.

"Where does this staggering, stupefying arrogance come from -- my experience and perception is wrong; your perception of my experience and sensitivities is right?" could be said about you, when i told you, your thread is nauseating and condescending. you're not just accusing racism which i would understand is "your sensitivity" but essentially telling us we should be happy where we are, because glaad said it was a good first step 10 years ago.

you have yet to show me an overwhelming number of white gay duers who think gay marriage and slavery is the same thign, though you have said it a dozen times

[HamdenRice]

109. Considering you are now making stuff up ...

why should I believe you had these conversations. On DU, the GLBT people of color seem to have a very different view.

Read the OP. Never once did I say "we should be happy where we are, because glaad said it was a good first step 10 years ago." You and I both know that. Why you would fabricate this, is a mystery to me. I said that CUs were part of a 20 year strategy to get to marriage, which I support, and that the movement has some difficult strategic questions ahead. Not once did I say what you attributed to me, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for lying to make a point.

There have been how many posts bringing up slavery as an analogy to the status of GLBT people in California and just upthread gave you a link. Can you show me links of people condemning such analogies? You won't even condemn it here, but instead defend it. What more evidence do I need?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

110. I'll repeat this one more time, that we are not equating slavery to gays not having marriage rights

the analogy is only that majority rule doesnt make it moral.

[HamdenRice]

120. Three simple rules to coalition politics in modern America: ---->

Rule the First:

You do not fuck with the holocaust. With the holocaust, you do not fuck. You do not compare it. You do not analogize anything to it. Of course, you do not trivialize it. Comparing anything to it, is of course trivializing it. Historians, cultural critics, philosophers and ethicists have examined this issue and there is no comparison in this century or any other to its evil. It was Shoah. There is nothing to compare it to. In case you are too thick to understand the first sentence of this rule, let me repeat it: With the holocaust, you do not fuck.

Rule the Second:

You do not fuck around with the genocide of the Native Americans. It is haram, taboo, beyond the pale. You do not analogize anything to it. You do not trivialize it. You do not compare anything to it because that trivializes it. You do not play "clever" verbal games with it. No other group lost both a continent and over 90% of its population. It is not like losing a case in court or losing a proposition in an election. With the Native American genocide, you do not fuck.

Rule the Third:

You do not fuck with slavery or the slave trade. It's a black thing. Unless your grandmother sat you down by the fireside, down on the farm in the South, and told you stories about slavery, don't go there. You'll never understand. Trust me. Don't try. Don't try to tell African Americans to get over it. Don't analogize it to some recent political loss, no matter how serious it seems to you. If you think you know anything about it, it's almost guaranteed you don't. Start with the assumption you don't fucking know what the fuck you are talking about. Don't tell anyone what their emotional reaction to their grandmother's stories of slavery should be. With slavery and the slave trade, you do not fuck.

<end of rules>

Disagree if you like, but you will make a complete and total ass of yourself, which you have done today, if you violate these simple three rules. By corollary, if you don't want to make a complete and total ass of yourself, you will follow these simple three rules. These rules are not difficult to follow. They don't require one to do anything affirmative; they only require one not to do something affirmatively idiotic, asinine, offensive, and racist or anti-Semitic. Therefore, they are not difficult rules to follow.

Is that clear enough?

[Toasterlad]

134. Since Gay People Suffered Through All Three of Those Atrocities

I'd say we understand that better than you.

Your attempt to twist La Lioness' words to make a case against her is transparent, and completely invalidates your OP, which wasn't all that solid to begin with.

GLAAD from 9 years ago isn't the boss of me. Thankfully, neither are you. But your opinion is noted.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. The first public art I ever saw dedicated to gay people

was a Holocaust memorial. So, the Jews would say, of course, they suffered and died with us. This is a fact that seems to have missed only you, but facts are not what you are about here today, that much is proved over and over on this thread.

[HamdenRice]

100. Jesus, Joseph and Mary, ...

This is so simple I can only conclude some people don't want to understand.

As I explained upthread, of course gays died in the holocaust. But the analogy being made is not between the experience of gays in the holocaust to the experience of Jews in the holocaust. The analogy would be between the experience of gays in California after Prop 8 to the experience of Jews in the holocaust.

Are you really going to try to say that the experience of gays in California after Prop 8 is similar to the experience of Jews in the holocaust?

If so, I can only conclude you are an anti-Semite. No one in their right mind who knows anything about the holocaust and cares about Jewish sensitivities could in good faith make that ludicrous analogy.

Same with slavery. The analogy is not between gay slaves and straight slaves; its between the experience of gays in California after Prop 8 and African Americans under slavery.

If you make that analogy, not only are you basically an idiot, but you are trivializing slavery, which strongly suggests you are a racist idiot to boot.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. Wow.

Do you feel free to speak for everybody, as well as to anyone in any manner you see fit? You know, you are not up to this discussion at all. You accuse and falsify, you constantly attribute the words of some unliked posters to all GLBT people. You call me a racist, anti-semitic idiot. Do you hear yourself?
You posted:"Imagine if someone "analogized" Prop 8 to the holocaust. How do you think a Jewish person would react to that."
You heard the answer. The Jewish people know very well who Hitler went after. And they know how he managed to get there, and Prop 8 is very much alanogous to the laws that paved the way for the Holocaust. Very much so.
I've said noting about slavery at all, and yet you claim I am trivializing i and call me a racist idoit. The word 'prejudice' means to pre judge others. Think about that. Then read your posts about how others are 'emotional' and you are rational. Think about that.
Sorry to disappoit you, but words of hate and division from one of your mindset are not much of a threat to me. Not born yesterday, this is not the first time I've been in discussions about these things. Angry words from a hyperbolic hysteric hell bent on preaching to others will not impress me. Your tactics are those of a bully. I don't like bullies at all.
People here know who I am and what I stand for and whom I stand with. Some folk even know who to search DU before they take a slash on a real person.
Good luck to you, and peace, and try to think about others as humans when you speak to them, not just here but in life as well. It helps

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AntiFascist]

122. Let's approach this from another point of view...

suppose that at some point in the future the Religious Right decides that only Jews who accept Christ deserve full human rights (this is not too far-fetched considering some of their rhetoric). Jews who still cling to their old religions, together with Muslims and other non-Christian faiths, are then to be treated as second-class citizens. This would be anti-"Semitism" in the purest sense. Suppose that this creeps into the state constitution simply in the form of how to legally assign the label "church", only Christian churches can use the label Church (in legal documents) with a capital "C", all other places of worship must use lower-case "c". This would then pave the way for favorable tax treatment or other legislation favoring the big-C "Churches" over everything else. Do you see how something as relatively innocent as this is similar to what is being done with gay marriage?

The Religious Right is very quick to cry "persecution" when they are not allowed to impose their beliefs on others. You do realize that Nazis began their campaign with the claim that the German people were being financially "persecuted" by Jewish bankers and businessmen?

[HamdenRice]

126. Suppose, suppose, suppose

You do not compare Prop 8 to Nazi Germany. To do so trivializes what happened there and is an insult to millions of Jews, Roma, Catholics, democrats, socialists, communists, progressive Protestants, and yes gays, who died in the concentration camps.

We're not talking about what the religious right might do in a Star Trek episode. We're talking about California today. You do not compare it to Germany. Don't.

See post 120.

Cut it out and stop trying to justify it.

[AntiFascist]

128. My point is that Nazi Germany is about a lot more than just concentration camps...

it started out as a social movement that began to favor one classification of people over another, which eventually infected their politics and their laws. Of course the Holocaust was so horrible that nothing else can compare to it, but we also need to recognize the social forces that brainwashed the people leading up to that point.

[cali]

123. I don't think you've written anything at all anti-semitic

but you're wrong about vote on prop 8 being analogous to the Nuremberg Laws. They simply are not. There's actually no way to make that argument and have it make any historical sense. The closest you can say is that it withdraws a right extended, but hardly of the kind that the Nuremberg Laws did.

[yardwork]

56. Civil unions for gay people were outlawed last Tuesday in Florida.

They've been made illegal in many states, and are not available in many more.

[HamdenRice]

60. That should be a priority of the Obama administration

I'm a pragmatist, not a purist. I realize this might not be popular, but I see an opening.

The Democratic leadership like Obama say they are for civil unions. The public overwhelmingly supports them, although they balk at marriage.

In addition to repealing DOMA, perhaps the administration could pass legislation encouraging states to adopt civil unions or punishing those that do not. Punishing states that did not adopt civil rights legislation was one of the ways the feds promoted civil rights: for example, giving money to states, but providing conditions that the states could only use the money if they enforced anti-discrimination.

Ultimately, the single most important first step is DOMA. It's blatantly unconstitutional. If GLBT folk can cross the border and "marry" or "civil unionize" and their home states have to recognize it, this will be over in a few years.

[Bucky]

57. There's a certain "Dred Scot" pyrrhic quality to the anti gay victory last week.

They won, but the tide of history will not be stopped.

[HamdenRice]

86. Nice analogy, but hopefully the reversal won't take as long ...

nor require a civil war!

[nichomachus]

59. Well-written -- fundamentally flawed -- but well-written -- also misleading n/t

[cali]

67. as you won't or can't explain how the OP is fundamentally flawed

your comment rings completely hollow.

[nichomachus]

69. Would you vote for a proposition

That said blacks can have civil unions in a handful of states and white people can be married in all states?

No difference, right? So, you'd most surely agree to that. Civil unions - marriage -- same thing. So, why would black folks care? You'd agree to it in a minute. Wouldn't you?

There are just so many things wrong with this piece that it's almost not worth outlining them all.

[cali]

71. deeply flawed "logic"

if blacks currently had no rights of marriage, you might have a point. Again, civil unions can be a tool for full marriage equality, as they were in CT and as they undoubtedly will be in VT. Conferring rights is entirely different than taking rights away. Are you honestly saying you'd deny rights via civil unions if a state was willing/able to pass civil unions and not full marriage. I find that very disturbing.

[Bluebear]

73. GLAD is advocating a challenge of this proposition, not a back-tracking to civil unions

http://www.glad.org/current/news-detail/next-steps-in-california-marriage-equality-fight/

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

75. But, but..the OP has a 9-year-old article saying you're wrong!

[Bluebear]

76. And a lot of people agreeing, "good post!" etc. . .

So what do I know? :crazy:

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

79. Silly queer

[QC]

77. Ungrateful wretch! n/t

[HamdenRice]

83. Did you read the OP?

Of course GLAD is challenging the proposition as part of a long term, multi-decade strategy that involved first establishing civil unions and then moving toward full marriage equality.

What about that do you not agree with?

[Fearless]

74. History is not made in leaps and bounds, but in baby steps...

As annoying as that can be, it's nevertheless true almost all of the time.

NTF

[ruggerson]

80. Mr. Rice, I've been involved in the marriage fight since Baehr vs. Miike

and there are a number of other people on DU who have slogged it out for longer than I.

While I understand your larger point about politics being the art of the possible, and in some ways agree with it, the fact that you seem fit to lecture GLBT folk, of all colors, about their own history and the fact that you excuse people who voted for Prop 8 as merely voting to "maintain a verbal distinction between marriage and civil unions" is a little disconcerting.

You also accused "most" of DU's white GLBT'ers of overt racism and of using rhetoric that would "embarrass Free Republic and the Klu Klux Klan."

Now, we're all permitted a little hyperbole in the midst of a heated discussion, but I find it curious that you have participated in demonizing an entire group of citizens, because of the arguable excesses of a few, which is exactly what you are accusing them of doing to the black community.

If you would like to learn about the history of both the civil union and the marriage fight, just ask us. Come into the GLBT forum if you want and we'll try to give you tons of resources. We won't bite ya.

And I would advise you to listen very closely to GLBT people of color on this one. I and others have started numerous threads meant to start a positive discussion - a few about Bayard Rustin, one about giving props to famous and not so famous GLBT African Americans. You chose not to participate in any of them, but popped up quite frequently in threads where you flamed people as racists.

So, you ignored the threads meant to start a dialogue and then you lecture us about civil unions vs. marriage.

Just what is your agenda?

[IndianaJones]

82. Straight, non-whites were accused of....reverse racism, I guess. nt.

[QC]

89. Good thing you're not holding your breath waiting for an answer

to these very pertinent questions.

[Karenina]

91. From the OP:

"And btw, talking about strategy should not be construed as not supporting full marriage equality, although some will try to do so. I fully support equal marriage rights. As a pragmatist, though, I'm interested in figuring out how to get there, not on how to display the most emotional outrage, nor how to alienate the highest number of supporters outside the GLBT community."

If attacking friends and supporters is your strategy of choice, do carry on. Perhaps you have noticed the black GLBT posters who have been run off this site in the last week by a few persistent, pissed-off-at-blacks posters. I did.

[HamdenRice]

92. Agenda?

So everyone whose view is different from yours must have an "agenda" rather than a different point of view? Maybe you could explain what your "agenda" is so I can understand what you are getting at.

Do you read FreeRepublic? Did you read the context of my statement about them? In fact, FR is quite racist, but they, like Republicans in general, tend to use "dog whistle" racism rather than straightforward racist remarks. I've never read there anything like "blacks are now the enemy" or "let's have a vote to bring back slavery." I don't read FR very often, but that' my impression. Yet I've read that here over the last week, and with the exception of GLBT people of color, no one seems to object or call that language out. The impression is that "most" (note: not all) DUers who are not people of color are OK with that language as a reaction to Prop 8.

So let me ask you: do you object to that language or not? You can clarify this right now.

I've precisely stated my stance in the OP: I'm in favor of full marriage equality.

As for listening to GLBT people of color -- that's exactly what I've done. Have you? Most of them are outraged and depressed by the language coming out in response to disappointment over Prop 8. Why don't you state clearly what else you think I should be getting out of their statements.

As for the history, I fail to see why I should not explain history and theory I'm familiar with. I've taught various courses that include segments on marital property, and spent a lot of time over the last decade and a half, following, researching and teaching at the graduate level, the emergence of same sex marital rights and the imperative, under the 14th Amendment of full marital equality. Your argument seems to be contradictory: you seem to be saying that I should not share what I know, but that I should also participate in the GLBT forum, which I do. Could you clarify what you are trying to ask or suggest?

[Bluenorthwest]

104. You should stop with the generalizations

the willful misreading of rhetorical devices and the foisting of decade old material as current positions of major GLBT organizations. You should stop saying things that are false.

You say:
"with the exception of GLBT people of color, no one seems to object or call that language out"

I take personal exception to that statment. Just so you know. You are speaking about actual individuals. Attempts to dehumanize and depersonalize the other are not something I associate with a progressive mindset. Lumping people into groups and using the worst to characterize the whole is wrong for anyone coming from anywhere, no matter what point they may be attempting to make.

[HamdenRice]

106. Did you call out those posts?

Did you disagree with them?

Why not just say yes or no and the issue would be settled.

[Bluenorthwest]

113. Allow me to repost what I posted yesterday to one of those

You are going astray
Those churchs you cite can not be simply called 'black chruches' anymore than the kind Lutherans up the street from me can be equated with some lunatic haters. Some black churchs, this is true as some white churchs. Also true is some do the opposite.
I have sat in African American churches in Los Angeles that were hugely inclusive. I have sat in huge auditoriums filled to the rafters with Church people almost exclusively black, and gay folk of all colors, joined in unity for common good, so many years ago that the white churches had no equal, none at all.
I can name you people like Coretta Scott King, Rev Carl Bean, Patti La Belle, Dick Gregory, Cici Houston, Ms. Dione Warwick is a freaking Saint in my gay heart for all she has done, Rev Sharpton, the list goes on as long and strong as any that can be made on the opposite side.
I myself came out surrounded by African American people both straight and gay, who not only supported me, but served as teachers and examples and showed me how to be courageous and be myself.
Some of these people even dragged me to church to show me that unlike the white churchs I was familiar with, there were some that were open and inclusive and black. These congregations redeemed the chruch in my heart. That must be said, I must say that.
And sure, there are those other churches in every community. No one would argue otherwise. Bigots come in all the human modles currently in use, you know?
And lest I sound like some preacher man myself, let me say that over the last week it has been a challenge to me not to call every chruchy person the worst of all names, and I may have even done so here. I can still get pissy with the church thing. But never along racial lines, because you see, it is simply not accurate, nor is it the right path. I'm just saying that.
We all have to listen more and tell less. All of us Americans need to do that.
_____________________________________________

and there you go. I have a long history, and it ain't no secret. Not by a long margin.

[HamdenRice]

118. Thank you

Sometimes the signal to noise ratio here is miniscule and I had not distinguished you from the majority impression. That said, it would be nice if the "slavery" analogies were more directly addressed.

Also, I'm worried about the whole "crunchy" church thing, but that appears to be more related to typing that politics.

[Karenina]

129. Na, Du!

:spank:

[Bluenorthwest]

132. i'm glad I was able to get through

My typing sucks due to having a bad hand, spine thing going on, and I forget to spell check.
The subject at hand is actually one that I care about deeply and have for ages, and, not due to my own grooviness, but due to great good fortune in my life, and the people who influenced me, not for their sake, but for my benefit, and even profit.
The slavery threads, well, hard to go there at all for me. An extemely poor choice of expressive tools, to be generous. I think mostly it comes down to people who are willing to toss moderation and thought aside to make a point, without thinking about how it sounds, and more importantly without thinking about actually making a point. The two things are not analogous at all, but the history of the one should of course make all thinking people tremble to legislate away any human rights. The fact of slavery should make us as a nation repulsed by any suggestion of one group being superior by law to another. Because of slavery we should always be careening madly toward the even reckless extention of human rights and liberties. Because of that, one thing that truely can be call 'sin', we as a nation should lead the world in setting higer standards of dignity and autonomy for all people, regardless of anything. We should be mad for extention of freedom. Because of what our forebearers did, and what they suffered. The only possible memorial to great human crimes such as the holocaust or slavery is constant diligence and attention to any and all injustice, as quickly and thoughly as we are able, for as Dr King said, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
And when they want to take it away from everybody, they start with the underdogs, with the same old list of favorites, the blacks the Jews the gays, it does not end, the Romany people, the Irish, the women, the Native peoples, it does not end, until we make it end and we can not do that unless we always stand together, because unless you are the top dog, we are all of us underdogs....
I heartily hope that those posting about slavery and all were trying to say something like that. I also gladly say that such subjects are not for those who can not speak clearly, and only safe ground for those with love in their hearts, which can always been seen, I think, if it is there and we squint hard enough....and the internet is a daunting context for this sort of conversation. If only we could meet in a huge room with Powerpoint presentations and excellent snaks, I'm sure we could make universal love come down almost instantly.
Peace and best to you.

[ruggerson]

135. It's pretty simple

My agenda is full equality. There should be no distinction in the law between hetero couples and gay couples.

To answer your queries:

Free Republic is a racist site. If you haven't been there over the last few years, then you haven't seen what they write about Muslims on a daily basis. It's overt racism, not dog whistling. I agree, they are not overtly racist when it comes to African Americans, but that's only because they would be even further isolated and ostracized if they let their true feelings be known. It's a measure of how much progress black Americans have made that even far rightwing loon sites can feel compelled to be restrained about overt anti black racism. They are not so constrained when it comes to homophobia. Every anti gay epithet and stereotype and ugly lie gets thrown around there on a daily basis.

I'm not ok with any racist allusions whatsoever, whether they come from whites, blacks, asians or anyone else. But just because all GLBT DUers didn't condemn over the top analogies to either slavery or the holocaust does not make them racists or anti semites. It just makes them human beings who had just suffered one of the biggest human/civil rights setbacks this country has seen for many years. Surely you've seen anger and hurt and invective in the black community at times, for example, of racist police brutality and profiling.

I'm not a big fan of comparing notes or playing one upsmanship about which minorities in this country are more maligned, because it can be perceived as divisive and non productive. I would rather focus on things that bring us together. If there is education to be done in the black community about gays and lesbians, the best people to do it are black GLBT folks, imho, because they can understand the issues involved from a perspective no one else has. For the record, I was saying BEFORE this vote that the outreach to the black community re Prop 8 was abysmal. Look how many responses this thread got:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7677791

and look how many responses this thread got:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7702230

Pretty pathetic, eh? Those were BEFORE the vote.

The best way to move forward is for both communities to LISTEN to each other. THere are many, many things about being African American in this country that I will in no way EVER understand. There are many things about being gay or lesbian in America that a straight black person will never understand. Our friends who straddle both communities have their work cut out for them, because they are the ones best suited to broker and foster better understanding. They need both h straight allies in the black community and white allies in the gay community.

I appreciate your support for full, unfettered marriage equality. What you and I both should be doing is spreading the word about Peter Gomes and other heroes like him and educating people about our shared histories. How many people in the AA community do you think may not know the real struggles of Bayard Rustin, Barbara Jordan and James Baldwin? The fact that many don't speaks volumes about the long road ahead of us.

[Rwalsh]

81. The states should get out the marriage business altogether.

They should just let people live together, give them their rights, benefits etc. and leave marriage to the churches.

[TransitJohn]

85. I'm with Jesse Ventura on this issue.

All governments should not issue marriage licenses at all, but civil unions to homosexual or hetereosexual couples. Then, "marriage" would be out of the realm of the state and the small minded bible thumpers could deny to marry homosexuals in their congregations; it's not like there won't be ministers almost everywhere that would perform marriages for religiously inclined homosexuals.

[RedCappedBandit]

108. There's nothing wrong with demanded what's right. NOW.

[HamdenRice]

125. You're right. There's also nothing wrong with figuring out how to get those rights

in the future if you can't get them now.

[readmoreoften]

114. Edit

1) The organization you point to is a minor regional group, not some enormous organization that sets an agenda for all LGBT people. And Lambda Legal has a pragmatist position of getting whatever it can, not a long-term strategy. So what? That means nothing. Do you think that Lambda Legal doesn't know that civil unions and marriage aren't the same thing?

Sorry, I was too busy listening to what the National Black Justice Coalition has to say on the matter, thanks.

2) The post you call out as "minimizing slavery" isn't ISN'T EVEN WRITTEN BY AN LGBT person, as far as I can tell. So who the hell are you to tar and feather LGBT people over what a straight person says. Do you also accuse "black people" of carrying a message because a white person makes an over the top analogy?

3) If LGBT people don't know their own history it's because it has been burned by their families and discarded by libraries are "filth."

4) Clearly you don't know LGBT history: you obviously don't know that 100,000 gay men and more than a handful of lesbians were murdered by the Nazis and more were used as human experiments--including Jewish LGBTs so it's not a "jew" vs "gay" situation.

5) You talk about this poster's trivialization of slavery because this poster used the technique of HYPERBOLE to discuss this issue, but your obnoxious comments trivialize the history of LGBT people as some small insignificant oppression. Being burned alive, cut in two, castrated, lobotomized, having our clitorises cut off, raped by medical therapists, shot up with hormones, gang-raped by police, being hunted and killed for sport since the spread of Christianity and Islam--the latter 5 abuses still being committed in the 20th century and even into the late 20th century--you have trivialized the suffering of LGBT people over 1/4 of whom have suffered PHYSICAL gay bashing according to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

No one has trivialized the mind-numbingly destructive, uniquely American, history of racial slavery--although that straight poster's words were blunt and not accounting for the pain that such a casual mention of slavery would cause--the reality is that issues of minority rights within our society have always been ruled by the courts, not decided upon by the majority. No one voted to end slavery, segregation, or prohibitions on interracial marriage. These were ended by the courts. I think you're also naive to assume that none of these organizations who believe in "voting on rights" don't consider the aforementioned votes to also have been "unfair" to "the ignored white majority."

[Karenina]

115. THIS IS GREAT!

Prop 8 has revealed the festering anal pustule of bigotry that informs its passage, and the reaction thereto, on so many levels.

Watching from afar, I was not shocked by the Yes win or reaction, particularly having read a September warning and then hearing about THE CHILDREN ads. :eyes:

The only constructive discussion is about what we do NOW, each in his own sphere. Homophobia has its manifestations and hypocrisies everywhere in the world. I hardly think the Black community is different in this regard and reject the premise that it is more prevalent. That said, the relevant issue is making certain that EQUAL (CIVIL) RIGHTS are NEVER presented for simple majority approval.

(Now why did ol' Tante K put civil in parentheses? Because she's used to stepping around linguistic landmines to peel off support wherever she can get it. )

There's a WHOLE LOTTA GOOD that could come out of lancing this nasty boil of -isms and phobias.

[customerserviceguy]

121. I've made the same points here

and gotten shot down for it. At this point, we're fighting over a word, and right now, the pro-discrimination forces are winning that battle. Their essential message to the straight and narrow is, "What you have is different from whatever "those" people have. And it is the only thing that is entitled to be called 'marriage'. They already have the essential rights anyway."

Wrong, but it's been working.

[CTyankee]

124. Not in CT!

Our state Supreme Court wrote the most progressive progay marriage decision yet in the U.S. and the voters soundly defeated an attempt to undo it through a ballot question on November 4th. Tomorrow CT gays and lesbians will be able to go down to city hall and get their MARRIAGE licenses!

Hooray!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

133. The funny thing is I have NBC News (NYC) on right now

And GLAD, the same organization the OP is quoting (from a 9-year-old article) is on supporting full marriage rights, not civil unions.

[CTyankee]

136. CT has a stricter scrutiny test than any other state, including MA.

It's an edgy decision and moved the debate along significantly. But because the anti gay groups didn't have the Initiative option available to them they had to go the route of a ballot question asking if the state should hold a Constitutional Convention. Too many oxen could be gored by opening rights up to a CC so a coalition of interests defeated the ballot question on Nov. 4. I'm not sure what would have happened here if it were an Initiative question and I haven't read any of the political back stories about polling, etc yet that brought us to our victory here today.

The CT decision is landmark and, while only a state level decision, has moved the legal language to a whole new realm. This is where I believe the debate should be at this point.

[RoyGBiv]

130. Thank you for this thread ...

Your OP is very well constructed and argued, and your follow-up conversations in various places are quite illuminating.