November 20, 2008
Back to the future on gay rights?
Posted by: Chris
Even the most rabid anti-gay conservatives rarely trot out the tired old chesnut about a looming "gay agenda." Anyone with access to the Internet can see that we can't even agree on who are enemies are, much less what it is we want from government.
Take this essay in the Advocate by young D.C. activist Lane Hudson, the former Human Rights Campaign staffer made famous by the anonymous website that outed Mark Foley's instant message shenanigans.
No one appreciates more than me Lane's initial observations about the failure of our movement "leadership" to raise expectations beyond what has already been promised and not delivered for more than a decade now:
The Human Rights Campaign Fund began in 1980 with the purpose of lobbying Congress for this very reason. Since then, no major piece of legislation has been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president. On the contrary, we have seen a ban on gays in the military and the Defense of Marriage Act passed. Our only successful defensive maneuver was to prevent the passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Given our record, a change in strategy is warranted. The "stay the course" crowd's response to this is usually a "let's wait our turn" attitude. Our time at the back of the bus must end. Now.
Hudson's actually too young to remember firsthand the history he's reciting, but he's dead-on about the consensus outside the Beltway that hate crimes and ENDA are not nearly enough. His solution -- and one I've heard knocked around by some of my liberal friends in the gay media biz -- is back to basics:
Rather than ask for a version of ENDA that is vastly watered down from the version originally introduced by representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch 30 years ago, we will honor their leadership and ourselves by insisting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This will grant sweeping protections enjoyed by other minorities in America, in employment, credit, and housing, among other fields.
I admire Lane's pluck, but this idea of amending the Civil Rights Act is, unfortunately, a solution in search of a problem, and one that would create a whole new around of headaches.
Put aside that 20 states already ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and 7 of those (and D.C.) include gender identity protections as well. Put aside that earlier this year yet another federal court ruled that anti-trans discrimination is already illegal under Title VII (albeit a non-universal conclusion). Put aside the "third rail" nature of tinkering with the Civil Rights Act, and the further strain that will put on our already frayed relationship with many African Americans.
The fact is that the significance of such legislation would be largely symbolic. No one is marching in the street because we're refused rooms at hotels, service in restaurants and lunch counters or seats at the front of the bus. Has anyone ever seen a "queer-only" water fountain?
Many African Americans would justifiably find it downright offensive to suggest we are denied fair access to housing loans when they've witnessed how white gays gentrify their neighborhoods, flip their houses and leave behind sky-high property taxes.
The Civil Rights Act also brings with it disparate impact suits -- where employees can sue for discrimination based on percentage representation in the workforce and management. Given how personal and private many gays view their sexual orientation (and trans folk their gender identity), this presents enormous problems of its own.
And what about affirmative action goals for gays and gender-nonconformists -- is that really on anyone's agenda? It's a trainwreck only a mole for James Dobson would suggest!
Besides, look at the kinds of cases we see in states where such broad-based non-discrimination laws exist -- like today's eHarmony settlement in New Jersey, where our "victory" is a separate website to match-make for gays, as if any self-respecting homo should trust their love-connection to admitted homophobes.
No doubt real discrimination exists in housing and public accommodations, and in states where there's no existing legal remedy. For those cases, as they say, "there oughta be a law."
But why pick the speck out of the private sector's eye -- risking critical civil rights alliances -- when there is a giant log in our own government's? Our very own federal government won't let gays serve openly in the military and engages in blatant discrimination against same-sex couples in more than 1,200 ways.
What's more, the Obama-Biden transition team is already on board with a solution, whether it is full or half-repeal of DOMA or a full-fledged federal civil unions law. Measured almost any way -- number of people affected, political viability, scope of rights won, government vs private sector discrimination -- there is more important work to be done.
Dancing while gay America burns
Posted by: Chris
It wasn't enough for "the nation's largest gay political group" to pat itself on the back as one of "the top five winning member interest groups" in this year's election, despite the passage of four more anti-gay ballot measures, including Proposition 8 eliminating gay marriage in California.
Now word has it that out-of-touch "leadership" at the Human Rights Campaign is also planning a GLBT "inauguration ball" for next month. It was bad enough that HRC refuses any responsibility for the abysmal "hide-the-gays" strategy they trotted out once again in California, or its 0-30 record fighting anti-gay ballot measures. They can do their denial in their dancing shoes.
As boneheadedness goes, this rivals even the Big Three automaker CEOs flying corporate jets to Washington with their hat-in-hand to taxpayers.
If HRC follows through on rumored plans for their ironically named "Equality Ball," they will have fully mastered the art of self-parody. Even "hockey mom" Sarah Palin's small fortune on clothing can't compare to Joe Solmonese and company donning tuxedos and ball gowns while the rest of us are taking to the streets -- no thanks to HRC, of course, which offered no resources or assistance for the National Day of Protest.
Seeing as how every good party craves a theme, let me suggest one for HRC's Equality Ball, should it come to pass: Irrelevance.
November 19, 2008
To my bah humbug friends…
Posted by: Chris
UPDATE: At the end of the post.
When the election of Barack Obama sent many gay Americans dancing into the streets -- figuratively and literally -- celebrating, my dear friend Kevin offered a sober, some might say cynical, reality check:
[W]hy gay Americans should be shitting themselves with glee right now is, frankly, something I can't comprehend. The 2008 election was, in fact, a disaster for gays. And as the reality of our situation in America sets in over the coming days, as well as the next two years, it seems that nothing but a crashing disillusionment set against the backdrop of such wild celebrations last night is the only thing that could smack the gay community awake once and for all.
Well, we all saw how the dancing celebrations quickly transformed themselves into angry protest, for day after day in California and culminating in a National Day of Protest on Saturday that was unprecedented in size, reach and energy. (I say that having participated in both the 1993 and 2000 Marches on Washington.) Already there are creative campaigns to shine blue lights outside homes and businesses in support of equality, as well as talk of additional protests, including during inauguration weekend, and maybe even another March on Washington in May.
However you feel about street protests, it's no fair tsk-tsk-ing these folks for wild-eyed optimism about Obama's election. Clearly, they see the need for continued activism and continued pressure.
It's also becoming more apparent than political climate in Washington for gay rights is not the same today as it was in 1992, as much as my bah humbug friends would have us believe. For one thing, the president-elect has already reiterated in writing the promises he made during the campaign to push for a wide array of federal LGBT rights. He didn't have to do that; anyone named Clinton certainly wouldn't have.
Just today on the Hill, a leading House Democrat predicted repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" during the first year of the Obama administration. Does that make it so? Of course not, but she also didn't have to do it. Like the Obama-Biden Plan on LGBT Rights, the promise made by Rep. Ellen Tauscher is an early sign, mere days after the election, that real change may well be coming to America.
I do not agree with Kevin, either as a historical or prospective matter, that "the national Democratic Party doesn't care one bit about gay rights, beyond pleasant words and reaping big, pliant cash donations." I have been as critical over the years as anyone of their inaction and unfulfilled promises. No doubt they take advantage, and no doubt they milk us again and again.
But they do care about gay rights, in my view, just as their GOP counterparts care about opposing gay rights and limiting legal access to abortion. The reality that gives rise to the cynicism is that politicians of all stripes tend toward the cowardly, doing the absolute minimum they think they can get away with.
That is where we come in, and why continued pressure from us, if not from our supposed leadership, is so critical. If the Democrats co-opt us into believing only hate crimes and ENDA are achievable in Obama's first year or first term, then that's surely all that we'll get. But, my bah humbug friends, the same holds true if we give in to cynicism -- confusing 2008 with 1992 and Barack Obama with Bill (or Hillary) Clinton. Cynicism can lower your sights, just as being coopted can, and you're left in the same place as the very HRC-ites you justifiably condemn.
In that respect, Barack Obama was absolutely right. We are the change we've been waiting for.
Know Hope But Verify.
UPDATE:
One grassroots effort that sprung up in response to Prop 8 offers a creative way to keep the pressure on the Obama-Biden team. Project Postcard, initiated by a group called the LGBTQ Civil RIghts Front, suggests mailing a postcard from your hometown with a "friendly little reminder" of candidate Obama's gay rights promises.
Here's the address:
President-elect Barack Obama
Presidential Transition Office
Kluczynski Federal Building
230 S. Dearborn St., 38th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
The Project's organizers suggest using the text of the postcard to call for repeal of DOMA, which certainly sounds good to me, but I would go one step further, calling for passage of a federal civil unions law:
Dear President-elect Obama,
Please ask Congress to enact a Federal Civil Unions Act repeal DOMA! All Americans should have the right to marry. Thank you in advance for advocating for the civil rights of your LGBT citizens.
Will a bunch of postcards change the world? Of course not. But it's going to be up to each and every one of us to do what we can to keep up the pressure, since it's unlikely to come from our "leaders" in Washington.
A chance to ask why we lost
Posted by: Chris
Three of the leaders behind the effort to defeat the gay marriage ballot measures will be answering questions during a live blog event on Thursday over at Bilerico.
You'll almost never see actual criticism of GLBT leadership at Bilerico, likely because founder Bil Browning fears he'll lose access for events like this, and because many gay group E.D.'s (excuse me, "presidents," though next to none of them were actually "elected" by "members") are regular contributors and guest-bloggers.
Hopefully we'll see some tough questions of Kate Kendall, of the California-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, about why the promised "big ol' homo" campaign against Prop 8, full of visible gay voices, never materialized.
Others answering questions on the live blog include Equality Florida's Nadine Smith and Equality Arizona's Barbara McCullough-Jones.
Growing chorus for change at HRC
Posted by: Chris
A number of influential voices are echoing the view raised here (and here) about the need for fundamental change of mindset and personnel at the leadership of the gay rights movement:
- Andrew Sullivan: Why are non-gay Mormons more capable of organizing and fund-raising on a gay rights measure than HRC, the biggest national gay rights group? I mean: HRC claims (absurdly, but bear with me) 725,000 supporters and members. … They are supposed to have "expertise" - but the ads that ran in No on 8 were the usual fearful, focus-group driven, conviction-free pap. So in the biggest national struggle in the history of gay civil rights, this organization - which has vacuumed money from the gay community for years - were by-standers. Why is that not a scandal? How many struggles do we have to wage with these people always, always failing to lead - before we demand accountability and reform?
Following up on Andrew's point about who wanted it more, it turns out that James Dobson's Focus on the Family is facing layoffs of more than 200 staffers because it pumped $539,000 into the Proposition 8 battle in California. Can anyone imagine HRC giving till it hurts like that? In fact, HRC claims to have donated $237,409 in "staff time." (HRC claims to have given $3 million, but it's counting bundled money from HRC donors).
Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas: As a gatekeeper, the Human Rights Campaign sucks. Sullivan calls for
the organization to be abandoned and defunded. But something worse is
happening -- it is being rendered irrelevant by current events, and
with irrelevance, it will shrivel up and die on its own. … The anti-Prop 8 campaign was an exercise in frustration. What we're
seeing now, straight out of Taking on the System, is brilliant. And the
movement is spreading far beyond California's borders.
These nationwide protests are a watershed moment of sorts -- the
moment when the gay community realized that it had the power to fight
for change on its own, and didn't require any of it's so-called,
self-appointed "leaders" to give them permission to engage. 
Robin Tyler (quoted by AP): The movement's leaders "were very timid. They were too soft," said
Robin Tyler, a lesbian comic who created a series of celebrity public
service announcements with the slogan "Stop the Hate, No on 8" that
were rejected because they were deemed too negative. "We were
lightweights on our side."- Queerty: In our struggle to change the mind's of others, we may have to change our own. The grassroots, "everyone has a voice", web-centric nature of the campaign that started after Prop. 8 passed is a direct response to the hierarchical, "here's the plan, get on board or go away", "shout from our bubble" effort that preceded it. Madness is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different response. It's clear that the strategy (or lack thereof) of the HRC and No on 8. campaign did not work. … To the people who feel that questioning our gay leaders will only make us more divided, I point to our defeat and ask, "What makes you think we were ever united?"
Rex Wockner: Was it really just six days ago that I wrote here: "Maybe Stonewall was
Activism 1.0, ACT UP was Activism 2.0, the failed corporate activism of
HRC and No On Prop 8 was Activism 3.0, and now we are witnessing Activism 4.0 being born."? Was it really just six days ago that I wrote here: "I sense the power
could be shifting, from the suit-and-tie professional activists with
their offices, their access, their press releases and their catered
receptions, to the grassroots."? It was.
Michael Petrelis: After all the hard work HRC did shoving gays back into the closet during
the No on 8 campaign, … HRC is now giving
the San Francisco community what it truly needs at this point as we
pick ourselves after being knocked down by the voters. It's HRC Spa Night! … What's next? Get a face-lift and HRC gets 10% from the plastic surgeon, to fight the next ballot proposition? … One thing that is surely not next from HRC is an achievement of any significance for gay Americans. What
would happen to the gay movement and its quest for fairness and
equality if we once and for all stopped giving even a dime to the
worthless Democratic Party hacks burning through $40 million community
dollars annually? - Box Turtle Bulletin's Jim Burroway: The HRC’s tepid response to ballot measures is now 0-30, their accomplishments on Capital Hill are minuscule — they are in serious danger of becoming completely irrelevant. With this, they are now reduced to self-parody. It’s like they’re not even trying anymore.
Andy Towle: Voices are ringing out from all areas (liberal and conservative, some more critically than others) in the wake of the grassroots-organized protests around the nation, that national gay organizations, which have been the well-funded standard bearers for the gay movement for decades, must adjust to the new activism we've seen these past few weeks. Voices are ringing out that the national gay organizations must … adjust to this new reality" or
"wither and die." Or perhaps, as we witnessed last weekend, they already have in many ways.
Wayne Besen: There has been a paradigm shift in the movement following marriage
defeats in California, Florida and Arizona. ... The leaders of what is
being billed as Stonewall 2.0 are not coming from large, established
organizations. ... Up until two weeks ago, major GLBT groups instructed people to write a
check and then essentially instructed donors to check their activism at
the door. Sometimes, one was asked to take their commitment a step
further by sending e-mail or attending a dinner. I think this week's
protests mark the end of the Passive Era of gay politics. A sign at
protests, "No More Mr. Nice Gay", highlighted this monumental change.
... Organizations that do not adjust to this new reality will wither
and die.
The commentary from Towle and Besen is noteworthy because Towle rarely uses his über-popular Towleroad blog to criticize gay groups and Besen was a long-time staffer in the HRC communications department during the Elizabeth Birch years, working with HRC lifer David Smith, who remains at the org.
It's particularly disappointing to see how behind the curve HRC is on the use of technology to push grassroots advocacy, given the dozens and dozens of young, tech-savvy staffers who work at the agency. It just goes to show you how the top-down approach to politics pushed by Smith, Joe Solmonese and other HRC leaders results in in-house management that further cripples the group's effectiveness.
Change may well be coming to HRC, for no other reason but that many of its leaders are no doubt jockeying for jobs in the incoming Obama administration. (Query whether they will be embraced by the White House, given how obviously they sided with Hillary Clinton during the primaries. It's noteworthy that none of the seven out gay politicos with roles in the Obama transition team hail from HRC.)
Either way, the gay rights movement is moving on with a retooled HRC or without it. The question is whether the D.C.-based gay groups want to remain relevant to the constituents and the movement they claim to lead.
November 18, 2008
Obama-Biden Plan = fed civil unions
Posted by: Chris
The Obama-Biden transition team has released its civil rights agenda on Change.gov, the official transition website, and the section on LGBT rights is expansive and includes federal civil unions -- the topic of my post earlier today:
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Other LGBT highlights of the Obama plan:
- Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: passing the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity
- Fight Workplace Discrimination: passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which includes sexual orientation and gender identity protections
- Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell
- Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
- Expand Adoption Rights
- Promote AIDS Prevention: Obama promised in his first year in office a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies, expanding beyond abstinence-only sex ed and ending the federal ban on needle exchange
It's a powerful, far-reaching plan and is night and day with anything LGBT Americans have ever been promised by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (It's worth noting that two of the seven bullet points involve repealing anti-gay laws signed by the last "pro-gay" president.)
What's missing? There's no mention of the Uniting American Families Act, which extends equal immigration rights to gay Americans, but there's no need for UAFA is DOMA is half-repealed or a federal civil unions law is enacted.
A modest marriage proposal
Posted by: Chris
With the click of a mouse and boots on the street, hundreds of thousands of newly minted activists across the country last weekend declared independence from the top-down, black-tie, this-cutesy-logo-brought-to-you-by movement for gay civil rights.
It took the political perfect storm: the “Yes We Can” spirit behind Barack Obama’s election, running smack up against the “Oh No You Don’t” passage of Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in California.
The result was Stonewall 2.0. No corporate sponsors, no tony Washington, D.C., offices, and not a single poll or focus group. Just tech-savvy young activists pulling off day after day of street protests in California, followed by a massive mobilization on Nov. 15, a National Day of Protest in big cities and small towns across these United States.
In handmade signs signed off on by no one, gay and straight alike made their case for equality, and rejected en-masse the inane “strategery” of avoiding words like “marriage,” “discrimination” and “gay” because they didn’t poll well.
“No More Mrs. Nice Gay”
“OMG CA, WTF?”
“Keep your church out of our state”
“Would you rather I married your daughter?”
“You get married in your church, I’ll get married in mine.”
“Hey California, Jim Crow called. He wants his Proposition 8 back.”
These protesters weren’t buying the namby-pamby “gay agenda” our so-called leaders have already agreed to behind closed doors in Washington. Those Beltway-based Democrats have collected our checks and counted our votes for a decade with promises to pass hate crime and employment non-discrimination laws. Belatedly keeping their word is a beginning, not the end.
What do we want, then? Repealing Proposition 8, of course, but that’s not even an option until 2010, at the earliest, and may well be taken care of by the legal eagles already challenging the ballot measure in the courts. Even if Prop 8 is reversed, we are only back to where we were on Nov. 3, leaving the vast majority of same-sex couples across America with little or no recognition for their relationships or prospects for same.
That’s why a growing number of us have our own modest marriage proposal. Call it Proposition 9, or Prop -8, if you’d like. It would instantly confer more than 1,200 rights and benefits to same-sex couples in every single city, state and small town in the U.S., and it’s already supported by two-thirds of Americans.
What is it? A federal civil unions law.
What would it do? A federal civil unions law would say that all the rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples under federal law would be extended to same-sex couples whose relationships are recognized under state law.
What kind of rights are we talking about? Hundreds and hundreds -- 1,269 to be exact, according to the G.A.O. -- including “real life” benefits like equal access to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, veterans and disability survivor benefits, access to health insurance, rental and other housing insurance, education grants and programs, first-time home buyer credits, property transfer rights, consumer credit protections, domestic violence protection, and a wide range of tax benefits and protections.
It also includes immigration and asylum rights, which means no more “love exiles,” LGBT Americans forced to make a heartbreaking “Sophie’s Choice” between remaining in the U.S. and the non-American partner they love.
Who would it include? Everybody! It doesn’t matter where you live. There are no residency requirements for lesbian and gay couples to marry in Massachusetts or Connecticut, enter into civil unions in Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey, or domestic partnerships in California, Hawaii, Washington or Oregon. For the price of a round-trip ticket to any of these places, a same-sex couple can solemnize their relationship under state law and receive the same recognition under federal law as a heterosexual married couple.
What about the Defense of Marriage Act? What about it? A federal civil unions law does not run afoul of foul-smelling DOMA, and does not require its full or even half-repeal. DOMA says only that the U.S. government can’t use “marriage” or “spouse” for gay relationships, and one state can’t be forced to recognize another state’s gay marriages. A federal civil unions law does neither.
What would the public say? A federal civil unions law does what the people say they want, since for years surveys say two-thirds favor gay couples having the rights and benefits of marriage, just not the “M-word” itself. Even a majority of delegates to the Republican National Convention this year told pollsters they support civil unions for same-sex couples.
What would Obama say? The president-elect and his running mate don’t support gay marriage, but both have been on record for months supporting fair and equal treatment of gay couples under federal law.
The "Obama-Biden Plan" on Civil Rights, announced on the transition team website (change.gov) includes this promise: "Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to … enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."
Even Sarah Palin didn’t object when Joe Biden in effect promised federal civil union protection in the vice presidential debate.
“Look,” Biden said, “in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.”
Say it’s so, Joe. The Prop 8 protesters couldn’t have put it better.
The Queen doesn't like "queens"
Posted by: Andoni
Well, not THE Queen as in Elizabeth, but the Queen as in Sofia of Spain. Turns out she doesn't like gays.
In a new book, "The Queen Up Close" by Pilar Urbano, Queen Sofia tells the author that while she respects other sexual orientations, she does not understand why "they should feel proud to be gay." Then she goes on to say
That they get up on floats and parade in the streets? If all of us who are not gay were to parade in the streets, we'd halt the traffic in every city.
The Queen also opined that although gays were entitled to unions, the unions should not be called marriage.
All I have to say is that the Queen probably can't help herself -- she was brought up Greek.
Before she married Prince Juan Carlos of Spain and converted to Catholicism, she was Princess Sophia of Greece and brought up in the Greek Orthodox religion. Greek Orthodox is even more homophobic than Roman Catholic -- if such a thing is possible. Good thing the monarchy is pretty much a figurehead in Spain and the Queen's views don't really matter in governing. In 2005, the Spanish government was among the first countries to legalize same sex marriage in spite of the views of the Church (or the monarchy). Apparently the churches in Spain have less influence over government than the churches in the United States. Could it be that all that bad history Spain had with Church and state intermingling taught the people that the church should not be involved in matters of the state?
The Queen's comments were roundly denounced by Spanish liberals and gays. The palace apologized but also claimed that she was "inexactly" quoted, and the gay community more or less accepted the apology. The 70 year old Queen did not limit her candid comments to gays however; she also spoke out on euthanasia and religious education in schools
King Juan Carlos is reported angry at the staff that permitted the Queen to sit for interviews for the book because the carefully controlled facade of the royal family has been pierced.
As a tangential note, the trial of those first same sex weddings in Greece was supposed to commence on Oct. 2, but it has been postponed to Dec. 4. It will be interesting to see if Greece has progressed as far as Spain in allowing for the separation of church and state. In my opinion the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece is more powerful than the Roman Catholic Church in Spain. The civil marriage laws in Greece were clearly gender neutral. So we'll see if Greece follows the law or a religiously biased interpretation of the law.
November 17, 2008
Prop 8 and common sense (II)
Posted by: Andoni
Last week I suggested some common sense reasons why the California Supreme Court should invalidate Prop 8. Here's one more they should consider.
Conceivably pro-same sex marriage advocates could put the question on the ballot again in 2010. This time for numerous reasons, including that it is not a presidential election year, same sex marriage may win by the same narrow margin by which it just lost. Same sex marriage would once again be legal. That of course would provoke the anti-same sex marriage folks, including the Mormons, who would redouble their efforts in the presidential election year of 2012 to once again outlaw same sex marriage. They might be able to win again in 2012.
I think you get the picture. With the margin of victory or loss being so close, there could be a ridiculous back and forth legal mess. The Supreme Court should consider the possibility of on again, off again civil rights and all that implies before they validate Prop 8. Civil rights by a simple majority that could change every couple of years would be a disaster.
One final point. In its 4-3 decision to legalize same sex marriage in California, the court said there was a fundamental right in the constitution for gays to marry. They used sweeping language placing sexual orientation in the same category as race and gender. Going beyond marriage, they generalized that there was no legitimate basis in California to deny or withhold legal rights on the basis of sexual orientation . Here is just one quote from the decision (emphasis mine):
Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation—like a person’s race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.
In my common sense law book, that 4-3 decision inserted the fact that gays are equal everywhere in the constitution of California. So by my simple minded thinking this has to be the starting point for all seven justices (even the three who voted against same sex marriage last May) as they deliberate the current lawsuit to invalidate Prop 8. Gays are now equal in every aspect in the constitution -- so said that 4-3 decision. We are equal in the marriage clauses, we are there in the equal protection clauses --we are everywhere in that constitution.
So for the justices to conclude that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is a simple small change (an amendment - requiring only a simple majority) that doesn't fundamentally change or unbalance the whole constitution (a revision - requiring a 2/3 vote by the legislature before going to the people) would be a stretch and a dishonesty. You can't have gays along side blacks and women in the equal protection clause (everyone has to be equal in this state), and then strip gays of some rights a few paragraphs later. That would be an incompatible situation. That would also be a major change (revision) to the constitution and Prop 8 was not done properly to be a revision or major change.
I can see the three justices who voted initially against same sex marriage want to vote that Prop 8 was done properly, but that would be dishonest. If truly a supreme court decision on constitutional matters becomes part of the constitution, then the marriage decision in May wove us quite deeply into that constitution and it would take more than a simple majority to take us out.
I'm told the decision will come within six months. We'll see if the justices (especially the three who dissented in the original marriage case) are intellectually honest with themselves honoring stare decisis (prior decisions) or if they revert to their preconceived ideologies (don't approve of gay marriage, no matter what) and vote that Prop was simply a minor change to the constitution.
November 16, 2008
Stonewall 2.0 news round-up
Posted by: Chris
SECOND UPDATE: Adding in reports from New Orleans and Baton Rouge.
UPDATE: At the end of the post.
Through my job updating Gay News Watch, I see a lot of gay news headlines, so I thought I would round up the articles I've seen about the National Day of Protests yesterday -- dubbed by Rex Wockner as Stonewall 2.0. The sheer number of protests is staggering, especially considering the bottom-up organization, lack of corporate sponsors and lack of backing from big-buck national GLBT groups.
National round-ups:
- NYT: Across U.S., big rallies for same-sex marriage
- NYT: Gay rights activists use web to organize global rally
- CNN: Same-sex marriage rallies stretch across nation
- WaPo: Protesters target supporters of gay marriage ban
- USAT: Gay-marriage supporters rally over Calif. marriage ban
- AP: Across nation, gay advocates protest marriage ban
- Towleroad reader-submitted photo gallery from around the U.S.
- Daily Dish/Andrew Sullivan: Reader views from the Prop 8 protests
Local stories:
- AK-Anchorage: Protesters gather in opposition to Calif. gay marriage ban
- AL-Montgomery: A handful show up to protest Prop 8
- AR-Fayetteville: Residents protest Proposition 8
- AR-Little Rock: Proposition 8 protests continue
- AZ-Phoenix: Gay-marriage bans spur protest
- AZ-Tucson: Protesters target passage of Prop 102
- CA-Eureka: Hundreds protest Proposition 8
- CA-Fresno: Gay rights boycott urged at rally
- CA-Escondido: Disappointed voters march to repeal Prop 8
- CA-Long Beach: Police estimate 1,000 turn out to protest Prop 8
- CA-Oakland: Emotion swells in gay marriage protest
- CA-Palm Springs: Locals join national Prop 8 rally
- CA-Pasadena: Prop 8 protests draws hundreds to City Hall
- CA-Riverside: Hundreds protest Prop 8 passage in Inland area
- CA-Sacramento: Rally against Prop 8 draws 1,500
- CA-Salinas: Same-sex marriage supporters rally
- CA-San Bernandino: Activists hit street to protest Proposition 8
- CA-San Diego: March backing gay marriage draws at least 20,000
- CA-San Jose: Diverse crowd joins nationwide rallies to protest gay marriage ban
- CA-San Francisco: Thousands rally at Civic Center Plaza against gay marriage ban
- CA-Santa Rosa: March for equality
- CA-Los Angeles: Prop 8 opponents rally against gay marriage ban
- CO- Boulder: Hundreds rally for same-sex rights
- CO-Denver: Protest blasts Calif. ban
- CT-Hartford/New Haven: Protesters march against marriage ban
- DC: Protesters march against Prop 8 in D.C. (more pics here)
- FL-Fort Lauderdale/Miami: Gay civil rights protests throughout South Florida
- FL-Jacksonville: Local citizens gather downtown to protest gay marriage ban in Calif.
- FL-Orlando: More than 1,000 protest gay marriage ban in Calif.
- FL-Panama City: Protesters speak out against Amendment 2
- FL-Tallahassee: Marchers protest Amendment 2
- FL: Tampa/St.Pete: Hundreds protest gay marriage ban
- GA-Atlanta: Locals show up in force to protest Prop 8 (video here)
- GA-Macon: Protesters rally against Calif. marriage ban
- HI-Honolulu: Islanders protest gay marriage ban
- IA-Des Moines: Iowans gather to support gay marriage
- ID-Boise: Hundreds rally for same-sex marriage rights
- IL-Champaign-Urbana: Proposition 8 calls for equal rights
- IL-Chicago: Gay-marriage supporters march against Proposition 8
- IL-Peoria: Local rally protetsts gay marriage decision
- IN-Bloomington: Locals join nationwide protest against Proposition 8
- IN-Indianpolis: Dozens protest gay-marriage bans
- KS-Wichita: 100 protest Calif. marriage ban
- KY-Lexington: Gay activists rally against marriage ban
- KY-Louisville: Protesters stand for gay rights
- LA-Baton Rouge: Gay marriage protests in Bayou state
- LA-New Orleans: Proposition 8 protest
- LA-Shreveport: Gay rights rallies locally, nationwide
- MA-Boston: Gay rights supporters rally to protest Calif. ban
- MA-Northampton: Calif. marriage ban opposed at rally
- MA-Springfield: Residents unite to protest Prop 8
- MD-Baltimore: Protesters rally against Proposition 8
- ME-Portland: Protest highlights gay rights/civil rights
- MI-East Lansing: MSU rally protests gay marriage ban
- MI-Detroit: Same-sex marriage activists protest ban
- MN-Duluth: Locals protest California's Proposition 8
- MN-Minneapolis: Rally protests gay marriage bans
- MO-Columbia: Gay rights advocates rally
- MO-Kansas City: Gay rights advocates rally
- MO-St. Louis: Show-Me no hate rally
- MO-Springfield: Locals join naitonal protest of gay marriage ban
- MS-Jackson: Proposition 8 protest held in Jackson
- MT-Missoula: Gay rights: Protesters join forces globally
- NC-Charlotte: 200 protest same-sex marriage ban
- NC-Greensboro/Raleigh: Triad residents protest Proposition 8
- NC-Greenville: Seeking 'equality across the board'
- NC-Wilmington: Protesters gather to oppose Proposition 8
- ND-Fargo: Strong turnout for gay rights
- NH-Portsmouth: Local participate in nationwide gay marriage rallies
- NM-Albuquerque: Prop 8 protested in N.M., around country
- NV-Las Vegas: Area rally protests gay marriage ban
- NV-Reno: Protesting Proposition 8 in biggest little city
- NY-Albany: Rights issue hits home
- NY-Buffalo: Locals show support for gay marriage
- NY-New York: Thousands protest ban on gay marriage
- NY-White Plains: Activists rally locally, nationwide
- NY-Syracuse: Protesters gather in opposition of Proposition 8
- NY-Troy: Area protesters join nationwide rally
- OH-Bowling Green: Dozens join Prop 8 protest
- OH-Cincinnati: Hundreds protest Calif.'s Prop 8
- OH-Cleveland: Gay-marriage activists pull off nationwide demonstrations
- OH-Columbus: Proposition 8 protests in Columbus
- OH-Dayton: Locals rally for gay rights
- OK-Oklahoma City: Oklahomans protest Calif. gay marriage vote (more pics here)
- OK-Tulsa: March to support gay rights
- OR-Eugene: Northwest cities join in rally cry against gay marriage ban
- OR-Portland: Local protest targets Calif. ban on same-sex marriage
- PA-Allentown: Hundreds attend rally protesting same-sex marriage ban
- PA-Philadelphia: Gay-rights rally part of nationwide protest
- PA-Pittsburgh: Locals rally against California's Proposition 8
- RI-Providence: 500 protest over Calif. ban of gay marriage
- SC-Charleston: Advocates protest bans on gay marriage
- SC-Greenville: People protest Prop 8 at City Hall
- TN-Knoxville: Proposition 8 opponents rally
- TN-Memphis: Mid-Southerners join nationwide protest against Calif. marriage ban
- TN-Nashville: Same-sex marriage supporters protest in Nashville
- TX-Austin: Prop 8 rally draws thousands to City Hall
- TX-Dallas: Calif. gay marriage ban spurs protests in Dallas, across Texas
- TX-Denton: Protesters demonstrate support for gay marriage
- TX-Houston: Texans protest passage of Calif. gay marriage ban
- TX-San Antonio: Rights activists protest Calif. vote
- UT-Logan: Making their case
- UT-Salt Lake: Utah gay marriage supporters predict surge of activism
- VA-Blacksburg: Students stage Proposition 8 protest
- VA-Richmond: Proposition 8 protested
- VT-Locals rally for marriage equality for same-sex couples
- WA-Bellingham: Protesters hit streets to protest gay marriage ban
- WA-Seattle: Thousands march in support of gay rights
- WA-Spokane: Prop 8 protests downtown
- WA-Tacoma: Gay rights rally comes to Tacoma
- WI-Lacrosse: Opponents of Calif. gay-marriage ban protest at City Hall
- WI-Madison: Hundreds locally march to protest passage of Proposition 8
- WI-Milwaukee: Hundreds protest against gay marriage bans
- WV-Charleston: Gay marriage rally in Charleston
Outside the U.S.:
- Canada-Toronto: Cold, rainy, miserable but protesting
- Netherland-Amsterdam: Love Exiles organize Homomonument protest
Counter-protests/misc.:
- AL-Birmingham: Prop 8 protest scuttled for lack of sponsor, interest
- UT-Salt Lake: Traditional-marriage supporters rally against gay marriage
- KS-Wichita: Phelps clan shows up at Kans. Prop 8 protest
This round-up isn't necessarily comprehensive, though I did do my best to track down stories in larger urban areas and college towns. A few notable states/cities missing from the list, at least so far:
- Alabama
- New Jersey
- Wyoming
- Delaware
- New Orleans
- Nebraska
- South Dakota
If you come across articles or reliable blog posts from these states, or from cities missing on the big listing, please let me know.
UPDATE:
Thanks to readers, I've added the following links to the complete list (above):
- AL-Birmingham: Prop 8 protest scuttled for lack of sponsor, interest
- CA-Long Beach: Police estimate 1,000 turn out to protest Prop 8
- WI-Madison: Hundreds locally march to protest passage of Proposition 8
- Canada-Toronto: Cold, rainy, miserable but protesting
- Netherland-Amsterdam: Love Exiles organize Homomonument protest
SECOND UPDATE:
- AL-Montgomery: A handful show up to protest Prop 8
- LA-Baton Rouge: Gay marriage protests in Bayou state
- LA-New Orleans: Proposition 8 protest
Protest for the punctuality-challenged
Posted by: Chris
As it turns out, showing up an hour or so after the scheduled start time for the Prop 8 protest yesterday here in Memphis meant that I was seeing the second wave, of fellow punctuality-challenged protesters. According to the Commercial Appeal:
More than 150 people ignored the chilly winds to protest Downtown in front of the Memphis City Hall, bearing signs that said "Love makes a family," "Support love not H8" and "This is what democracy looks like."
"Because of our history in civil rights we felt it was particularly important for Memphis' voice to be heard," said Amy Livingston, a board member with the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, which co-sponsored the protest with the Women's Action Coalition.
I had felt OK about showing up at 1:30 or so because Facebook invite indicated the downtown Memphis event would run from 12:30 to 3 p.m., and given how protests can be a bit disorganized and the gays like to be fashionably late -- (right about here, those who know me well usually roll their eyes and change the subject, so I'll just stop).
Since none of the folks pictured the photo above, from the Commercial Appeal, were among the crew I witnessed, I'd say total turnout for the protest topped 200. Impressive and encouraging, especially for a grassroots rally protesting an election result so far away -- geographically and politically.