You're Not the Boss Advocacy Group of Me
Some hasty stitches on the New York Times piece on the debate on the debate on gay marriage:
--It is as much a mistake to confuse the Human Rights Campaign with the "gay rights movement" as it would be to confuse the Log Cabin Republicans as "the gay rights movement." Regardless of the relative size of the two bodies, they are both mere subsets of the "gay rights movement." Both are also totally partisan and deeply conflicted. Furthermore, it is unfair to extrapolate those two groups' respective dysfunctionalities to the "gay rights movement" as a whole, which of course consists of a very loose network of literally hundreds of national, state and local fundraising, advocacy, legal, professional and social organizations, many of which have maintained perfectly consistent messages and strategies.
(Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of or contributor to either HRC or LCR. The only gay-rights group I actively -- i.e., financially -- support is Lambda Legal, the heroes who brought us Lawrence v. Texas. I have been a contributor to Lambda for many years.)
--I still fail to see how gays "lost" the state ballot initiatives. They were not "our" initiatives -- they were the bigots' initiatives. "They won," is not the same as "we lost," and no that's not mere semantics. Gay marriage did not exist in a single state where an initiative was adopted. No gay marriage before the election...no gay marriage after the election...so where's the "loss"? Meanwhile, we have gone from having exactly zero states with gay marriage to exactly one -- how is this a "loss"? Also, the issue was front and center in an election that was already crowded with Iraq, the War on Terror, the Social Security crisis -- and people still found themselves debating gay marriage. That cannot possibly be all bad.
--As for the initiatives that do more than just ban marriage, two observations. First, they are extremely susceptible to court challenge (e.g., Louisiana). Second, those states whose bans aren't struck down will now have to endure the economic impact of gays -- and businesses -- fleeing those states and refusing to locate there in the future. Cincinnati learned the hard way that bigotry is expensive. The states whose bans are not overturned will learn the same lesson.
--What exactly does it mean to say we asked for "too much too soon"? If gay marriage hadn't been judicially decreed in Massachusetts first, then it simply would have been decreed somewhere else first. What exactly would the alternative be? Does anyone seriously believe that a gay couple should have to ask permission of every gay activist before suing for their equal rights? By what prerogative do self-appointed gay "leaders" declare, for private persons, what litigation should or should not be pursued, that "now is not the time"?
On a related note, I once described IGF's Steve Miller as "the most important non-liberal gay commentator." I regretfully think that I have to retract that. His posts since the election have not only been monotonously repetitive, but have also been so irrationally "must go slow" and "it was all a mistake" and "never call them bigots" that you can almost see him holding the closet door open for us to crawl back to. This post of his is especially embarrassing, on the push for gay marriage rights in New Jersey:
These people live on Planet Earth, Steve, and while they're alive on this planet they have every right to fight for equality. If that scares you, then move to Canada.
Miller has become so blinded and insecure by the state ban "losses" that he is now essentially neutered as a gay rights commentator. Hopefully he'll eventually shrug it off and start having something to say besides "Baby steps! baby steps!" (Which, again, many many gay activist groups have been, are now, and will be taking -- but when it comes to equal rights one can and should demand both the whole pie and a single slice simultaneously.) He was a great commentator before the election -- I hope he gets his grove back.
If Miller has a bone to pick with either HRC or LCR, that's his business. But as I point out in this post, those two organizations are not the totality of the gay rights movement, and one sad day of "defeats" does not wipe out the countless, literally countless, victories in the courts, legislatures, corporate boards, editorial pages, airwaves and other forums. Victories won not by asking --meekly, hat in hand -- for a smattering of civil rights crumbs, but by demanding, relentlessly, everything we deserve. By reasoned debate whenever possible, politely to the greatest extent achievable, proving points (and disproving stereotypes) by personal example, most definitely. But demanding nonetheless.
What exactly is accomplished by limiting ourselves to the "timetable" of others who are "not ready"? Engaging in symbolic "wound-licking" over so-called "defeats"? Humbly asking others, bigot or not, to "please give us our equal rights whenever you get around to it"?
I think not.
Related Posts:
"We Hate You, But In A Nice Way..."
Gay Marriage as the "New Abolition"
Cincinnati Follows Through on Repeal of Anti-Gay Law
Gay Marriage: Any Lessons from the Boy Scouts?
--It is as much a mistake to confuse the Human Rights Campaign with the "gay rights movement" as it would be to confuse the Log Cabin Republicans as "the gay rights movement." Regardless of the relative size of the two bodies, they are both mere subsets of the "gay rights movement." Both are also totally partisan and deeply conflicted. Furthermore, it is unfair to extrapolate those two groups' respective dysfunctionalities to the "gay rights movement" as a whole, which of course consists of a very loose network of literally hundreds of national, state and local fundraising, advocacy, legal, professional and social organizations, many of which have maintained perfectly consistent messages and strategies.
(Disclaimer: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of or contributor to either HRC or LCR. The only gay-rights group I actively -- i.e., financially -- support is Lambda Legal, the heroes who brought us Lawrence v. Texas. I have been a contributor to Lambda for many years.)
--I still fail to see how gays "lost" the state ballot initiatives. They were not "our" initiatives -- they were the bigots' initiatives. "They won," is not the same as "we lost," and no that's not mere semantics. Gay marriage did not exist in a single state where an initiative was adopted. No gay marriage before the election...no gay marriage after the election...so where's the "loss"? Meanwhile, we have gone from having exactly zero states with gay marriage to exactly one -- how is this a "loss"? Also, the issue was front and center in an election that was already crowded with Iraq, the War on Terror, the Social Security crisis -- and people still found themselves debating gay marriage. That cannot possibly be all bad.
--As for the initiatives that do more than just ban marriage, two observations. First, they are extremely susceptible to court challenge (e.g., Louisiana). Second, those states whose bans aren't struck down will now have to endure the economic impact of gays -- and businesses -- fleeing those states and refusing to locate there in the future. Cincinnati learned the hard way that bigotry is expensive. The states whose bans are not overturned will learn the same lesson.
--What exactly does it mean to say we asked for "too much too soon"? If gay marriage hadn't been judicially decreed in Massachusetts first, then it simply would have been decreed somewhere else first. What exactly would the alternative be? Does anyone seriously believe that a gay couple should have to ask permission of every gay activist before suing for their equal rights? By what prerogative do self-appointed gay "leaders" declare, for private persons, what litigation should or should not be pursued, that "now is not the time"?
On a related note, I once described IGF's Steve Miller as "the most important non-liberal gay commentator." I regretfully think that I have to retract that. His posts since the election have not only been monotonously repetitive, but have also been so irrationally "must go slow" and "it was all a mistake" and "never call them bigots" that you can almost see him holding the closet door open for us to crawl back to. This post of his is especially embarrassing, on the push for gay marriage rights in New Jersey:
What planet do these [Lambda] people live on? If 13 states passing state constitutional gay-marriage bans this year in the wake of Massachusetts wasn't enough (11 did so on Nov. 2), it's likely that a decision by a liberal NJ court ordering same-sex marriage could be just the extra impetus that backers of the Federal Marriage Amendment need to write their ban into the U.S. Constitution. Will Lambda be celebrating then?
These people live on Planet Earth, Steve, and while they're alive on this planet they have every right to fight for equality. If that scares you, then move to Canada.
Miller has become so blinded and insecure by the state ban "losses" that he is now essentially neutered as a gay rights commentator. Hopefully he'll eventually shrug it off and start having something to say besides "Baby steps! baby steps!" (Which, again, many many gay activist groups have been, are now, and will be taking -- but when it comes to equal rights one can and should demand both the whole pie and a single slice simultaneously.) He was a great commentator before the election -- I hope he gets his grove back.
If Miller has a bone to pick with either HRC or LCR, that's his business. But as I point out in this post, those two organizations are not the totality of the gay rights movement, and one sad day of "defeats" does not wipe out the countless, literally countless, victories in the courts, legislatures, corporate boards, editorial pages, airwaves and other forums. Victories won not by asking --meekly, hat in hand -- for a smattering of civil rights crumbs, but by demanding, relentlessly, everything we deserve. By reasoned debate whenever possible, politely to the greatest extent achievable, proving points (and disproving stereotypes) by personal example, most definitely. But demanding nonetheless.
What exactly is accomplished by limiting ourselves to the "timetable" of others who are "not ready"? Engaging in symbolic "wound-licking" over so-called "defeats"? Humbly asking others, bigot or not, to "please give us our equal rights whenever you get around to it"?
I think not.
Related Posts:
"We Hate You, But In A Nice Way..."
Gay Marriage as the "New Abolition"
Cincinnati Follows Through on Repeal of Anti-Gay Law
Gay Marriage: Any Lessons from the Boy Scouts?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Not "Grand Plains, North Carolina"?
- HRC Forum Live Non-Blogging
- What, No Simon?
- You're Not the
BossAdvocacy Group of Me
Posted by KipEsquire on
9 December 2004.
