Gay Rights Rebuke May Change Approach

[iandhr]

Source: NY TIMES

They had far more money and volunteers, and geography was on their side, given that New England has been more accepting of same-sex marriage than any other region of the country. Yet gay rights supporters suffered a crushing loss when voters decided to repeal Maine’s new law allowing gay men and lesbians to wed, setting back a movement that had made remarkable progress nationally this year.

Maine, with its libertarian leanings, had seemed to offer an excellent chance of reversing the national trend of voters rejecting marriage equality at the ballot box. Instead, it became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum.

At a time when gay rights activists believe that President Obama is not treating their agenda as a high priority, the Maine loss has left them asking who their friends are. At stake, they say, is not only same-sex marriage, but the military’s ban on openly gay service members and the federal law banning same-sex marriage.

State legislatures had been viewed as new allies in the fight for same-sex marriage after lawmakers in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire approved such bills this year. But now, with Maine voters dealing a rebuke to their Legislature, it is far from clear whether elected officials — including the president — will risk political capital on gay rights.

Tuesday’s defeat is also likely to further splinter a movement that has been debating the best tactics for success. Some prominent gay politicians last month skipped a gay rights march in Washington, questioning its purpose, which emboldened some of the younger advocates at the march to call for a new generation of leaders.

Some advocates said they were unimpressed last month when President Obama signed a law against gay hate crimes but offered relatively restrained remarks. They questioned whether it was time to take a more confrontational posture toward Mr. Obama, who benefited during the 2008 campaign from a surge of votes and donations from gay men and lesbians.

In Maine, advocates had stuck to a familiar path: using their own personal stories, they tried to persuade voters that gay people were no different from their straight neighbors and deserved equal treatment under the law.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/us/05marriage.html?_r=1&ref=politics

---

So tell me what next

[Not Me]

1. I like Mixner's approach...

We need to frame this in the proper terms, it is Apartheid: the practice of having different laws for different classes of people.
We need to call out elected officials who are not fully on board with full equality NOW. And if it requires civil disobedience, then so be it.

[ThomCat]

7. Absolutely agree.

x(

When there are two sets of laws; one for them and one for us. And when they are fighting so damned hard to protect their separate and superior status above us, then Apartheid is a good word for it.

[Arugula Latte]

13. Yep. It is unconstitutional. It is unequal. It is unAmerican.

Those who oppose equal rights for all people are unpatriotic.

I think it should be framed in those terms.

[xchrom]

2. we can do better.

'Tuesday’s defeat is also likely to further splinter a movement that has been debating the best tactics for success. Some prominent gay politicians last month skipped a gay rights march in Washington, questioning its purpose, which emboldened some of the younger advocates at the march to call for a new generation of leaders.'


and i agree with the above -- HRC, etc have become entrenched and enmeshed with political leadership that fails us time and again.

[Johnboi70]

3. Try a new approach... (4 points)

First, we should never allow anyone's human rights to be subjected to a popular vote.

Second, why allow the anti-gay groups to do their thing unchallenged? When was the last time any of you saw the NAACP and the KKK debate? But Focus on the Family debates HRC all the time on TV... giving undeserved legitimacy to FoF. We need to attack them as hate groups.... loudly and relentlessly. We need to expose them. We need to get their privileged, tax-exempt status taken away or, at least, force them to defend it.

Third, as long as these hate groups are allowed to operate unchallenged, we should shelve our positive agenda. 8 years of having Bush feed them has left the haters stronger than ever. This is not the environment for progress. We owe it to ourselves to create the climate for change.

Fourth, don't let Bush get off scott-free. He fueled this for 8 years... during a time of war. Lets continue protesting him. We should follow him everywhere and become part of his legacy. That will keep him and what he did to us in the news and remind people that the haters were in bed with him and helped him get reelected.

Key to this is that we shouldn't be trying to "make people like us." About 50% of people pretty much do. The other 50% will be a lot easier to convince if they aren't being fed hate-speech.

[Not Me]

4. Shadow Bush...for the remainder of his days

I like that.

[bluestateguy]

5. In Vermont, civil unions was a success story

It was unpopular at first, then became widely accepted and as people saw that the world would not end, gay marriage was enacted by the legislature.

I'm confident the same thing can happen in Washington state.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. i'd like to point out, per this article its not just gay du'ers who think the president isnt doing

enough

its gay all over this country. a lot of whom are activists and work hard for equality

me included

[EFerrari]

9. And it's not just GLBT folk, either. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

8. why doesn't HRC & other GLBT groups organize strikes against companies that were against marr equal?

If I had a list of known anti-equality stores, I'd try my darndest to follow it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. The hrc i think believes more in lobbying and what not than in direct action

they dont want to be a bad and troublesome minority

they want to be well liked

[Divine Discontent]

11. when even those in your own party wobble on your rights, sometimes organizing strikes is a rightful

act, and not bad. Labor unions had to do it a lot for their rights earlier last century. It's only troublesome to the bigots.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. oh i know. i was just trying to tellyou why hrc will not organize a strike

[Divine Discontent]

15. I agree.

:hug:

[optimator]

14. govt shouldnt recognize any marriage

that is the direction to go.

[Political Heretic]

17. I agree with you. Though I find it unlikely.

"Marriage" should be a ceremony, not connected to any civil rights or civil status of any kind.

If some private religious body does not want to perform certain marriages for certain people - that's their right.

But I ought to be able to walk down to the local courthouse, and designation a domestic partner - without any connection to love, sex, or anything else. If I share residency, bills, property, etc with someone else for six months or more, we ought to be able to have status to file joint taxes, manage the single estate, and on and on and on.

The "sanctimony" of marriage ought to be a completely non-government and private affair.

[Political Heretic]

16. Ballot initiatives are how ignorant, uninformed, biogots get manipulated by powerful lobbying

People's human rights shouldn't be up for auction in the public square. But then again, I'm not at all afraid to say that big "D" democracy sucks. It's not just the notion of the "tyranny of the majority" - its the tyranny of the ignorant, homophobic, racist, sexist, uninformed, easily manipulated majority. NOT a majority of the country I don't think, but a majority of voters who religiously turn out to the polls in off years to vote for "ballot initiatives."