Marriage of two minds (Village Voice on gay marriage)

[kweerwolf]

Activists see a certain logic to the current lay of the land. Those places way ahead of the curve on the marriage issue—Massachusetts—have long led the country in the arena of gay rights generally. These states passed non-discrimination laws decades ago, or set up gay-straight alliances in high schools, or expanded hate-crimes statutes to include sexual orientation.

States that have basic protections for gay people are now wrestling with the marriage issue, activists say. Take New York. On the one hand, it seems to be moving toward equality. It's one of just six states without a law on the books defining marriage as between a man and a woman, it has a pending marriage lawsuit, and some officials have even performed gay nuptials, albeit illegally. On the other, the New York legislature has enacted rights for gay families only in tiny increments.

Resistance has been strongest where gay people have no protections at all—no anti-discrimination laws, no family registries, no advocacy groups. Activists were still trying to achieve these steps in all 50 states when the marriage issue went national, in 2004, with the first wave of amendments. They've had to shift their focus to staving off the bans. But, as Toni Broaddus of the Equality Federation explains, "It's difficult to fight an anti-gay-marriage measure in a state where gays who speak out can lose their jobs."

That sums up the case in Kentucky, where last fall, voters passed an anti-gay-marriage amendment by a landslide 75 to 25 percent. Andrea Hildebran, who heads the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, a gay rights group, describes a valiant campaign waged by tens of thousands of activists and allies there. They crisscrossed the state, knocking on doors, trying to sway the hearts and minds. And Hildebran says they achieved "a measurable difference" in how voters cast their ballots.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0538,lombardi,67993,6.html

[sui generis]

1. oh yeah, and if, like Kentucky,

75 out of a hundred voters decided to keep jews from getting married, that would make it right too.

Adding language that removes the rights of some citizens to a constitutional document that defines rights is the ultimate sign that the "majority" of Americans in those states flunked social studies, if they even had more than readin', writin' and cipherin'.

And their elected representatives. And their little dogs too.

[closeupready]

2. THis part is exactly right:

<<What's worse is that traditional allies of gay people—from candidates for office to ministers and advocacy groups—have turned their backs. Gay people, a tiny minority, are left to fight this unending fight almost alone. "Can you imagine the reaction from people of 'goodwill' if this kind of attack was going on against any other minority?" says Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Political Task Force. "People would have been up in arms, standing to defend the minority group. But because it happens to be gay people and marriage, it's a deafening silence.">>

And then people wonder why gays don't trust heterosexuals.

[closeupready]

3. It makes me angry, also,

to discuss this issue with dems (here and elsewhere) who say, "people are dying and you want your RIGHTS?!" Naturally, if someone said that to a woman who was fearful about her right to choose being taken from her under a Roberts' court, the condemnations would fly fast and furious. Ditto with black people complaining about discrimination in the workplace or in public accommodations.

But for some reason, people think gays should be the most selfless minority group who puts all other minorities before themselves, even though no other minority group does that. :mad:

EDIT: I only raise this issue here because I am among family here. I wouldn't necessarily raise it elsewhere on DU, because it's important to recognize that at this point, dems are most likely to "do the right thing", and we need to try to stick together with hetero dems, if possible. But we DO need to press for our rights every bit as much as anyone else doses

[Meldread]

4. Amen and agreed.

Preach it!

Although, when I do see crap like that I sometimes try and stick it to the straights. Most times they don't realize what they are doing. Society has made it okay to discriminate against us and even our "allies" are tainted by it. (Hell, we are tainted by it to, just look how many self-loathing gay folk are out there.)

[kweerwolf]

5. Agreed ... but ...

There is a tremendous amount of "political co-dependency" between Democrats and LGBTs. Many Democrats have the attitude of 'who are you going to vote for if you don't vote for us' and they figure they have carte blanche to continue to tell us to move to the back of the bus until it's our turn.

Despite considering myself a Democrat, there are (at least here in Missouri) a few Democratic candidates I refuse to support because they were either totally absent or on the other side when we had the marriage amendment vote last year. I have let each of them know how disappointed I was with their lack of support but never heard anything back from any of them. Therefore, I will be working for and voting for Green candidates in those races next time.

[closeupready]

6. Good for you!

:hi: Hopefully, Dems everywhere will come around in places where they see the Greens siphoning off Dem votes in races where the dem candidate can't find it within themselves to support gays and lesbians.