Notes & Reflections from the Soulforce Journey

Archive for the ‘Right to Marry: Southern Route’ Category

A Welcomed Surprise

Wednesday, July 25th, 2007 by Desiree Tienturier

Yesterday we had a meeting with Senator Andrea Stuart-Cousins at 10am. We had arrived relatively early with our wedding cake and civil union cupcake in hand, and were informed by the secretary that Senator Stuart-Cousins would be running late on account of the rainy weather. We knew from our research about the Senator that she was for civil unions but had yet to rally her support behind the Marriage Equality Bill. We were joined, to our surprise, by two of the Senators constituents, a gay couple who knew Senator Stuart-Cousins position on gay rights very well.

When the Senator arrived, we handed her our literature and placed the cake and cupcake on her desk. The cake, we told her, was a wedding cake complete with a husband/wife figurine on top. It represented the 1342 rights guaranteed under marriage in New York State. The cupcake had two groom figurines on top, and represented a civil union, the size difference representing the inequity in the distribution of rights between a married couple and a couple with a civil union. Senator Stuart-Cousins was very amused by this visual and told us that she had decided earlier in the month to co-sponsor the Marriage Equality Bill. This was news to us. We had done our homework on Stuart-Cousins, and this had never come up. Boy, was that a happy surprise.

The Senator was incredibly supportive, and an absolute joy to talk to. She was very receptive to our points-of-view and loved to hear about all the things that we have been doing so far. We have had many surprises on this trip, and finding an unexpected ally when we thought we had to fight was one of the best. I look forward to many more such surprises.

The Journal News: “Gay Advocates Send Their Shoes to Senate”

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 by Matthew Nelson

The following link will take you to the South Bus’ article in The Journal News:

www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/NEWS01/707240379/1019/NEWS03

WHY WE CAN’T WAIT EITHER

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 by Matthew Nelson

Martin Luther King Jr. has communicated to millions in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” that, “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” Those who hear “Wait!” are promised that, given sufficient time, justice will be done, wrongs will be corrected, and equality will abound to everyone everywhere just the same. Yet, present dire circumstances are oft-neglected in the process of “Wait!” It may be said that the call to patience in the political sphere is a tool by the ruling majority to pacify the minority who are demoralized by inequality. Though some will call advocates for immediate change rebels or rabble-rousers who see no need for civilized political processes, these “voices that cry in wilderness” are seeking real solutions to real injustices not someday but today. To retard the march of justice, for whatever political advantage, is to halt it in its tracks. However, to throw an issue down the gauntlet without calculation, technique, and well-timed maneuvering may be impractical and ineffective in attaining ultimate ends. Truly, the tension between the immediacy of justice-doing on the one hand and the patience required for optimum political stratagem on the other is perennial.

Given that “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” waiting is a ruse by those reluctant to advance equality. Justice cannot too speedily be delivered. Yet, the demands cannot be sloppily presented, and the timing must be finessed. How, then, do we reconcile the need to be skillful in timing and persuasion in order to achieve equality with the immediacy of the need for equality?

On Wednesday we met with a legislator who defended his vote in the negative for Assemblyman O’Donnell’s marriage equality bill citing political inopportunity as his justification. Although he personally supports marriage equality, he did not vote for the legislation because he saw his vote as inconsequential, and he was biding his time to make such a controversial stand, in a district where 80% oppose, when it would have the greatest impact. The members of the Right to Marry Campaign, South Bus, expressed the need for immediate change in NY on the issue, indicating in no uncertain terms that the needs of same-gender families require an instantaneous invitation to the institution of marriage. The American Pediatrics Society has come out publicly in support of marriage equality, asserting that children need the protections and benefits of civil marriage. These families exist, and need these federal and state entitlements immediately; waiting for a politically opportune time to protect them is absurd. The legislator maintained that he supports bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender (BGLT) rights (including marriage rights), yet believes that he is in no position to “come out” with this position at the present time. However, he declared, that at some future time the climate will be ripe for his decision to favor marriage equality, and at that time he will make good on his promise.

How can we, who have waited for so many years to have the equal treatment under the law that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, sit in the office of an ally of marriage equality and accept its deferment? Is this truly an ally of marriage equality, or someone who has invented a creative argument to appease the dissenting and wronged minority into silence? Granted, how the case is made is important, but the timing is never better to extend rights to a suspect classification of people than the present. Therefore, when speaking in terms of redressing the injustice perpetuated on a minority, in this case extending marriage to include all couples who have been so excluded, political strategy can never be used as an excuse for failing to vote according to what is known is right.

When speaking about direct-action campaigns against discrimination, Dr. King asserts that no decision to advance civil rights is “well timed.” How easy it is for those who have all of the joys of marriage to beseech the minority to wait with patience for the prime moment when, usually when it is convenient for the lawmaker and the opportunity costs are at their lowest, to vote for justice to prevail. The BGLT community must rise up together, with eloquence, intelligence, grace, and earnestness and immediately demand nothing less than civil marriage. This is a matter of conscience and morality. The legislative branch of the government did not wait for the majority of Americans to affirm racial equality when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – this decision was an ethical imperative. Likewise, the legislative branch of NY must not balk at their duty to vote in favor of marriage equality. We shall not wait for a “more convenient season.” We consider this assemblyman’s “Lukewarm acceptance… [as] much more bewildering than outright rejection,” (in Dr. King’s words) and ask him to stand with resolute moral posture for marriage equality. Time can never be used as “an ally of the forces of social stagnation,” rather, “…time is always ripe to do right.” May the lawmakers of New York make haste to do right and vote for marriage equality.

RMC’s Message Gets Broadcasted Over the Internet in Rockland County

Tuesday, July 24th, 2007 by Matthew Nelson

Go to:

http://www.rocklandworldradio.com/program/johnshields/

Then click on the link underneath:

07/23/07 ‘Guest Matthew Nelson, discussing civil rights’

With Each Lawmaker, A Conversation

Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 by Matthew Nelson

The Hudson River glistened in the noonday sun, as we took serpentine roads to Ossining, NY. We, the activist storm troopers, thought that the way to Assemblywoman Galef’s office would be highway to main thoroughfares to the doorstep of the office of representative democracy. Instead, small-town country roads took us past flowerbox-accented houses, and a gilded sign indicating that we had entered the idyllic New York hamlet. With haste, attired in pastel professionalism, we arrived at the district office much later than had been expected; we were late.

With a flurry we entered Assemblywoman Galef’s office where she greeted us individually, and then she ushered us into her conference room. We began asking Galef about her vote in the negative for the marriage equality bill that passed the Assembly with a slim majority. She informed us that she conducted a poll on the issue in her district, and received an unprecedented response. Much to her surprise, most of her constituents favored civil unions for same-gendered couples, but only about 30% endorsed marriage equality. Therefore, given the outpouring of support for the civil union option, Galef voted her constituents and gave her personal veto to the legislation.

We informed Galef that there are 250,000 children living in same-gender parented households according to the 2000 US Census, and enjoined her to advocate for marriage equality which is the only option legally, socially, and symbolically which can deliver well over 1300 benefits and protections to these families. Moreover, in the face of opposition to marriage equality in her district, we reminded Galef that a vote for marriage equality is morally imperative and politically advantageous. The former, because many civil rights decisions were made in the face of public dissent, e.g., the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia, when 70% of America’s populace disapproved, to strike down the ban on interracial marriage. The latter, because no candidate in Massachusetts who voted in favor of marriage equality, where marriage equality is now legal, was unseated, and many who opposed marriage equality were unseated by challengers who supported it. In addition to sharing personal stories and explaining the important differences between a civil union and marriage, we snapped a picture and left our first meeting on the Right to Marry Campaign. We concluded that Galef was at the same time well-intentioned concerning the needs of the bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender community (BGLT), but uninformed about the inferiority of the potpourri of parallel, non-marriage legal statuses vis-à-vis civil marriage. However, we were excited about having had such an engagement with the Assemblywoman, that the needs of the BGLT community were made clear to her so that she will be prepared to vote in favor of marriage equality should such legislation be proposed to the Assembly again.

More than anything, we were affirmed in the necessity of our mission, namely, that marriage equality is about the defense of our humanity and the advocacy of our community’s equality in America. In every conversation that we have, whether with a representative or a constituent, we are confident that, by the banks of the Hudson, more people will be informed about this weighty civil rights decision and support marriage equality.