Incrementalism - A Tool For Both Sides Of The Issue [Archive]

Liberal Crozier

07-03-2006, 03:15 AM

Liberal and Spouse both are interested in your views.

Incrementalism is defined as the belief that your goals can be achieved by first defining the goal and its component parts, and to accept parts of the whole without forfeiting the ultimate and universal goal of justice and equality.

The LGBT community has accepted incrementalism by first accepting Registered Domestic Partnerships in the governmental and corporate arenas. It accepted Civil Unions rather than marriage in CT and VT.

The Theocon community has accepted a devolution of rights by suggesting civil unions and registered domestic partnerships in lieu of marriage. They then also suggest a "grandfathering" of existing marriages, civil unions or other legal instruments, to a "date certain" - creating a two-tier system of same-sex couplings.

It is also clear that the Theocons are adept at removing "lesser instruments" such as RDP's when civil unions or marriages are given - even when in the case of MA - the marriage bonds do not extend beyond MA state boundaries and has no federal recognition.

The Europeans and Latin Americans, as opposed to the Dutch, Canadian, Spanish and Canadian total victories ( Spain and Canada still assailed), continue to push for the EU compromise?

Incrementalism, Compromise, or the Benelux-Iberian-Canadian solution? What say you????

Specifically, if you accept lesser rights such as RDP and civil unions, will you ever acheive full and equal marriage rights in the USA? Should you compromise with theocons whose ultimate agenda is the denial of any and all rights under law for same-sex coupling?

Do you also agree that the newest assault is the denial of adoption rights or surrogacy rights for same-sex couples? The Dutch and Belgian governments had to compromise these issues in 2001 and 2002, but corrected them both in 2006. Do you compromise by accepting these "exceptions"?

Daniel

07-03-2006, 09:47 AM

I agree with the professor quoted below: there will be a number of approaches, all of which will lead to full marriage rights. The gay couples in Connecticut, who brought the suit referred to below, are rightly dissatisfied with the current civil union law there. At best, it is a 'compromise' which the residents of Connecticut have availed themselves of while holding their noses.

]Gay Marriage Case Now Before the Court

William N. Eskridge Jr., a Yale law professor, said he believed it was just a matter of time before a statute allowing same-sex marriage would appear on the national level. So far, Northeast and Pacific Rim states have been the only ones to favorably address the issue, said Professor Eskridge, who teaches a course titled ''Sexuality, Gender and the Law.''

''I don't know that we'll end up with marriage,'' he said. ''But the trend is going to be state recognition and probably some kind of compromise, I'm very certain of that. We are going to have a diversity of approach in America. The states that recognized same-sex unions, the sky did not fall. God did not send the locusts upon these states, gay and lesbian couples did not flood in, but thousands formalized their relationships and are leading productive lives. The whole thing has been greatly overblown.

Brian S. Brown, the executive director of the nonprofit Family Institute of Connecticut, which has fought civil unions, same-sex marriage and adoption by same-sex families, said he believed that that federal action would stop what he called a patchwork of same-sex-marriage and civil union laws throughout the country.

In a discussion with my uncle last year (his wife of almost 50 years is Canadian) it became clear that the objection for many is the word marriage. While he personally sees no reason while my Canadian married husband and I should not be considered legally married here in the US, he rightly puts his finger on the issue. There are those who believe they have sole possession of the meaning of the word. These very same voters have little understanding of the history of marriage as well as the church's involvement in it historically. I sum: I believe no other word will do. Anything less is settling for second-class status.

Liberal Crozier

07-03-2006, 10:42 AM

Daniel,

Your reply was textured and layered. An enigma wrapped up in a teapot. ;)

Our theocon opponents have one agenda, and whatever incremental strategies work for the subject populations and cultures. In both MA and Canada, the theocons know and understand the meaning of changing laws but keeping current same-sex partners from returning their marriage licences and certificates. It is too emotionally charged for families and for the couples. The malevolence is increased when you tell one couple to keep their marriage and deny another after a time certain...because the right wing loves to create dissention among their enemies. Harper and his minority theocons will not succeed in Canada, but Romney seems to be succeeding in the legislature, courts and public opinion in MA.

To the theocon, IMHO, it matters NOT AT ALL what the granting of civil rights to all citizens is called. The majority of marriages on this planet do NOT have a spiritual component beyond a mere cultural choice of venue, ie., a spiritual house of worship frequented rarely beyond or before the event. Witness the Vegas or Reno or Atlantic City " chapel" setting. The arguement is a canard, a strategem, a word game worthy of Orwell - which is truly their playbook as they seek to redefine liberal wins into fascist ones.

The Theocon's agenda is THE STATUS QUO ANTE. It means that ONLY heterosexual couples may receive the 1138+ legal benefits of marriage - and while they hate and revile you - receive the $$$$$$$ that rightfully belong to you and your family.

In the USA, civil disobedience and street protestation has been marginalised by the corporate press. When I have seen our brothers and sisters fight in Europe and elsewhere, I cannot help but compare. Unlike Canada and Europe, the SHEEPLE accept the status quo or rarely engage the enemy. " Bread and Circuses" - Panem et Circenses - even the theocon modalities have been used since the days of Ancient Rome.

Soulforce's Equality Ride, and the desire to re-create civil disobedience not really seen since the 1960's is heartening. Of course, the press is completely owned, spun and dominated by the Right Wing, but it is my belief that there is no logical sequitur between accepting lesser rights and eventually earning full rights. At least, not if you want to realise these rights within a normal lifespan.

The Reconstruction ended with the introduction of Jim Crow and Plessy v Ferguson and then another half century to Brown v Board of Education and another decade and more to Loving v Virginia. There were the majority who lived under oppression, lynching and fascism - while others migrated to free nations in order to enjoy liberties for themselves and their families. No immigrant first generation enjoys the full fruits of liberty - and it has always been difficult for this population - but their children and families live in that freedom and fight to secure it for themselves and their posterity.

And then again...

You have the EU insisting upon equal civil rights and allowing lesser rights - no adoption or surrogacy seems to be the new theocon mantra worldwide for obvious reasons - and three full exceptions who are being pushed to lose both the word and the totality of their earned rights.

I always thought that the charismatically conservative immediate late former pope was difficult, the ascession of this self-loathing homophobe with the Prada metrosexual fashion sense going to Spain to incite his minions gives pause so soon after Pride Month ends.

nowvoyager

07-03-2006, 08:58 PM

This is indeed a difficult question fraught with contradictions, and going to the heart of the struggle for equal rights.

I agree with Daniel, that to the people in the middle, the word "marriage" is the sticking point, for all their historical ignorance of the term. Arguing with them by pointing out that marriage was for chattel, to protect inheritance rights, historically demeaning to women, etc etc, brings about blank stares. As does pointing out that the term "marriage" has evolved from these things to a sense of meaning and commitment to one person, and has never been a static notion. If we can't persuade them on the basis of history that they can't hold the married state as an unchanging fortress, then what other arguments can we use?

So it would seem that if they won't allow us to "marry", then arguing for full legal equal status in the form of civil unions, in the short term, would be the most efficient thing. The sooner the better -- to make a change ASAP so that the partner of a dying person can visit the hospital bed, and all those other things we routinely miss out on.

However, to do so is indeed to settle for less. It's also true that opponents of civil unions suggest that once CUs are granted, it won't stop there - we'll soon be demanding marriage anyway. It seems we can't win, as although we win the logical argument, their position is used autocratically just to get us to pipe down. It will take longer, and more education, and more persuasion yet.

We won't know for sure which approach is best, marriage or CU, until we've the luxury of hindsight. But I tend to agree with Daniel, anything less than marriage is second class status, so we should aim as high as we can. Its about equality. And where heterosexuals have marriage or CU to choose from, so should we.

Liberal Crozier

07-04-2006, 12:20 AM

Interesting, Nowvoyager :D

In the first paragraph, you seem to support CU because it provides at least a modicum of rights for those same sex couples in the USA who possess none or less.

In the last paragraph, you elect SSM instead of CU for same sex couples.
And yet, I understand and appreciate the dilemma. As a Canadian, I have those rights, and we did not opt for CU or lesser rights as in the UK and elsewhere.

First of all, you are absolutely correct. The Theocons want you to have NOTHING in the way of civil rights or $$$$$ you earned for your family. They- those who hate you thoroughly - want the civil rights and the $$$$$$ that should support you and your children - your family.

We personally know of NO lesser rights programme extanct in the world today that provides EQUALITY with the marriage rights that they provide their heterosexual citizenry. It is not only a matter of the word marriage - it is about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and the rights that both words afford.

Two facts are for sure - NO government in the world that has provided lesser RDP or CU benefits have UPGRADED to marriage. Governments in the world that provided MARRIAGE initially with lesser rights - adoption or surrogacy - have now provided their citizens with it. Interesting, isn't it?

Theocons are about incrementalism - negative incrementalism . When MA only has state-boundaried legal marriage - they try to cut out RDP benefits from corporate or governmental entitities. When they lost marriage in MA, they resurrected a Jim Crow-enabling law of 1913, recently supported, to deny out-of-state SAME SEX couplings. If you are straight, and want to marry in MA and live elsewhere, don't worry about it. You can. Then the theocons say that if you married between 2004-08 you can stay married until they pass a FMA nationwide, but they won't require you to lose your credentials until then. Too much emotional backlash from parents and friends.

When you pull a Vermont or Connecticut, IMHO, you win a Pyrrhic victory - you win a battle and lose the war. For short-term gain, you win perpetual pain.

nowvoyager

07-04-2006, 06:52 PM

You've correctly read my great ambivalance on the subject, and this led to... not a contradictory argument, so much as a deeply conflicted view.

I agree with you, that the reason that not logic nor an appeal to humanity nor any argument can sway our opponents, is because they just don't want us in the world and thus don't want to allow us equal rights, equal $$$$$, or anything else. The more extreme of them would prefer us dead -- a fact that still astonishes me. Others would prefer that we lived lives tangled in shame and secrecy (as long as we submitted to their rules and demanded no recognition) over lives lived openly LGBT.

I am struck by your point that no govt worldwide has "upgraded" from CU to Marriage. And yet, my UK friends' lives have been improved markedly by their "downgrade" CU scheme - so it is this and my sense of urgency about our lost rights and lost $$ that leads me to think that second best is ok enough. In any case, Australia's current conservative govt just won't pass full marriage rights, so it seems politically astute to press for CUs instead. But that annoys me no end -- because really I want Australia to follow your Canadian model, of full marriage, not the UK one.

Yep, still conflicted :rolleyes:

Liberal Crozier

07-04-2006, 10:23 PM

There was a time, many years ago, when Liberal's father thought seriously of leaving Canada for Australia. His father spoke to a WWII generation, where as an officer in His Majesty's Royal Canadian forces in the Pacific, he served with His Majesty's Royal Aussie forces as well. He formed a strong bond and this tie almost made me never meet this wonderful man had he left Canada. LC and I have been in your country many times, and fully understand what national definition means to the Old Commonwealth and Dominions who currently retain HM, the Queen as our common chief of state, despite how honourific it is. We must forge our identity separately but not necessarily negating our historical precedence.

Yes, we all share the ambivalence when we see the UK model as a glass half full, rather than half empty. It was the legislative fix for injustice in order to make a real difference in the lives of the famous and infamous and the "sine nobilitate" as well. :). The cost, IMHO, is that the total victory becomes elusive and allows our nihilistically agendaed opponents to support the incremental removal of other instruments - the RDP, for example, - while militating against the use of the full marriage licence contract for us.

Believe me, as in Canada, when your opponents offer the CU or its 50-75% rights and privileges, it is because they know that they can snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat. It is political brinksmanship, and about who blinks first. OUR RIGHT WING NUTS BLINKED FIRST AND WILL NOT DARE CHANGE THE LAW. Ask the American Anglicans.....:(

Zerbie

07-05-2006, 05:10 PM

I think it has to depend upon the circumstance, what is possible to achieve in one's locale/time. In Arizona, where I reside these days, full marriage equality is not in the immediate future. It just isn't. Right now, we are scrambling to protect any legal recognition we may have, such as domestic partnership benefits, because "they" are trying to take those away. If someday in the future AZ talks about CU versus marriage equality, at the snail's pace we're moving, it makes better sense to take "something" over nothing, and opt for whatever we can get in the eyes of the state, until such time as full equality becomes "allowable."

I don't know what to make of the fact that no place with CU has moved to full marriage equality. Is it causal? Or are those places opting for CU BECAUSE they will not go for full marriage equality? I am not sure that taking what one can get in the meantime necessarily precludes achieving full recognition in the future. If I thought it did, I might speak differently regarding a 'compromise' on CU.

Liberal Crozier

07-05-2006, 05:45 PM

:love: :love: :love:
Zerbie, dear one:

There is one thing for sure. Your views represent the strategems on the ground with the US activist community. Love to you from our family.:love:

tdogg

07-05-2006, 07:24 PM

In my heart, I don't want to settle for anything less than full marriage rights that any hetero couple are entitled to receive. But in my head, taking advantage of what we have even if it's not the same, just makes sense for the time being. Things like health and retirement benefits, hospital visitation and medical decisions, child custody issues - registered domestic partners & couples with civil union rights at least have legal rights that would be difficult to take away. If we don't take advantage of that, there is no guarantee that we would be able to visit our partners in the hospital, make any medical decisions, obtain benefits, and especially issues regarding children. With understanding and loving families, this might not be a big issue. However, as a person who has some family that is less than understanding and loving, it would be a huge issue in my life.

We haven't opted for registering as domestic partners at this time, but I feel that we are taking a chance that if 'something' does happen, it isn't going to be easy to deal with. I have a will, but it's a home grown thing and there are no guarantees - most likely if fought in court my family would win. By this I mean my stepmom (and therefore my father who is unable to communicate well or make significant decisions), a sister and an aunt. At least I have another sister and my mother who would, I hope, make a stand for my partner.

So, do any of you think by taking advantage of what is offered to us is in turn, saying it's okay, we'll take this and forget anything else? Just curious as to what you all think. I'm very torn on this issue myself.

Dash

07-05-2006, 09:12 PM

I raise my hand in favor of full marriage--not, however, for the rights bestowed since I am in no danger of finding a spouse to spend my hard earned $$$$ and yak about the dirty laundry on my bedroom floor. For me, it's only an issue of social recognition. As John Stewart said when he so adroitly skewered Bill Bennett (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/07.html#a8614) on The Daily Show last month: "it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."

Those who oppose us must see us and recognize that our love is really love. They absolutely must, and I'll settle for nothing less.

The trouble with civil unions is that they allow those people to still treat our affections as something less than theirs...less than god-blessed...less than "normal."

Does anyone remember that '80s movie Ladyhawke (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089457/)? In that movie the Bishop of Aquila has cursed two lovers to live, yet never be with each other. By night he is a wolf, and by day she is a hawk. They travel together but can never touch. The curse is broken when Isabeau and Navarre confront the Bishop in the mid-light of an eclipse. He is forced at last to look upon them and recognize their love. He, of course, can barely stand it, for they represent the years of pain that he has caused because of his own evil.

I maintain that the bigotry of our foes is a blasphemy against Love itself, and they must look upon the One they have pierced.

On the other hand, I have surveyed the inhabitants of my apartment (population one) and a majority of us are willing to accept a more incremental approach. We propose to start with a decent date or two in the next year. Once we have conquered that goal, we will progress to more advanced unions such as "getting serious" and "going steady.":p

Daniel

07-05-2006, 09:48 PM

I am not sure that taking what one can get in the meantime necessarily precludes achieving full recognition in the future. If I thought it did, I might speak differently regarding a 'compromise' on CU.

I believe that whatever rights are achieved, and by whatever means -be it legal or legislative- in the end must be that same rights that opposite-sex partners now enjoy and take for granted. Anything less than that is just that: less.

My husband and I have been domestic partners here in NYC. What rights are we accorded for that one many ask? They are, in fact, few. We can visit each other in a CITY hospital. We can visit each other in a CITY jail. If an employee of the CITY, one's partner can get health insurance benefits which one must pay taxes for (up to 60%) since it is considered income by the IRS. In sum, to this citizen, there is noting incremental about these rights: of the three 'rights' enumerated, they are nothing compared to the thousand-plus rights accorded a married couple. In comparison, they are the scraps from the table.

The doctrine of incrementalism is, in the end, only proposed by those who have an interest in keeping the status quo as well as those who believe they should accept less now to, in some unforseeable future, gain more. I, for one, am not willing to bargain away my humanity. There is a great saying: "To ask is to be denied". That's what incrementalism is doing at heart: asking!

And here's a thought: One isn't a little married any more than one is a little pregant.

My husband and I are legally married in the Province of Ontario- and it is high time for the United States of America to recogize it.

Liberal Crozier

07-05-2006, 11:12 PM

nowvoyager

07-05-2006, 11:38 PM

Of course, according to international law, the USA is in violation of this treaty accepting each others' marriages.
As is Australia. The law by which Australia recognised international marriages was overturned in a mad and unholy rush, when it seemed that same-sex Australian couples would marry in Canada and demand recognition of their marriages upon their return. The new act says international marriages between a man and a woman will be recognised here. It was introduced by stealth and passed unopposed (though the Greens tried to kick up a fuss they were powerless to stop it), whereas even the similar DOMA failed in the US.

There was a time where Australia led the world in civil rights issues, e.g. we were the second country in the world to give women the right to vote. Alas we are now trailing way behind.

It will change though. A former head of my denomination said that this will be the century for change for us - as last century was for women and the century before was for slaves. And though I don't think it will take a century it certainly feels that long sometimes...

PS Dash - I'm gonna rush right out and hire Ladyhawke, which I haven't seen for years!

Daniel

07-06-2006, 07:00 AM

You and your spouse were married in Toronto, as were we. Our marriages are considered legal throughout Canada. When you step on Canadian soil, regardless of which province or territory, you are a legally married couple.

Of course, according to international law, the USA is in violation of this treaty accepting each others' marriages.

Liberal- I am glad for you three! And it pains me that my country will not recognize either of us, though, it must be said, the USA has been in the habit of ignoring treaties as of late.

There was one thing about getting married in Toronto that pointed out the seriousness of it: one must be a resident of Canada for a year in order to divorce. I can only surmise this is designed to make one think twice about what one is doing.

There is some hope here in New York State for gay marriage: a much anticipated court decision is slated to be announced today, at the latest by labor day.

http://www.gaycitynews.com/gcn_526/decisionexpected.html

Coda:

Here is the decision: http://365gay.com/Newscon06/07/070606nymarr.htm

NY High Court Tosses Gay Marriage To Legislature

July 6, 2006 - 9:00 am ET

(Albany, New York) The Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York State, ruled Thursday that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

Liberal Crozier

07-06-2006, 08:51 AM

My dear Daniel:

This is +LC. Lap top and bedstand and a promise to limit my time online.

The divorcement laws are there as a reflection of the Canadian culture about marriage. We have better statistics than does the USA on this issue.
My commentary also included the fact that many American gays and lesbians chose to create commitment ceremonies rather than to choose a MA wedding ( with a mental reservation on residency ) or, if they live close or have the discretionary income to vacation in Canada - to have made that similar declaration. You could have chosen a NY commitment ceremony , but I suspect that in your wedding you realised both the spiritual and legal component, however briefly. I am proud of committed couples like yourselves making the choice to marry in Canada, and to live an activism that makes your brothers and sisters take notice.

Yes, when we are in the States, we are legal strangers. However, as Canadian citizens, I remind whomever is determining our family status, that my permanent residence is Canada, and that consulates, like embassies, are foreign soil. That designation also applies to honourary counsuls. It has been our experience that when we identify ourselves as a Canadian family, and they can see the legality of the marriage instrument, that if they can make an exception to their laws (especially if they KNOW that it is as unjust as many LAWS in their history), that they do so and provide us spousal and family considerations.

WOW - The Canadian activists were right. Despite all the " feel good about the verdict " predictions from the gentrified GLBT organisations, it was clear that the highest court would become a " fascist right wing activist court.":rolleyes:

Leave it to the legislature, they say. When don't they?? I say. Which state has there not been a six month window in order for the legislators to vote against any and all rights for US citizens? And then, when CA actually votes in justice, the closet right wing GOP governor, masquerading as a moderate, vetoes the bill.

What is the reaction? Is it the gentrified reaction with the Mattachine and Bilitis mindset and playbook? Is it " gay leaders " in committed long-term relationships unwilling to invest political capital and marry in MA or Canada?
In my historical perspective, the diversity of a minority also produces a diversity of reactions and proactive acts to eventually produce the needed outcome. Any and all such groups who have gained power from minority status have used that very playbook.

Zealotry and passion. From Christianity to secular systems - whether an insignificant German monk nailing his thesis to the cathedral door, confronting the total theocracy of his day - or to ACT UP, who as a world organisation, actually spoke truth to power with the sure subtle message that the status quo would not be tolerated.

Our enemies are passionate and zealous. As a liberal Christian leader, I knew their own power in my worldwide denomination, as well as outside my theological perspectives. They sacrifice all to defeat what they believe is Satanic. They are often Dominionists, who care not at all if they vote against their own economic best interests, or against secular justice they know to be true in their own hearts.

They are nihilists and unfortunately, they often face the gentrified centrist pragmatist, who calculate strategies of compromise and incrementalism. Our opponents define themselves as our Enemies - who have God completely on their side - and who have no right to secular justice if it offends the "inerrant Word." Beyond hating our gentrified and legalistic leaders, they have not a modicum of respect for their attempts at compromise and tolerance.

I spoke to cataclysmic event. I don't want to raise my blood pressure and visit the "usual suspect gentrified LGBT websites" with the predictable spin in their commentaries on the NY decision.

NETWORK : " I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore." What would the Fab Five say?:love: :love: :love:

NathanATX

07-06-2006, 09:23 AM

I'm extremely angry.

Previously, you asked what kind of cataclysmic event is going to have to happen for GLBT people to wake up and start fighting back.

I think most of us are afraid of the fight. Something is going to have to happen that will be so unconscionably evil that we are irrevocably jolted out of our complacency.

Where are the voices raising the alarm?

Do I need to become one of those voices? :confused:

:pray:

NathanATX

07-06-2006, 09:41 AM

I think what I and many other angry, yet scared people need are the words to shout.

That is one of the main things that I find AMAZING about your writing here. You have experience, wisdom and perspective that I haven't heard before.

You are giving me the clarity and the language I need in order to respond to these attacks.

Daniel

07-06-2006, 09:55 AM

NETWORK : " I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore." What would the Fab Five say?:love: :love: :love:

Dear dear Liberal- your post is much appreciated for its wisdom, flame-throwing words and humor- though I doubt that Carson C. would be hard pressed to dress up this situation in a presentable way that disguises its odiousness.

The decision of this court, as I have read this morning, goes farther than saying that the decision should be left to the legislature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/nyregion/06cnd-marriage.html?hp&ex=1152244800&en=85a00e86c6e42a03&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The court did not rule that the state should not or could not allow gay marriages, only that the state constitution did not require that it allow them.

The decision called the idea of same-sex marriage "a relatively new one" and said that for most of history, society has conceived of marriage exclusively as a bond between a man and a woman. "A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted," the decision stated.

"There are at least two grounds that rationally support the limitation on marriage that the legislature has enacted," the court said, "both of which are derived from the undisputed assumption that marriage is important to the welfare of children."

First, the court said, marriage could be preserved as an "inducement" to heterosexual couples to remain in stable, long-term, and child-bearing relationships. Second, lawmakers could rationally conclude that "it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and the father."

"Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like," the court said.

The court rejected parallels to laws barring interracial marriage, and the claim that sheer homophobia lay at the root of current law. "Plaintiffs have not persuaded us that this long-accepted restriction is a wholly irrational one, based solely on ignorance and prejudice against homosexuals," the court said.

To this reader, the court has said what the conservatives in my own family have said in effect: "We're not bigot's and you still can't get married- so there!"

NY's next governor will undoubtedly be Elliot Spitzer who has gone on record as being for gay marriage, but I hold no grand hopes there. I will be surprised if he remains a champion of gay marriage. And we have our own mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has his own sorry history in the affair, bringing one of the cases to the court which was decided today. Many are positing that it will be a least a decade before any efforts in this area are realized.

My spouse (I interchange 'spouse' with 'husband' it seems) and I did have a 'commitment ceremony' in NY, Saratoga Springs to be exact, eight years ago. But we wanted the legal document to help us obtain health benefits at my place of work, which it did. Doing so opened the doors for at least 5 other couples. And I believe this is what all GLBT Americans should be doing: taking the issue home where it matters. As you've noted, that piece of paper has a way of being recognized.

Our enemies are passionate and zealous. As a liberal Christian leader, I knew their own power in my worldwide denomination, as well as outside my theological perspectives. They sacrifice all to defeat what they believe is Satanic. They are often Dominionists, who care not at all if they vote against their own economic best interests, or against secular justice they know to be true in their own hearts.

They are nihilists and unfortunately, they often face the gentrified centrist pragmatist, who calculate strategies of compromise and incrementalism.

La verita! My one hope is gay GLBT organizations realize that the centrists they all too often put their money behind (HRC come stongly to mind here), in the end, put self-interest ahead of everything. As in this last gay pride parade. Our own NY senators (Clinton and Schumer), agents of incrementalism, are opposed to gay marriage, yet boldly marched in our parade. Why? I ask. They both want our support and will not support us where it really matters. We need better friends than that.

Dash

07-06-2006, 11:27 AM

Slow week at work...just finished reading the decision of the New York Court of Appeals (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf). (Thanks to Good As You (http://www.goodasyou.org/) for the link.)

If the decision angers you, the dissent by the Chief Judge will give you reason to cheer. She writes eloquently about the justice of our cause, and the bad reasoning that defends discrimination. In one of many fine points, she writes:

Defendants primarily assert an interest in encouraging procreation within marriage. But while encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry before they have children is certainly a legitimate interest of the State, the exclusion of gay men and lesbians from marriage in no way furthers this interest. There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone.

SCOOOOOOOOOOORRE!!:agree:

Daniel

07-06-2006, 11:37 AM

If the decision angers you, the dissent by the Chief Judge will give you reason to cheer. She writes eloquently about the justice of our cause, and the bad reasoning that defends discrimination.

Just finished reading it myself here: it's a well-written piece of work and shows up the lack thereof in the majority decision. Point by point, she does a bangup job! Meanwhile..... in Georgia...

Ga. Top Court Reinstates Gay Marriage Ban

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 6, 2006
Filed at 11:14 a.m. ET

ATLANTA (AP) -- The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York's highest court upheld that state's gay-marriage ban.

The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Superior Court Judge Constance Russell of Fulton County had ruled that it did.

Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004.

Sorry Revtj!!!!! My heart goes out to ya!

We're going to a rally in Sheridan Square re the NY decision this evening at 6 PM. We'll see where we go from here.

Steven E. Webster

07-06-2006, 12:08 PM

NathanATX

07-06-2006, 12:12 PM

Friends,
Despite the fact that I'm an anti-War, liberal Democrat, I frequently enjoy Andrew Sullivan. Here's his take on the recent NY decision.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/those_irrespons.html

Here's the final paragraph:

The argument, essentially, is that because straight couples are so irresponsible, can have children by accident, and have made such a hash of civil marriage, they need more incentives than gay couples to stay together - and civil marriage as an exclusive privilege for them is such an incentive. The interests of gay couples in staying together - the gains in responsibility, health, stability and the security of their own children - are dispensable. Gays are still regarded as sub-citizens. So the goals are rational, but the means are not. Still I find it quite candid of the court to argue that straights are less responsible than gays, far more capable of sexual recklessness and inherently dangerous to children. I wonder if this will be the new argument for the anti-gay forces. We have to save marriage from those responsible gays! It's the irresponsible straights who need it most.

Liberal Crozier

07-06-2006, 01:35 PM

There is no conservative voice who can evoke a plethora of emotions than does Andrew Sullivan. I have found his own life story to be a study in conflict.

First of all, Andrew Sullivan is born of Irish extraction in England. He is raised in the Roman Catholic faith. In a nation where status, peerage and membership in the Established Church defines a clear path to attain, if not to convert to, Andrew Sullivan is the first person in his family to obtain a higher education, indeed the best, an Oxbridge experience.

Sullivan maintains his Catholicism, but becomes an anti-establishment tory- a person whose rhetoric and life choices are soon in conflict. Unlike his public school friends who are functionally, if not constitutionally homosexual, but soon heterosexually marry and maintain other dalliances on the down low, Sullivan is open to a small coterie of friends who recognise his value as a conservative voice from someone whose family and life story would militate against his support and his zealous adaption of their values.

Sullivan immigrates to the United States, and obtains a PhD from Harvard University - a liberal bastion within the Ivy League Conference - culturally if not in reality.

However, there is a disconnect between thought and behaviour where he is concerned, IMHO. The sexual adventurism, the sex-without-condom, his railing against Roman Catholicism and his blistering defence of our cause and his recent and brilliant interaction with Mohler and Fr. Manning and Bp. Robinson are usually in start contrast to his advocacy of monogamous same sex marriage and his inability to disassociate himself from Church or Political Party/Beliefs that do active and nihilistic warfare against his very being.

Individuals who both know and personally like him intensely always excuse this contradiction in thought and action, and defend him as the only right wing voice who speaks to their issues, and tells the truth to his own political comrades.

I believe that whether appointed or elected, state judiciaries are politically sensitive to the electoral landscape. I could never understand why there were legal eagles on "our" side who actually believed that they had won the case. There is no doubt that Kerry believed that MA marriage made his 2004 presidential quest difficult; and the Clintons, I believe, worked very hard to make NY free of that contest for 2008.

I find the attempt to dump Lieberman and the DLC types from political office as Democrats to find resonance in our purging Liberals in Name Only from our caucuses. Will someone explain to me how Ben Nelson of NE and either Lincoln or Pryor of AR, or Landrieu of LA anything but Dixiecrats who are merely non-operative transitionals toward the true neocon Republicans they really are. That " angry inch " seems to require our $$$$ and votes in return for outright political betrayal.

GA does not even merit anything but acknowledgement of the political reality. A state that could oust a US senator who had his credentials and life story, and describe him as less patriotic than a chickenhawk neocon deserves nothing but derision. Yes, I understand that there are liberal bastions in these states, .....Austin for TX and Atlanta for GA.....but....

Every day, and in every way, because the USA is who they are, that I pray that this organisation - Soulforce - is successful in coalescing a diverse community to honour the passion, zealotry, and moral courage to battle the forces of untruth and injustice. Onward Christian soldiers, onward as to war, with the cross of Jesus, going on before. Amen.

suzer1013

07-06-2006, 02:30 PM

This is so incredibly depressing.

Our wonderful Guv-nuh Perdue states in today's AJC article -- he hopes gay people won't feel marginalized by this decision. He says it's o.k. for us to live and work here, we just can't marry here. (Yeah, keep paying taxes and supporting our state, but we'll not give you all of the benefits we give everyone else.)

Fuck off, Guv-nuh Redneck Asshole. Marginalized? Yeah, I feel fully fucking marginalized. And angry, and sad, and pissed off and ready to explode at the injustices you support against my people - - yes MY people.

My partner and I have often thought we might marry our good friends, a gay male couple we know. I could marry one, she could marry the other, and we'd get tax benefits and insurance and such, and of course it would be a sham of a marriage -- we wouldn't live with our "legal spouse" -- but who cares -- as long as the marriage is between a male and female, it doesn't matter, right?

I tend too much toward despondency to wrap my head around the last few weeks. First the Episcopal General Convention, then New York and GA in one day. I didn't expect much from GA, really, but had hopes for New York.

Gotta get back to work. And make some tea and take a deep breath before I cry or explode, or both..... :mad: :'(

Susan

suzer1013

07-06-2006, 02:38 PM

sorry. I just got my tea, and realized that the language in my previous post is not very "Soulforc-ian" -- I used some rather strong language against the Guv-nuh. I guess that's why I haven't been able to pledge myself fully to nonviolence yet. Hope no one is offended by my anger (except maybe the Guv-nuh -- not so sure I care if he's offended).

On another note, it occurred to me that some of the attendant rights of marriage could be bestowed on my partner and I if one of us adopted the other. Hmmmm. I wonder if that would work? I mean, you can adopt an adult, right? Then, at least, intestate succession, hospital visits and such could not be questioned. And for the tax benefits, we'd marry our good gay friends, Bob and Steve (not their real names!).

Susan

NathanATX

07-06-2006, 03:06 PM

I just posted this on a conservative christian message board...

"The theocon/dominionist agenda is attacking the foundation of America. Moderates, social conservatives and even liberals don't seem to be aware of the threat that theocons pose to our country. As a gay man and one of the theocon's targets, I can assure you it SUCKS to be in their line of attack. However, I would rather suffer and have to raise my voice against their offenses than be deluded into thinking theocons truly value justice, mercy, equality and other Christian virtues... and eventually be forced to turn over my government and/or my church to them."

Liberal Crozier

07-06-2006, 03:48 PM

I was in " some discomfort " and bemoaning the fact that my guys are at the playground on this warmish sunny day, while I am feeling peekish, and then I read your posting to a theocon website.

I thought to myself - "Bravo, Nathan" - for even if the majority reject your message, there might be one out of 99 who will not only read, but understand what you are saying, and actually question where you have the right to deny the diversity of the Creator's human creation whom He honoured by sending His Only-Beloved Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ to fully take our human form. Please note.....he did NOT take the angelic form, even up to the seraphic grade.

Often, when we are moved by the Holy Spirit to speak, as you were, you may be speaking to a church filled to capacity, and yet reach only a few with your message. Others may partially accept, or totally reject your interpretation of Scripture or Divine Will. But, Nathan, there is that ONE person who needed to hear what you had to say, and you were the instrument by which he or she heard it.

Nathan, regardless of faith community who ordains you, please know that your role is service to Him and to your neighbour, whom you love absolutely.
My seminary years remain the most cherished of my life. It informs my life even now, when I turn over my "discomfort" in an expitory act of surrender to the will of God in all things.....including this most recent trial.

When the "boys" return from play, I will have a cheery disposition, and revel in the fact that I belong to a loving family that we have created - for more than three decades. Let the Pharisees preach otherwise, our love has Divine origin....and approbation.

NathanATX

07-06-2006, 04:32 PM

From http://www.thetaskforce.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=961

“Today’s tortured and intellectually strained decision is beyond disappointing. It is insulting to gay and lesbian people and our families. It is an egregious departure from the New York Court of Appeals’ long and proud tradition of advancing liberty and dismantling discrimination. It is a disgrace to the constitution and the people of New York.

The majority opinion offers utterly absurd reasons why the legislature could choose to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. For example, it says ‘the legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more.’ If the results of this decision were not so profoundly hurtful, this kind of reaching – which permeates the entire opinion - would render it laughable."

Someday we will laugh. Today, we fight.

Dash

07-06-2006, 04:50 PM

From http://www.thetaskforce.org/media/release.cfm?releaseID=961

For example, it says ‘the legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more.’

When I read that section, where the court was speculating about the possible rationales the legistlature might possibly, perhaps, have for preferencing opposite-sex couples over same-sex, I had to stop. It was absolutely incredible. I read it to my co-worker, and we both were befuddled by the nonsense.

(by the way, she graduated from The Moody Bible Institute)

Steven E. Webster

07-06-2006, 05:02 PM

Friends,
I've only looked at this absurd argument from the NY court via Andrew Sullivan. Rather than give in to despair, we might try looking at the "glass half full" side of things. (Sorry, I also hate it when people tell me to see the "half glass full rather than half empty." Especially when it really doesn't seem like we got half.)

I think folks will look back on this decision as a cowardly decision delivered at a time when courts were under attack by the right-wing as "activist." The absurdity of the courts proposed rationale will be widely recognized. As Sullivan says, the best route to go is the legislative route, and in New York State that is feasible with a majority of citizens polled supporting same gender marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the news is lousy, but there is a way forward. There is still hope.

I have not seen the quote from GA Govenor Perdue alluded to by Suz earlier in this thread, but if he did express a concern that LGBT persons not be "marginalized" by their discriminatory laws, he's at least recognizing a part of the truth--that we are being unjustly diminished by the law.

Our Soulforce hope is that people will eventually come to see the truth. There are some signs that that is possible. We need to remain relentless in our pursuit of the truth.

Steven Webster

suzer1013

07-06-2006, 05:15 PM

I didn't have time to read the entire NY opinion, but I read most of the majority opinion, skimmed the concurrence, and skimmed the dissent.

The majority opinion made NO sense to me whatsoever. They were grasping at straws to find reasons to uphold the gay marriage ban. They were far from convincing, besides being outright obnoxious, discriminatory and offensive. If we are to follow their pattern of "logic" perhaps we should start taking children away from their single parents, and install those children in homes that have one mother and one father. We should force hetero couples to adopt all the unwanted children in our society so they don't continue to languish in foster care or group homes and can have the benefit of a male and female role model. I could go on and on.

I graduated from law school in New York State, and have passed three bar exams (NY, MA and GA), so I'm not entirely stupid when it comes to the law, and this opinion is strained to say the least. It is an outrage. It is offensive. It reads rather like the Dredd Scott decision (denying standing to sue to a slave in 1857) or Plessy v. Ferguson (approving segregation in 1896). The flawed reasoning is so similar to those older cases, it astounds me. They seem to say -- "it's always been this way, therefore that makes it right" or "no, you have to suffer inequality for many more years to come, until we can all come around to convince the majority that you are worthwhile and equal." It is a complete outrage. And it will take years and years to overcome within a system that is tired and, dare I say, broken and bought out by special interests to begin with.

I hope I live to see the day when these decisions will be overturned.

Susan

suzer1013

07-06-2006, 05:17 PM

The AJC article link is here:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0706gay.html

For some reason, I couldn't cut and paste the part about Perdue's comment.

Susan

tdogg

07-06-2006, 07:10 PM

Suzer - It has crossed my mind very recently to forumulate a letter to churches at least in my area, especially those I may have supported in the past by my attendance, donations, etc., and ask them what they are doing (1) to find adopted parents for the orphans in our area. Perhaps if resources were focused on adopting currently living children who have no parents instead of fighting the abortion issue, we could get those children out of the orphanage and into families. And (2), what resources (energy and money) they are devoting to human trafficking - according to some statistics I've seen, more than 800,000 children (mostly girls but boys too) and young adults are abducted, sold by parents, lured into situations to be used as prostitutes and other unspeakable entertainment for sickos - much of that happens right here in the good ole USA. Perhaps if religious leaders and politicians were to focus more resources into fighting human trafficking rather than fighting homosexuals, this country could make a dent into that 800,000 + figure.

Maddening, frustrating, angering, depressing - all of that!

Steven, I believe very possibly in our lifetime, we will see significant change in this country - it's been happening, slowly for sure, but times are so much different for us now than in past decades. It will continue to change but not without us standing up for equality, justice, fairness, tolerance and yes, even acceptance. We might be awful tired when it happens, but I truly believe it will happen. For those of us who believe in God, He is mightier than even the most stout and unmoving religious extremist! Excuses are getting more ridiculous, use of scripture less believeable, accusations without merit more astounding, the 'other side' is looking more and more foolish and without a leg to stand on. When they finally see that there are no sides and it's a benefit to each and every citizen, then real progress will be seen.

LC - Am enjoying your posts greatly. I'm so glad that you are feeling up to posting these days. I am interested in the order of angels but nothing I've really studies or read much of in the bible or other books. Perhaps when and if you are feeling up to it, you could start a thread on that subject - I find your posts easier and more enjoyable to read than other literature I've tried to get into on this. Anyway, hope you are feeling better!

Zerbie

07-06-2006, 11:40 PM

Just wanted to jump in somewhere, so landed here, to express my love for everyone on this forum. Everyone - thank you for the things you are doing, going to rallies, posting communications on other boards, helping one another articulate what is really going on with these decisions, and so forth. Y'all are wonderful wonderful human beings. :love:

back on the original general topic of incrementalism. Crozier, I wasn't sure how exactly to take your comment that I was speaking on target with the mainstream secular gay activists. ?? I am not trying to plug into anybody's team insofar as these issues go, I am searching for what is right, and what is going to bring about results. What could work? How do we get to the point where we get some good results? And that gets into many many different levels, depending upon what we are talking about.

But I think the question isn't about marriage OR CU. The question is what does it take to right the injustices and the wrongs that we are seeing everyday in this regard, like all the news today. What will it take to fix this? To any degree we can in the immediate moment, with a constant focus on tomorrow, next week, next year, next decade.

Liberal Crozier

07-07-2006, 12:06 AM

Crozier is fast asleep, and I was merely unwinding and posting some stuff as well.

Zerbie, I know that he appreciates your views, and reads you every time that you post. His views on the facts of incrementalism, as I understand him, is not an imposition of judgement upon anyone.

We all realise how justice compromised is often appealing - even when total justice may take yet another generation to accomplish. We Boomers were accustomed to immediate gratification and we passed this ethic to our children and grandchildren.

Crozier has often said clearly that our predecessors in oppression often fought with the knowledge that they would probably live their entire lives in oppression, but that maybe, their heirs would benefit from their activism, and gain total equality someday.

If you knew him, you would know that he is a man of conciliation and peace with a fire in the belly for justice.

Zerbie

07-07-2006, 12:19 AM

Crozier has often said clearly that our predecessors in oppression often fought with the knowledge that they would probably live their entire lives in oppression, but that maybe, their heirs would benefit from their activism, and gain total equality someday.

If you knew him, you would know that he is a man of conciliation and peace with a fire in the belly for justice.

I figgered that much from his words. ;) :love: And I am very glad to hear he is sleeping soundly. :love:

It doesn't sound like we differ much in our take on this, except I am sensing that he is willing to take the "all or nothing" approach, even if it means "nothing" for him if it may lead to something for the younger ones following along next. Is that a correct understanding of his position?

Whereas, mine? If it were up to me, I would hand over/demand the full loaf, because anything else is insufficient in so many ways, not to mention it is an insult. But if all I can jog lose from society's clenched hands is a small piece, I say take it, knowing you are entitled to the entire thing, and you are not going to go away or be silent until you have it. I personally will not stop shaking the trees until our community receives the full equality it should have in the eyes of the state. I am reiterating because I hope Crozier doesn't think I am willing to "sell out" our folk.

LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT

07-08-2006, 09:43 AM

I have read this last, and all I can add is that I agree completely with your treatise.

All movements have the revolutionaries, the pragmatists, and the evolutionaries. The revolutionary usually wants justice and freedom NOW - the pragmatist wants anything that compromise can achieve - and the evolutionary is content to accept whatever happens in a passive acceptance of the realpolitik. ( We FA's graduate from university these days - where else do we learn to say- Coffee, Tea or Me....)

Seriously though, I tend to fall on the side of revolutionary because if they wanted to provide you with equal justice under law - they would have already given it to you.

Example - our airline provides ( as earned income taxable at 60%):( ) all RDP benefits given to spouses. HOWEVER, our pass privileges given to a "Companion" did NOT translate into retirement pass privileges for your life partner. It took a retired LGBT Flight Attendant with thirty year life partner to obtain a new category of PARTNER with all the retirement rights of the heterosexual spouse and children.

HOW - it took a revolutionary step. It took protests. It took a class-action lawsuit. It took shaming the executive management to walk the walk. To their credit, they have. We have some other airlines who honor our domestic partners with spousal pass privileges, but it is still an abbreviated list. Yes, the list includes Air Canada, Iberia, KLM Royal Dutch and British Airways. :)

So, there are my views on that.

LGBT FLIGHT ATTENDANT

07-09-2006, 07:49 AM

Don't the events in NY and MA just prove the point that incrementalism is indeed the strategy used.

Liberal Crozier

07-11-2006, 06:27 AM

Dash -

Crozier spent his last day before chemo reading GLAD and other organisations spin the most recent defeat as theocon victories erode all legal gains or attempts in the last year or so.

GLAD lost its bid to overturn the 1913 racist law to support the ban on interracial heterosexual marriage to stop same-sex marriages from out-of-state residents. I know about the RI reintroduction, but most legal analysts say that this is more spin than substance.

Despite evidence of huge improprieties and fraud on the petition, and proof that the MA theocon leaders are funded and supported from NATIONWIDE leaders and their resources, GLAD lost a challenge to have the petition overturned.

And now, of course, in less than 24 hours, the theocons have at least 50 votes of the Con Con to put the nihilistic bill on the November 2008 referendum vote. The last Con Con, they needed double those numbers and more. This end run around justice is legal, and legal is good for theocons, and moral is optional. If we win, it's "judicial activism", if they win it's "justice alive and well in MA."

The smart strategy would be to find John or Jane Wayne, circle the wagons, forget trying to get same-sex marriage in states like AL or MS or NC, ---or even to reverse and accelerate rights in CT or VT. Politically - you have no allies as they all jockey to win the White House and Congress.

I would put all other court challenges and other causes on the back burner, and focus like a laser beam on retaining marriage in MA. You can bet that is what is happening with your opponents. Dobson is the point leader, assisted in the shadows by Robertson and Falwell.

There is also another weapon. That weapon is prayer to the Lord to inform them that our cause is moral and just. We must also pray that we coalesce and end the gentrification of opposition - and non-violently but confrontationally seek that justice and universal morality that we share with many evangelical Christians who, when informed, marginalise the Dominionists more effectively than we can.

Zerbie

07-11-2006, 11:15 AM

I would put all other court challenges and other causes on the back burner, and focus like a laser beam on retaining marriage in MA. You can bet that is what is happening with your opponents. Dobson is the point leader, assisted in the shadows by Robertson and Falwell.

.

Mornin' Spouse,

Interesting idea. You may be on to something with the "put all resources into MA" thing.

However I've one little quibble. Dobson and his, they don't have to choose MA as a single focus because their organization and money is so abundant and far-reaching, they can afford to launch a battle here and a battle there. They are behind the one we are fighting now in Arizona. They sent their "marriage expert" Glenn Stanton out here for public debate, and he macheteed our "side."

Liberal Crozier

07-11-2006, 03:57 PM

The late General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, a Churchman, had some rather memorable quotes about the art of war. Here I wish to quote his belief, that in his sixty years of military service that he had never known how to order the demolition of half a bridge....or his disdain for " paying in blood for the same real estate twice."

Many wars have been won when one side has, in REAL TIME, and with guantifiable series of major VICTORIES, provides one - militarists, pundits, press and populace that the PERCEPTION is that peace, truce, armistice, or the cessation of hostilities has occurred. There will be zealots on both sides who wish to continue a guerilla struggle, and if they were left to their own design, would probably and eventually reverse the defeat.

If you hear, view, or speak with corporate media, you get the strong PERCEPTION that both the Afghan and Iraqi governments are legitimate democratic leaders freely elected by their nations. More, you are told that they are in control of their nation, and that their constitution was not written with perpetual concessions on oil with the US and the UK. The truth- since I have total fluency in seven languages - suggests otherwise.

Segue into MA equality. An ostrich approach has seen our judicial friends in November of 2003 morph into individuals who have lost EVERY significant challenge to the theocon attempt to totally reverse to the STATUS QUO ANTE.

Political realists, Zerbie, have NO illusions about marriage rights in red states like AZ., NC., AL, GA, TN or FL. The fight is fought on Ground Zero, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts or the theocons will win the entire nihilistic agenda on their terms.

In Canada, first came ON alone. Here is the difference in strategy. The entire nation stopped thinking provincially, but nationally. First, they protected marriage in ON and came in droves to receive the gift of freedom.
These new couples made it possible for BC to follow and then QC and then one by one did it until only theocon Hell-berta (Alberta) was the lone holdout until they too, had to conform to the new Marriage Act.

Again, the theocons have a triumvirate of FDR ...no not Franklin Delano Roosevelt.....but Falwell, Dobson and Robertson.......and they among themselves decide who will lead the charge as visible head, while the other two pool their efforts to the strategy required by Kris Mineau, the local person who has strong support and connections with FDR. Even the dirty tricks polling service from California they used, and the workers, are national GOP dirty tricksters who acheive the goals.

Daniel

07-11-2006, 11:43 PM

Again, the theocons have a triumvirate of FDR ...no not Franklin Delano Roosevelt.....but Falwell, Dobson and Robertson.......and they among themselves decide who will lead the charge as visible head, while the other two pool their efforts to the strategy required by Kris Mineau, the local person who has strong support and connections with FDR.

Liberal- I believe you to be prescient in this matter and do not see any good coming out of this situation. There is no silver lining in this situation. I agree with you and suggest this: every able GLBT person needs to get off their ass (please excuse my fervor and language) and man the barracades in MA in some way, shape, or form. If MA falls, we are not only cooked, we're DONE. If we ever needed that GAY GANDHI, now is the moment.

Zerbie

07-11-2006, 11:54 PM

Liberal- I believe you to be prescient in this matter and do not see any good coming out of this situation. There is no silver lining in this situation. I agree with you and suggest this: every able GLBT person needs to get off their ass (please excuse my fervor and language) and man the barracades in MA in some way, shape, or form. If MA falls, we are not only cooked, we're DONE. If we ever needed that GAY GANDHI, now is the moment.

Alright let's do it.

We're all agreeing this needs to be fought, ASAP, by as many of us as we can get. So, how do we go about it? Can we get every supporter of SF, HRC, all the other groups, national and local, and get everybody ORGANIZED? And actually really hands-on DOING something? Can we?
How? It's my opinion we need to be doing more than just mailing checks to HRC lobbyists and even more than writing letters to the editor. I think that's the opinion of most of us here. But what/when/who/where/how? And the crucial thing is, how do we ORGANIZE something, and be effective?

Count me in, if someone can provide the Know-How. I'll follow Gay Gandhi!!! I've waited for him since I was 6 or 7 (by that precise name, too).
But again - what do we DO now? Can we get organized? Can we coalesce? What?

Let's brainstorm.

Liberal Crozier

07-12-2006, 12:30 AM

Crozier and I agree......the gentrified and politically centred groups are not focused like a laser beam on what the loss of MA would mean to the efforts of LGBT equality. Like Jim Crow or Plessy v Ferguson, and with a Roberts-Scalia court that makes Roger Taney look like a flaming liberal for the Dredd Scott decision in the middle of the 19th century, the next step of a victorious Falwell-Dobson-Robertson and local organiser Mineau is the passage of the FMA in the Congress, and its treck through Red State America for ratification.

I mentioned a local man named Mineau....Falwell and Robertson provide financial resources from rightwing billionaires and multi-millionaires and legal muscle through their Liberty and Regency Law Schools, but since the mantra is SAVE THE CHILDREN, and HOMOSEXUAL CHOSEN LIFESTYLE - the FDR troika elected Dobson to coalesce and organise the DESTROY GAY MARRIAGE LAW FOR GROUND ZERO.

The gentrified groups all repeat their spin - that they are seeking other victories on that topic elsewhere, and besides, there are other issues that they are working on. We say, until and unless you start working on the MA miracle, the rest of your days will be spinning your wheels as the NAACP did for civil rights for over a half century.

On July 12, the Democratic conservative speaker of the MA General Court (state legislature) will convene the Constitutional Convention, and because of the politically-timed defeat in the Supreme Judicial Court, will not exhibit any profile in courage to dismiss the petition allegedly laden with fraud and deception according to those journalists who covered the story.

Fifty delegates.....not the hundred or more required in 2004, can put the nihilistic request before the voters in November 2008. No rights whatsoever.
Theocon leaders are pragmatic politicians. Their political base are theocratic zzealots who will fold like a cheap suit, if they are told the word will be civil union and not marriage, and that they will remove most of the state marriage benefits and abolish adoption or surrogacy for lesbian and gay couples. This will mean that the existing gay marriages they incrementally allowed to stay by grandfathering them, would also revert to civil union.

Why the Rev. Dr. Mel White.....because Dr. White represents everything that the theocon despises. He is truly considered, as was Franklin Roosevelt, a "traitor to his class." He can speak to bearded marriage, even loving ones where they still today love their former spouse. He has a meaningful relationship with his children, and a monogamous committed relationship with his current same-sex life partner.

Mel White knows the men who lead the Dominionist Theocratic Agenda for America. He was their voice, and wrote their speeches, and framed their ideas. His calling is from Christ. I feel it every time I play his video. He truly knows Christ, and has a personal loving relationship with Him, born of trial and tribulation to experiencing joy in the kingdom.

I know that the two men in his logo were "reluctant leaders" who felt many others could organise and more effectively lead them to the Promised Land of milk, honey, justice and freedom. To which we reply, " They were the ones who led them. "

Mel White reads his blogs and now knows our hearts and minds recognise the need for a spiritual warrior -albeit non-violent struggle - against the theocons. My liturgical tradition and churchmanship suggests a special novena of prayers to help enlighten him as to the efficacy and challenge of this crucial crusade.

First of all, each in our way, we pray or meditate or hold spiritual thoughts , to have the Lord lead our steps and send His Holy Spirit to enlighten and clarify us as we change the hearts and minds of many blinded by homophobia, bigotry and hatred that is unfortunately supported by theocon leaders. Pray for courage to join his crusade, and to flood the Commonwealth of MA - speaking in houses of worship - and other venues where the gay community congregate....in the Lower Cape Cod of Provincetown and the capital city of Boston to name too....but also all areas of the state where you speak Christ's message of love and compassion for all.

Crozier has chemotherapy until November, but if Dr. White agrees to lead this Crusade for Justice in MA - we would lend whatever support we could -
I suggest that we start in Lexington MA, where in 1775, the shot against the British was the "shot heard 'round the world". In Lexington, MA 2006 - this "shot heard 'round the world" is NOT the start of violent warfare against persons and ideas but rather - a non-violent Evolutionary Crusade to change the hearts and minds of those who also love Christ and want to follow His word and His example in all things. Since we know that we are part of His Divine plan, it is clear that we will, be the type of Christian soldier that He envisions us to become.