Incrementalism - A Tool For Both Sides Of The Issue

[Liberal Crozier]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by NYTimes April 2, 2006

]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]

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]

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]

Interesting, Nowvoyager

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]

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

[Liberal Crozier]

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]

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]

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.

[tdogg]

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]

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 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? 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."

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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]

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.

[nowvoyager]

Originally Posted by Liberal Crozier

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]

Originally Posted by Liberal Crozier

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/d...nexpected.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]

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."

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?

[NathanATX]

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?

[NathanATX]

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]

Originally Posted by Liberal Crozier

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

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/ny...rtner=homepage

Originally Posted by NYTimes

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.

Originally Posted by Liberal

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]

Slow week at work...just finished reading the decision of the New York Court of Appeals. (Thanks to Good As You 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:

Originally Posted by Chief Judge Kaye

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!!