Given my level of general upset and dismay yesterday, I don't think I could have found the words to elloquently express my point of view...hell I would have settled for intelligable...but neither were forthcoming. Fortunatly though there are bloggers out there who did still have their heads on straight. Posted on davidmixner.com is an article that details what I think we should be thinking as we move ahead in the battle for marriage equality...
We also can just look across the Hudson River to New Jersey for more political cowards and liars. The Democratic party promised that if we waited until after the election, win or lose, they would pass marriage equality and the governor would sign it. Governor John Corzine is more than willing to sign it but the Democrats in the legislature are refusing to keep their word. Once again we have been led down the garden path in the Garden State.
With New York, Maine, and New Jersey, the wisdom of a federal strategy is enforced as a new way of approaching this dilemma. What is not acceptable is that we all get filled with fear and start giving away our freedom out of frustration. Separate but equal does not work and those seeking the safety of avoiding the marriage issue should think again. Now is not the time for the timid. Now is the time for an even more aggressive approach, a deep review of how to proceed and the implementation new strategies.
If they insist on operating on a level of betrayal then it is time to seriously consider a more civil rights movement approach to fighting for our rights instead of pumping money into either party in some sort of masochistic dance. We must consider a concerted and well planned campaign of non-violent civil disobedience. Business as usual can not continue in this country as long as we are separated from the rest of our neighbors, families and friends who have full equality and freedom.
Over the next days, I will write more but need to collect my thoughts and find a place without anger to write with reason.
Its good to know I'm not the only one writing from a place of "enough is enough!" Also, its good to see recognition appealling to either political party is asking to be let down. It is time to deal with this differently.
This list is everywhere now but posted for your voting pleasure is the list of democrats that have no problem asking us for money while they vote against our rights:
• Joseph Addabbo (D-Queens) - NO
• Darrel Aubertine (D- Cape Vincent) - NO
• Ruben Diaz (D-Bronx) - NO
• Shirley Huntley (D-Queens) - NO
• Carl Kruger (D-Brooklyn) - NO
• Hiram Monserrate (D-Queens) - NO
• George Onorato (D-Queens) - NO
• William Stachowski (D-Buffalo) - NO
Bryan I feel your pain, and if all 8 had voted 'yes' the bill would have passed. 8 is a lot, but not when it are Democrats. Mindboggling. As I wrote, I wonder how you guys deal with these almost continuous rejections and disappoitments on gay marriage lately. Arent there already gay people who stopped donating to the Democratic Party? That will continue now for sure, which is good, more pressure. And what are ways to take it to a federal level, if there are any? And why doesnt Obama say anything about it? I find that unusual as president to do, I dont understand that behavior. I think at times it's easier to deal with having no rights, than having to go through MAYBE getting them, which can take years, if not decades. Its nervewrecking torture. I dont know what more to say other than to express my sympathy and understanding of the way you feel. Take good care and a big hug, also for Jay. summer/wendy
ReplyDeleteAnd I hate Maggy Gallagher, I truly do!!! Effing @#$%. summer
ReplyDeletePresident Obama doesn't really believe that gays should have marriage..he's said that he believes that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. Theres reason one why he feels no sense of urgency to address this.
ReplyDeleteHis affiliations with homophobic churches and pastors leave me with a secondt suspicion that he objects on moral grounds but simply refuses to address that directly so instead makes the excuse that issues like these should be handled by congress..even though he can do alot with that presidential pen.
but thats just my opinion based off his previoous history. he could still prove me very wrong.
As for how to take this fight to the federal level...that I am less informed about at this time. to my understanding there are already cases in lower courts, slowly working there way up to the supreme court. Most of these were filed when California's supreme court upheld Proposition 8.
I thought that lawyers were scared of getting a case to the supreme court until the general feeling in the country changes, because if the supreme court decides against you you are really screwed.
ReplyDeleteYou totally correct goblin but peoples attitudes are changing and a new strategy is being called for. I don't think there is any other way to force federal recognition. Don't bet on our President taking it on anytime soon...or ever
ReplyDeleteHi Bryan, I had forgotten Obama is for civil unions, not marriage. Still then, he also said he would uphold the constitution and is against discrimination (really? Any kind?), but you could argue upholding the constitution is the same as not being pro-gay marriage (although as a president he really should know the constitution guarantees protection and equality etc for everyone). Even when he is for civil unions, he can say he'd want people to not discriminate or something similar (as a president), but I agree with you, he also is heavily influenced by evangelics etc and has to dance to their tunes, if also for political reasons. I just would expect him to say at least SOMEthing. He himself must understand like noone else, what discrimination is and what harm it causes. As a senator of Illinois I believe it was, he did campaign saying he was pro-gay marriage, IIRC. I do think Obama is a 'food' example of how politics really works, and that votes and power are more important than justice. But thats nothing new.
ReplyDeleteJust some ramblings here. Take care, summer.
Correction: 'good' example.
ReplyDeleteI thought that if (even) more states will vote down SSM more gay people will wake up about whats going on and the movement could really grow and gain more power. I really hope that happens, if this continues. And what happened in NY is a real betrayal by these democrats, having said to vote for SSM, get elected, then vote against it. Real bad betrayal. summer
Im thinking, is it accurate to say that for gay people the US is actually a dictatorship? Im thinking that because you have a majority ruling a minorities rights+religion having so much power+having no national anti-discrimination laws (lacking some real basic human rights) and more reasons. I dont mean to offend the US, but its a conclusion Ive come to. These are some of the criteria for a dictatorship. Also, Ive been reading on Queerty and there are people saying they are thinking of now moving out of state or to Canada. Wow, and many want no more to vote for democrats ever. I think if Obama doesnt start to act, he could get in trouble for re-election, and this is the first time I think that. summer.
ReplyDeleteI hear that alot to...but what people say...and what they do are two different things. I believe though that he has not come through on very many of his campaign promises and has completely ignored most of the ones he made to us so if gays stop giving to the Democrats, it will be no surprise.
ReplyDeleteAnd the civil partnership argument always gets me. It really is the "seperate drinking fountain" of our day. While I am glad to have the drinking fountain because I am thirsty...I still get the clear message that if I drink out of the other one I will be contaminating it...thus I am less than you. Its sad that even gay people believe in the civil partnership over marriage argument.
Hi Bryan. The word I should have used is Apartheid, not dictatorship (although both have similarities) with what I described above. I will give it more thought, but I read a gay man saying whats happening is apartheid in the US with gay people, its a separate class of people with diminished rights, which is the case. This man wrote that he thought that that should be more on the forefront and use the word apartheid much more, not only stating youre wanting equal rights. I just think using the word apartheid is much more politically powerful. And basically, apartheid is what you are describing above (separate drinking fountains).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with you that many people say they wanna leave to Canada, and that those are mostly only words, but today again I read a student after garduation IS moving to Canada because of the US situation on gay rights. The more I read and understand about the US politically, I see a bleak future, and youre in a very powerless position, dictated (thats where the word came from) by religion and a majority and time and bad laws etc. Maybe Im too negative. I HOPE I am. Ofcourse in a dictatorship one man dictates a country and there is for example no freedom of speech, but it does feel like being in some sort of dictatorship, emotionally for sure, when I look at your situation and put myself in your shoes. Your country has been working on gay rights for over 40 years now, if Im correct, and still you (gay people) dont even have basic employment anti-discrimination laws. I think its nuts and thats not democratic. Anyway, Im rambling. Take care. summer
In Holland there are people who have lots of issues with muslims and Islam (while they are only 5% of the Dutch population). Since a few years there is a new political party which is very anti-muslim. They say they are against Islam, but ofcourse practically it means it are the muslims affected (you cant separate the religon from the people). This party, to my utter shame, is very discriminatory and has about 15% of the Ducth as their adherents, which Im also ashamed about. But what this party wants is muslims have lesser rights, take away certain freedoms from them (ban on mosques, ban on headscarf, ban on muslimschools, limited expression of their religion, ban on muslime immigrants) and hold the judeo-christian-humanist culture we have as superior and wants to legislate all of this if this party comes in power (which is even a possiblbity, but they will never get a 2/3 majority in parliament to change the constitution, because every other party is against them). Well, this is a very good example of apartheid. The word has come up many times in my mind. The leader is not a neo-nazi, but does fall under extreme right. Also, it suspected he receives American funds from extremist religious group. Realy scary all. This is all very new here in Holland (except in WWII when we were occupied by the Nazi's, the jews, but that wasnt a choice, that was a war).
ReplyDeleteIf you look at US and gay rights, there are many people who dont want gays to have any rights at all. I see a lot of similarities bewteen whats happening in Holland with muslims and in the US with gay people. Hence again, the word apartheid. But the muslims ARE protected under our constitution on every level, like every Dutch citizen, but this extreme party wants that to change and already discrimination against muslims has gotten worse. Anyway, again Im rambling, need to sleep, but the word apartheid I like for these serious situations. summer.
Wow...I think you pretty much nailed it with that analogy....I hope that you extremists don't succeed in their hatred against Muslims. Somedays it feels like the world is shattering into selfish splinter groups.
ReplyDeleteBryan, its fighting extremism with extremism. there are fundamentalist muslims (not the bombthrowers I mean) that I have no tolerance for either, but they are the minority and if you tell an anti-muslim extremist not all muslims are a threat, in fact the majority here do very well in society etc, and they just dont want to hear about, then youre done talking and believe me I try. I also think, and this is what I wanted to add, not all anti-muslims who vote for that party are aware that if they do they vote basically for apartheid. And when at times I tell them, they say it are lies or try and distort when I tell them they are discriminating (all online this happens). Same behavior I see with American fundies re: gay rights. And its one thing to criticize a faith, any faith or non-faith, but thats different from discrimination and bashing people solely for their beliefs. I think were in control of all of this here, but it really does poison the atmosphere, politically and socially and I had it with the crap. Selfish splinter groups, indeed. Take care :) Wendy
ReplyDelete