A commenter at my pad agreed that we have to work hard to prevent an even more tattered patchwork of equality rights, but it in many ways it is inevitable:

My thesis was that there needs to be a national strategy because there are regions in the country in which progress will not happen without it. Just as civil rights for African Americans stalled historically in places like the South, I expect the same to happen with gay issues. That eventually we will just hit this plateau of places that were open to our arguments finally letting the bigotry out of the discussion so that they could actually hear the arguments. Then, there are others where there is not this long tradition of equality happening locally that I think will be much harder. I can not imagine a place like NC becoming open to equality arguments enough to ever endorse marriage without federal action.

Pam observes that the Democrats have not been leaders the way they ought to be, in the struggle for gay and lesbian equality. This is an important response to Rich. The Democrats could push for equality right now, and either that (1) they are too timid to be leaders on the issue, despite public support for equality, or (2) there is not yet sufficient public support for equality, so Dems do not believe standing up for what is right is politically wise, would tend to undercut Rich´s rosy vision for gay and lesbian equality in America.

Neither the Dems nor the GOP has presented the issue in the stark moral terms it deserves, as a matter of principle, as a moral and constitutional requirement - i.e., the way that civil rights struggles of the past are presented, when Americans want to congratulate themselves on their commitment to equality. Where is the moral leadership on gay and lesbian equality? It is still coming from gay rights groups almost exclusively, which is disappointing.

Democrats have been willing to call out opponents on anti-gay animus. That is well and good, but calling out opponents on animus is not the same as, and not as good as, affirmatively supporting equality, proclaiming that our moral commitments as people and a nation require equality, and reminding legislators and voters that how we choose to treat gays and lesbians defines our character. Perhaps, in their tepid commitments, people are taking comfort in the prospect of future whitewashing of the suffering now and the protracted struggle now, once a long-term victory comes about (no thanks to the present generation of legislators and leaders)?

(On the subject of progressives´ tepid arguments for gay rights: In response to the Gathering Storm parody linked from the Frank Rich column that this is not a “non-issue;” it is a serious issue for a number of Americans in ways already described in a number of posts, such as ensuring health and survivor benefits for partners, immigration rights and equal tax treatment for same-sex partners, etc.).

Really good post.

Though their approach to minority communities did not make the slightest difference, as I recall, and “defeat of Prop. 8” shows that someone didn’t pay attention.

Also, has everyone seen the storm in question?

I have small hope for Florida, too—where my brother and his boyfriend of 34 years, live. Too many old, white retirees, and upnorth state the dregs of the redneck south, and fundies, fundies, fundies.

However, although the New York Times may not be a bellweather for more conservative America, the NY Post is predictably Neanderthal except, suddenly, on gay marriage:

http://www.americablog.com/2009/04/great-ny-post-commentary-on-gay.html

The Post is a tabloid, with all the conservo “populist” propaganda that entails, so this truly is a shocker, and means something is shaking up the conventional wisdom.

Pam, thanks for posting this. I too feel frustrated when liberals like Frank Rich put out articles like this based, apparently, on his own contacts and his vague take on popular culture. It has long seemed to me that Rich is too quick to believe in an authentic cultural gestalt on the basis of a television series, or in this case, an internet video. Anyway, if you accept that there is a “culture war”, which I do in some sense, and accept that this “culture war” is something that has to be fought, which I also do, then you have to accept that it is in some sense a war like any other, and you don’t win a war by stopping the fight until you are actually done.

This is a long-term win, don’t get me wrong, but it’s pretty clear that we cannot cheer the Republicans’ inability to find a winning formula for the future as long as Democrats tolerate the homophobes inside its party.
Even in Blue New York we see State Senator Rubén Díaz brazenly holding up marriage equality…

First, one hardly paints the whole New York Party because of one crackpot State Senator.

Second, the Party is a big tent.  All though probably not that big.

Third, people like the good Senator are not “tolerated” per se.  Anybody can slap any label on themselves they want.  What is needed in these cases is action on the grassroots level.  I’m unfamiliar with New York low level politics, but I would bet there are local cacuses where a significant gay turnout would put the fear of God into Sen. Díaz.  This is another one of those cases where everybody says what are “they” doing about him rather than what can “I” do about him.

I know you’re in NC and my post is not done to disagree with you but rather it is my plea here is for early and active participation in the grassroots level of your chosen party.  DON’T WAIT FOR THE ELECTIONS (see Prop. 8). After all, community organizers sometimes succeed. 

As the case against equal rights for gay families gets harder and harder to argue on any nonreligious or legal grounds

It’s pretty hard to argue on religious grounds too, but since when do the fundies actually care what the Bible says?

It’s pretty hard to argue on religious grounds too, but since when do the fundies actually care what the Bible says?

Lots of politicians, voters, and the press do. Or at least they give props to what the fundies say they believe. Here in Vermont, the Yes on Marriage Equality side always—ALWAYS ended their arguments with a “And I respect your moral and religious feelings on gay marriage”. This is like saying, “And I respect your moral and religious feelings on civil rights/woman’s rights/interracial marriage/abortion/take your pick.”

I don’t respect anyone’s religious or moral feelings when it comes to blatant discrimination.

Grow up (not out)

MikeEstrogen  on 04/20 at 07:57 AM

Proudly raising the level of discourse since 07:57 AM, you goddamn hippie faggots!!!!!!!

I figure it’s not their last hurrah—you always see people going crazier when it’s clear that their side is on the ropes. It’s like John Cole’s Peak Wingnut theory—it’s not possible for the crazies to hit an ultimate peak and start sliding back to normalcy, because they can always get crazier.

Shorter Trollpants: wah wah wah my automatic privilege is being questioned and I don’t want to have to think about it. Wahh wahhh!

The thing is, the more and more diverse states who legalize, the more likely the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage.  It’s like abortion—-by the time it got to the Supreme Court, legalization momentum was behind it.

The thing is, the more and more diverse states who legalize, the more likely the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of gay marriage.  It’s like abortion—-by the time it got to the Supreme Court, legalization momentum was behind it.

Do you really think so? I was just hitting high school when Roe v. Wade happened; I don’t remember much surrounding it.  And wasn’t that Court more liberal than the one that may (in the next 10-15 years(?)) hear a case?

I hope I live to see it.

“homophobe” is a true psychological phobia which is applied to anyone who isn’t on board with changing the definition of marriage. Of course, half of the nation are not psychologially disturbed. It’s simply a political technique to undermine your opponents….

Grow up (not out)
MikeEstrogen on 04/20 at 08:57 AM

Duly noted.  Homobigot is the preferred term.

Of course, half of the nation are not psychologially disturbed.

Of course not. There is a lot more than half of the nation that believes in an imaginary sky tyrant.

Do you really think so? I was just hitting high school when Roe v. Wade happened; I don’t remember much surrounding it.

Amanda is quite right.  The Court is not (utterly) insensitive to public opinion.  Additionally, when presented with a fiat accompli the Court, absent a clear Constitutional mandate, often just shrugs. 

The first cases will probably be heard on the ‘Comnity Clause.’  That is, how can, say Idaho, refuse to recognize a legally binding contract formed in another state.  If I buy a car from you in New Jersey can I stop making payments because I move to Ohio?  No.  For all the emotion around it, marriage law is primarily contract law.

The first cases will probably be heard on the ‘Comnity Clause.’

It’ll be interesting to see what direction it takes, based on the definition of ‘basic rights’. From the Wiki:

The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents discrimination against people from out of state, but only with regard to basic rights. The Court uses a two-part test to determine if the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been violated. First, it looks to see if a law discriminates against people from out of state regarding fundamental rights (e.g. protection by the government the enjoyment of life, and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety). These rights often focus on the economic right to pursue a livelihood. The second part of the test focuses on whether the state is justified in the discrimination. It examines if there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and if the discriminatory law has a substantial relationship to that reason. For example, the Court has asked: “Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause?” See Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm’n 436 U.S. 371 (1978). The court held it did not, because hunting is a recreational sport, which is outside the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. If the court had found that recreation and sports were fundamental rights, it would have still had to examine whether the state had a compelling interest (protecting elk herds from being over-hunted), and whether the law was designed to address that problem.

Dark:

Consider a hypothetical:

In my “married” state I was allowed access to HIPAA information I’m denied in my “non-married” state.  Because I could not make medial decisions for my partner, that partner dies.  Do I have a ‘wrongful death suit?’

In my state, if I’m married, I must name my spouse as beneficiary of my State Retirement, unless she signs it away.  If I move into the state from, say Massachusetts, and decide to leave my pension to my cat instead of my gay “partner,” then what?  There are jillions of things the Court cannot define as “non-fundemental” without damaging the very basis of marriage they are trying to protect.  As a matter of fact, at some pointe these become “equal protection” issues instead of of P&I;issues.  The Court, when it comes right down to it, is caught twixt a rock and a hard place.

I know marriage is about love but still it is contract law first and foremorst.  Legal spouses have certain rights and ‘immunites.’  Contract law is absolutely fundemental to our jurisprudence.  Another for instance.  One would presume in Massachusetts a gay spouse cannot testify against their spouse but absent the legal title of “spouse” could in Utah.  Basis of an Federal appeal?  You bet.

It’s the New York Times, you can’t really expect in-depth analysis from those folks if it involves an issue that extends beyond Staten Island. They don’t seem to have any idea that there is a whole country out there beyond the five boroughs.  So please stop expecting nuance from them and information about what life is like for the rest of us.

I continue to find these bottom feeders appeals to minorities hilarious. They don’t seem to get that among African Americans, some folks (mostly over 40) are just uncomfortable with homosexuality. BUT they don’t hate gay people. Some of these misguided folks would probably attend a similar service like the ones at Sarah Palin’s church where they “pray away the gay” but they’re not going to join in with Republicans on gay bashing. Why? It looks too familiar. The gay bashing from Republicans has the feel of a klan rally and I dare say that you will never, ever catch a minority attending such a thing. So I hope they keep it up. The longer the preach hate and intolerance, the more time it gives folks like me to convince my over 40 relatives that gay people deserve the same rights they fought for at the lunch counters.

Unfortuantely Washington State is still trodding the “Seperate but (un)Equal” road.
http://www.equalrightswashington.org/issues/marriage.html

160 of the 400-plus joint rights and responsibilities of married couples to domestic partners in Washington State.

Congratulations Washington gays are now 2/5th of a human being. /snark

contract law first and foremost

Not only that, there’s the Full faith and Credit Clause time-bomb still ticking away, courtesy of Scalia:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissenting opinion to the Lawrence v. Texas decision that he feared application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to the majority’s decision in that case might destroy “the structure… that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions.” If Scalia’s dissenting opinion holds true, the majority ruling could potentially negate the DOMA and create a legal situation in which all states might eventually be obliged to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont, or Connecticut.

In August 2007, a federal appeals court held that, “Oklahoma’s adoption amendment is unconstitutional in its refusal to recognize final adoption orders of other states that permit adoption by same-sex couples.”[15]

As we all saw with race, laws change everyone’s mind, don’t they.

If homo ‘marriage’ is legalized, it will be a hollow victory.

Except that gay people will have equal marriage rights, which is a big step forward. Kinda like the way there’s still racism, but that didn’t make the 1965 Voting Rights Act bad or useless.

NOM?

DO NOT WANT!

This political debate brought to you by LOLcats.

(Sorry, I know this is serious, but NOM strikes me as even sillier than Teabaggers as a name)

On a tangential note, I was looking up 2009 tax brackets today. And individual health plans, since the wife’s employer doesn’t have DP benefits. The civil benefits of a federally recognized civil marriage are tangible and quantifiable for us. And also not available.

I’ve never been much of an activist, but I’ve become more active and out since I’ve realized that, if we are complacent, we will sink into the background, and things will not change; we cannot afford to do this until our rights are secured. Siiiiiigh.