13 Comments

1. Cascadia2008 Says:
   

   Now, it’s disheartening that you seem to have skimmed over what I think is the message here - this is not to “not sue” but rather to sue strategically.

   As someone who has worked for non-profits as a lobbyist and strategist, (albeit more with education than with GLBT groups), I can say without equivocating that strategy is important. Having more rulings against gay marriage in unfriendly courts can give one judge just the reason they need to tip the other way, and cite precedence rather than gay bashing as an excuse.

   The gay rights movement is not advocating for people to shut up and be discriminated against. They’re telling people to make noise in the right places so that people in all 50 states can have access to equal marriage ASAP.

2. Justin Says:
   

   I completely support the idea of suing to challenge DOMA. I only have one request: wait till November 5th. It pains me to say it, but there are too many swing voters who (errantly) are opposed to gay marriage and I’m afraid they’ll tip the election to McCain.

   We have a really good shot at taking back the White House, which would also leave us with both Houses of Congress (Republicans don’t have a shot in Hell at taking either). It’s not fair at all we’re in this position, but this election is too important.

   Love your blog btw.

3. rawTOP Says:
   

   @Cascadia2008 - I understand that argument. I really do. But the appeals are going to go to the Supreme Court. Nothing that is done in the lower courts really counts. Provided the case is a strong one, why does it matter when it’s done?

   And why are they doing it now? We’ve had gay marriage in the US for a while now. Why is this announcement even necessary?

4. rawTOP Says:
   

   @justin - I hear you, but I think it’s going to be an issue at the polls one way or the other. The conservatives will do what they need to do to make it one. They won the last two elections on the issue and they’ve love to win one more on it…

   “Just wait until tomorrow - I’ll give you what you want tomorrow…” Yeah, right…

   Why couldn’t the announcement been something like “Please coordinate all lawsuits through one of these groups. We want a coordinated strategy for maximum impact.” Then they could have gotten people to quietly wait. Telling people publicly to not sue doesn’t set well with me.

5. Tim Says:
   

   I completely agree with you RT. Especially as it regards to constitutional law. DOMA is inherently un-constitution because it is in direct opposition to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution. There is no gray area on this matter: legal contracts, decisions and documents found valid in one state must be given full faith and credit in all other states. Our entire system of interstate governance would come to a screeching halt if this were not held true.

   The Republicans know this, which is why they have pushed the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

6. milliondollarspatula Says:
   

   I think you’re missing the ACLU and Lambda’s genuine fear of “backlash”. Plessy v. Ferguson, the famous 1896 U.S. Supreme Court “Separate but Equal” decision, upheld racial segregation for another 60 years until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

   Without the Plessy nails in the coffin, it’s possible that segregation would have been overturned in the 1920s. The fear now is that a monumental “No” from the U.S. Supreme Court could shut the door on same-sex marriage recognition for 50 years, rather than the 5-15 years that activists are hoping for.

   You could be stubborn or greedy and say “What the hell” and take a spin of the dice at the Supreme Court now. But with a stacked Right-wing court, and U.S. public opinion split 55-45% against gay marriage, your chances suck.

   Also, don’t try to evaluate the legal merits of the issue. The Supreme Court judges base their decisions on political beliefs, and then dig up legal tenets to justify their position.

7. rawTOP Says:
   

   @milliondollarspatula - i get that argument. i really do. and i understand that my stance is a privileged one. i live in nyc where i’m immune from most of the discrimination and the forms of discrimination i face i can afford to deal with ($$). and if worse came to worse i have the ability to go to Canada, get residency and very quick citizenship.

   i’m talking from the viewpoint of someone who’s a bit spoiled… principles are more important to me than how quickly we get our rights.

   plessy was a black spot on our nation’s history. but being that, it shone a bright spotlight on the bigotry behind it. i’m not comfortable getting freedoms when they’re not “real”. if the nation really is that bigoted - then let them have another plessy. let them have a verdict we can point to and say - “see - you guys are just a bunch of bigots…”

   if we have the right to marry, but one of us is still getting killed every 8 days, what was the point? it’s not like it’s over when we get the right to marry.

   that’s the point. this isn’t about marriage - it’s about equality. so what if we don’t get marriage quickly? if anything it will focus us on the fact that there’s still huge inequalities out there. if we get marriage easily we’ll get complacent and not want to think about all the fems and drag queens that are getting killed.

   i still say “your all just WRONG”… now i realize it’s ’cause they have their eye on the wrong goal… it’s not marriage we’re fighting for - it’s equality. you can’t put the fight for equality on hold - ever…

8. Mark Says:
   

   RT, you’re absolutely right that this isn’t just about marriage. Likewise, about your self-admitted situation of not having any real skin in the game. Given that elite situation, your opinion makes sense from your albeit selfish, “damn the topedoes” perspective.

   What disturbs me more is the alacrity and obliviousness that you seem to have in publishing your own knee-jerk, self-interest based opinions on your blog to be read on the internet. Although a bit out of the mainstream, your words are read by many who will agree with you just because you said so. Their opinions– based on yours alone– are then passed on to others, a la the spread of ideas and diseases so brilliantly articulated in “The Tipping Point”.

   You are an intelligent person and have the luxury of time to fully read and digest things like this joint statement. Many people don’t and, thus, take your word on it.

   You, like it or not, are a major “influencer”– which is both an honor to have achieved and a burden to be aware of. Your keyboard is no less akin to inputting of launch codes for nuclear annihilation than the pen was to a sword in years past. Whatever your private opinions, I would hope that you realize the power you hold and that you want to use it responsibly. Take your time, read and re-read, consider the world beyond your situation and reality in matters like this, and don’t be afraid to consider the ENORMOUS amount of time, energy, thought, discussion, negotiation, and legal research that literally hundreds of people put into NINE organizations on-board in issuing this JOINT statement. (This coordination alone was impressive!)

   Cascadia2008 “gets it” and, after calmly and patiently reading the entire statement and knowing the brain power we’ve got behind this strategy, your summary into “Don’t Sue” is both inaccurate and reckless. I have a legal background and while you may think Scalia and lackey Thomas HAVE TO back gay marriage should it come before the court today, the truth is THEY WON’T… at least not yet. Simply put, America’s not ready yet… just like it wasn’t when the court ruled against Hardwick. What changed in the 17 years until Texas? America. People came out, broke stereotypes, began integrating instead of isolating, made being gay or lesbian lower on their self-identification flag (while still keeping it up there in the top five affiliations). America slowly noticed as we let people know us first as neighbors, friends, co-workers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, uncles, etc… oh, who happen to be gay.

   Full faith and credit has no applicability to marriage in current case law…yet. It is an open question– which actually is a GOOD THING, as there is no precedent to overcome when the issue has greater support across America and it will make it easier for the Court to rule it does. However, asking now presents a very high risk of getting a NO answer… which equates to confronting the enemy without strategy and losing the war.

   The best thing is simply to live “as if”, raise the conversation with straights, and have patience. Great sitcoms on TV that include a “married gay couple” like “Desperate Housewives” now has, also help tremendously. In fact, my own opinion is that “Will & Grace” is vastly under-rated in the impact it had on making the Texas ruling possible.

   Going back to your original post and responsibility, the part that I found the most disturbing, reckless, damaging to our fight, and, frankly, just downright unfair, was your singular slamming of LAMBDA LEGAL… particularly in such a dramatic rejection as completely writing them out of your will. Strange as it may seem, but that sentence is what will stick with people more than anything else you, I, or any other commenters will write… and forever. In many readers’ minds, particularly those who are unfamiliar with LAMBDA and its work, with just a few clicks on the keyboard you have created the association: LAMBDA LEGAL=BAD (SO DON’T EVER SUPPORT IT).

   I, literally, almost cried when I read your words and thought through the potential impact of your words and that “take-away” association. Nothing could be more undeserved: LAMBDA has been a keystone in getting us this far, this soon. No group is more committed to gaining acceptance and equality for gays and lesbians than LAMBDA. They have brilliant compassionate lawyers who took on the cases of many friends including Joe Stephan, David Carney, Keith Meinhold, and Zoe. They NEED our support and donations because WE NEED THEM to lead the fight when the time is strategically right!

   Finally, I feel it is important to understand that this joint statement can’t be fully summarized into “Don’t sue, just wait.” To the contrary, it explains and suggests what ALL of us can do:

   “Neither court decisions nor legislatures can make effective, enduring change in a democratic
   republic as diverse as this one unless people either come to agree with the change or accept that it
   is required by an important higher principle. That was true with segregation, it was true with sex
   discrimination, and it will be true with discrimination in marriage.

   Changing the law through Court decisions based on fundamental principles of fairness and
   equality helps persuade people that change is the right thing. ***But the most powerful agent of
   change in America is people.
   Nothing moves Americans more on LGBT rights generally and marriage in particular more
   effectively than conversations that all LGBT people can have with our friends and family
   members about how it feels to be treated differently and why that is so unfair.***

   Believe it or not,
   many of our friends and family members don’t realize the burdens and barriers we face, but most
   would agree that our constitution guarantees the same equal protections to everyone, and that no one should be treated differently.

   We’ll win marriage because individual couples get married, tell their family, friends, co-workers
   and community that they are married, and talk in very practical terms about why it is so
   important. And about what it means to be same-sex and married, with all the fundamental
   freedoms that others have.

   Simply getting married and telling people will help get those conversations going. But you
   shouldn’t stop there. The win in California was no accident. Cities in California started adopting
   Domestic Partnership policies in the mid 80s. The state adopted its first law in 1999, and
   expanded it over the next six years. Courts in California have been deciding important cases
   about discrimination since the 70s. With the victories in Massachusetts and California, we should
   be able to win marriage more quickly in other states. But we still need to lay the groundwork.

   Ask
   your employer to include your spouse in the health and benefit plans; ask them to do a domestic
   partnership policy if they decline. Ask your town to establish a local domestic partnership
   registry. These are some of the concrete tasks and tactics that people can do that will create the
   climate for the advances we all want, rather than rolling the dice on litigation.

   Doing those things will have practical benefits. But maybe more important, they’ll spark the
   conversations we need to make the changes in law enduring and real at a day-to-day level.”

   FINALLY– AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:

   “Marriage in California will transform the national debate on the freedom to marry. It will do that
   because the decision is well-reasoned constitutional law from the most influential state court in
   the nation. It will do that because California is an American trendsetter.

   But marriage in California will do those things only if we can hold onto it. There is a proposal on
   the November ballot to ban marriage between lesbian and gay couples. That proposal would put
   into the California Constitution a clause that only allows heterosexual marriages . The
   fundamental freedom to marry would be denied to lesbian and gay couples, and the concept of
   treating people differently would be written into the California Constitution. We think we can
   beat this because Californians don’t want unnecessary government intrusion into their lives and
   don’t want people treated unfairly under the Constitution

   ***So please, send whatever you can to Equality for All (http://www.equalityforall.com), the
   campaign to defeat the initiative and preserve the freedom to marry in California.***” (emphasis added)

   Remember, so goes California, so goes the nation. We all have the same goal: Let’s get us ALL there fully and as quickly as possible by using our brains, our money, and working TOGETHER. I mean if these NINE groups of gays and lesbians and straights can pull off a joint statements like this (a task I imagine as difficult as herding cats!), then let us all remember how our words influence others and keep an open mind to re-evaluating initial emotional reactions after reading it fully.

   “Minds are like parachutes: They function best when open.”

9. greenking01 Says:
   

   amen & thank you mark.
   on the ( extremely ) off chance that enough people would be moved to actually sue maybe it could have some sway but until then PRECEDENCE is what is most important.
   I fully believe that everyone should ACT UP the way people did in prior decades, for there is great strength in numbers but the sad truth of the matter is a lot of people won’t get mad enough about something to do something about it… hell people BARELY get out to vote, just look at the number of votes cast to win an election & then compare this number with the number of people registered or eligible to vote & then further with the population… so yes get mad. & DO SOMETHING about it - but do it in a manner that is going to help your cause NOT hinder it.
   at very LEAST go vote! & take 10 of your friends with you! seriously.

10. rawTOP Says:
    

    @Mark - Actually, it does affect me financially and it’s had a real impact on my bf’s career. My situation may be somewhat privileged, but I’m affected in very real ways. Marriage equality is something I feel very strongly about. I get emotional and mad when I think about the inequalities we face as gay men and lesbians.

    But you have to realize I felt sucker punched by the announcement. It completely had the wrong tone. Even though it talked about ways to fight, at least on the legal front it felt passive and weak - like they were pulling punches.

    What the announcement should have said was please coordinate all lawsuits through Lambda and the ACLU - that we want to ensure we move forward at the best possible time with the absolute strongest case. If they had said that they could have achieved the same goal without making people like me furious with them.

    I’m also saying that there are those in the gay community who are seeing marriage as the ultimate goal and losing sight of the guys getting beat up and killed. I’m not saying the group that did the announcement sees it that way, but there are people who do see it that way.

    I’m privileged, I know it, and gay marriage is the piece of the puzzle I need to make my life easier. But I’m willing to forgo further privilege to make sure we don’t get in a scenario where people think we’ve “arrived” when we have marriage and there’s nothing else to do.

    I’d also say that the message those groups have been getting out about marriage is far less than optimal as well. Our community hasn’t challenged the conservative idea that marriage = church wedding. We’re not demanding church weddings, we’re asking for a marriage CONTRACT (the legal document). We’re demanding that we be able to get married in front of a justice of the peace, not necessarily a minister. Conservatives are scared that their churches will be forced to have gay weddings. But that’s not what we’re asking for at all.

    We’re not the ones that separated the legal marriage contract from church the wedding. Straight atheists get married outside churches all the time. That’s the image we need to be projecting. We need to reassure conservatives that we’re not asking to get married in their churches.

    That separation helps us in another area - to reinforce that marriage is a contract. People see it as a religious institution that’s ’sanctified by god’. We absolutely must break that notion and bring it back to what it really is - a legal contract between two people.

    Only then will the courts take us seriously when we say it’s a contract like all other contracts that constitutionally must be held as valid by all governments in our federal union.

    And lastly, Mark, don’t lecture me on what I should and shouldn’t say. This is a personal blog that projects my personal opinion. If you read the blog you’ll know some of those opinions have changed over time. Our system works best when there are many voices and many opinions. The Internet is perfect in that respect. If I get people to think about something from a different perspective, then I’ve done my job.

    The announcement the other day was a horrid mess that in a very important aspect gave the total wrong message to the gay community. The fact that so many good organizations could get it so wrong is somewhat unbelievable.

    And about my will. What’s weird is that my gay trusts and estates lawyer (without actually coming out and say it) was trying to get me to not give to Lambda. That seemed really weird to me. So there was something before this that made me wonder about Lambda. To be honest I don’t really know what the deal is with Lambda, but I’m no longer confident enough in them to put them in my will. That saddens me actually - we need a great legal defender for the gay community - I thought that was Lambda…

11. Mark Says:
    

    RT, some excellent points that I completely agree with!

    I’m a bit confused how you could have supported this scenario you put forth (quoting you)…

    “What the announcement should have said was please coordinate all lawsuits through Lambda and the ACLU - that we want to ensure we move forward at the best possible time with the absolute strongest case. If they had said that they could have achieved the same goal without making people like me furious with them.”

    When a few paragraphs later you share your lack of faith/confidence in LAMBDA– supported not by facts but by the subtle sway of your gay trusts and estates lawyer’s opinion(again, quoting you)…

    “What’s weird is that my gay trusts and estates lawyer (without actually coming out and say it) was trying to get me to not give to Lambda. That seemed really weird to me. So there was something before this that made me wonder about Lambda. To be honest I don’t really know what the deal is with Lambda, but I’m no longer confident enough in them to put them in my will. That saddens me actually - we need a great legal defender for the gay community - I thought that was Lambda…”

    Q.E.D.

    The joint announcement essentially said everything you say it should EXCEPT the part about ‘coordinating all lawsuits through LAMBDA and the ACLU’. And, had it included that, you wouldn’t have been furious??

    Setting aside your continuing baseless maligning of LAMBDA and playing devil’s advocate for a moment, I simply can’t fathom SEVEN other organizations of gay men and lesbians going along with that: “Who appointed the ACLU and LAMBDA ‘King/Queen of the Hill’??” “How DARE you tell us, the {insert organization name here}, that WE should endorse plaintiff’s coordinating through YOU!”.

    With so many egos in the world and those 9 organizations being no exception, I can only imagine the politics and territorial pissing. Add to that the unique challenges that, in my experience, often mire the progress and drain the energy of a committee of gay men and lesbians and you’d have nada. God, just the thought of all that high drama and pitbull tenacity is exhausting! (Been there, done that… speaking from just my experiences and simply calling them as I’ve seen ‘em).

    Finally, why the hell do you have it in for LAMBDA?? Rather than gather facts or explain your lack of confidence in them, you instead YET AGAIN malign THEM ALONE BY NAME for this announcement. There are 8 other organizations involved here, so are you going to be consistent and bad-mouth them and write that you are no longer (or won’t) give money to them either, be you dead or alive??

    Since this was a joint announcement, all the organizations are publicly united behind it. Trust me, the Tom-Tom’s tell me this wasn’t a cakewalk to pull off and the privately most reluctant group to support this joint announcement IS the one that shares your view of this being more than about marriage, IS the great defender on the legal front fighting for rights, protection, and equality specifically for gay men and lesbians. And it is one that is transparent in its programs and spending as well as being both worthy and deserving and needing every dollar any of us can contribute to them in our charitable giving and/or estate planning.

    If you know and can substantiate any solid factual basis for your dim view and lack of confidence in supporting them with your words (if not your donations), then I definitely want to know about it. I’ve done my homework and due diligence on them, personally know defendants whose cases they’ve handled, and have the highest esteem for their leadership, their attorneys, and their work. Without LAMBDA, we wouldn’t have gotten this far this fast and without them in the future, we won’t see full protection and equality in your or my lifetime.

    Not meaning any disrespect, but to rationalize your emotionally-based lack of faith in them with your gay lawyer’s borderline malpractice of “trying to get me [you] to not give to Lambda” opinion is rather spurious. His profession and ethics aside, I can think of many reasons why a person might not encourage others to give to Lambda. Among them is the naive view that since we’re not in concentration camps but on sitcoms, then we already have protection and equality. Just as plausible is a personal view that the work of LAMBDA is less important than another cause– be it HIV research/services, curing cancer, or saving the environment.

    In the end, it’s your money and you can do with it whatever you like. Just please, if nothing else, do whatever investigation it takes for you to regain confidence in them so you can support them with your words… or at least cease diss’ing them undeservedly.

    Not sure how to italicize this using html, but would if I could, as it should:

    Nemo nisi intus superatus.

    Which is a Latin saying that the Romans found to be so true the hard way…

    “We are only beaten from within.”

12. rawTOP Says:
    

    @mark - “We are only beaten from within.” How appropriate. That’s precisely what I think is happening with the announcement.

    I said “Lambda/ACLU” for expediency. I know some of the organizations in the group (say HRC) are more legislative. It could have been whoever or all of them. Minor detail there.

    Yes, I wouldn’t have had a problem with the announcement if it had said people should coordinate the lawsuits. That’s very different than telling people not to sue. The announcement was public communication by some big groups that should know how to communicate with the public. There should be no missteps or anything that’s unclear - they should get it perfect the first time.

    I mention Lambda by name alone because they were the only one in my will. The reason I felt sucker punched by the announcement is because all of them were saying it and no one was in opposition. I feel the same way about all of them. It’s really demoralizing.

    And yes, I’m absolutely emotional about this. It affects my rights, and the problem affects me personally. Actually many types of discrimination bother me deeply.

    There’s nothing wrong with being emotional about a topic like this. The fact that it is an emotional topic is one reason why the groups should have thought about how the gay community would react to it.

13. Mark Says:
    

    Q.E.D.
    (quod erat demonstrandum)

    :-))

Leave a Reply