I've been on the road, so blogging has been light and will remain so through the start of next week. But the ballot situation in Colorado is worth taking note of. Signatures are being collected for an array of pro- and anti-gay ballot initiatives. So, instead of just opposing (1) an anti-gay-marriage, man-woman-only state amendment and (2) a related initiative that rules out any legal status "similar to marriage" for same-sex partners, activists, backed by the Gill Foundation, have gone proactive. They're supporting (3) their own ballot initiative that says domestic partnerships are "not similar to marriage." That's important, because while a majority of voters have consistently opposed same-sex marriage, increasing numbers (and in many locales, majorities) do not oppose domestic partnerships. Plus, (4) another gay-supported ballot measure would legalize domestic partnerships.
Any combo of these could get on the ballot and pass, but even if anti-gay (1) and pro-gay (3) were to win, for instance, the situation would still be noticeably better than a simple victory for the marriage-banners.
More. Let's recall that in Nov. 2004,
11 states passed ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. That
year, the Human Rights Campaign, the largest lesbigay lobby, gave
only token support to opposing these referendums, and instead put
its big dollars behind the Kerry/Edwards campaign. Kerry/Edwards,
of course, gave
their backing to passing these anti-gay amendments. We
forget this bit of shameful history at our peril.
-- Stephen H. Miller
14 Comments for “Fighting Back in Colorado.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“They’re supporting (3) their own ballot initiative that says domestic partnerships are ‘not similar to marriage.'”
Ah, so Colorado gays get some empty, symbolic institution which not only increases the reach of government into their lives, but also has none of the rights or responsibilities?
It’s sort of undermining one’s cause to claim, patently dishonestly, that civil unions/partnerships “are not similar to marriage.” Suppose anti-gay loses and “pro-gay” (sic) wins. . . try and justify equal treatment under the law to a court when a voter-passed initiative has declared that marriage and CPs aren’t the same thing and have no similarities. One then cannot compare his status to a married couple in order to argue a case against discrimination, legally.
I understand that some people seek the easy way out, but the easy way out isn’t going to expedite things — in fact, as this example indicates quite starkly, it’s more of a setback than many of the anti-gay amendments themselves.
posted by Michael Ditto on
NL, I invite you to read the text of all of the measures before making such a sweeping condemnation.
Domestic partnerships grant all of the state-level benefits and responsibilities to same-sex couples that married spouses already have–that’s a lot more than none, as you suggest.
The fourth ballot measure, filed to counter the one filed by the original author and financial backer of Amendment 2, would do none of the things you suggest. In fact, it is a constitutional commandment for the legislature to implement all of the provisions of domestic partnerships, including outlawing discrimination on the basis of marital or domestic partnership status.
If you think a multimillion-dollar statewide campaign on four ballot measures is the easy way out, I invite you to consider that the alternative you propose is even easier–sit back while the religious right bans same-sex marriage in the Colorado Bill of Rights and then complain about it afterwards.
Visit the site. I think you’ll find a lot there that you will like, and you’ll see that we’re serious as a heart attack about winning on all of the ballot issues we will face this year. This is not 2004, and this is not Mississippi. This is a totally different ball game.
posted by Timothy Hulsey on
We may have to try this in Virginia if the Marriage Amendment passes.
posted by Ed Brown on
Stevey, darling the Human Rights Campaign focus is on federal politics and they never really undertstood state or local politics.
No amount of money pumped into the 2004 election would have stopped those amendments.
posted by Randy R. on
The HRC has a federal focus, of course, but there is nothing stopping them from creating a state-level HRC in each of the 50 states. Time consuming? Yes. Expensive? Yes. No gaurantee of good results? Yes. But you have to start somewhere, and we are in this for the long haul.
Backing a presidential campaign, in my opinion, is not an effective way to get support for our programs.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Domestic partnerships grant all of the state-level benefits and responsibilities to same-sex couples that married spouses already have–that’s a lot more than none, as you suggest.”
“State-level” benefits mean little to nothing to the average gay couple.
Incrementalist claptrap like this gives supporters a warm fuzzy feeling, and anti-gay incrementalists a claim to be “supporting progress,” but it doesn’t help the bi-national gay couple whose American partner wants to get his same-sex British partner a visa. Nor does it mean diddly-squat outside of the state of Colorado.
Again, most of these “DP” referenda are useless, feel-good exercises which waste resources that should be going towards guaranteeing all people — gay and straight — equality under the law. That includes single people, too, BTW.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Backing a presidential campaign, in my opinion, is not an effective way to get support for our programs.”
That is exactly right. Electing the right hetero “Big Daddy” to stand up and protect us will not validate us. Nor will it even provide us with any real protection.
I don’t think Native American tribes are the only people who’d be wise to stop trusting in the “Great White Father” in the White House. Unfortunately, many gay activists still haven’t figured that out.
posted by J.P. on
Ed Brown is wrong in claiming that HRC’s focus is federal politics. That was once true, but not for years. They have am entire state-level project with staff, and are involved in matters such as a workplace project that rates corporate policies.
Even more offensive is the insulting and exceeding immature tone of Ed Brown’s comment.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you think a multimillion-dollar statewide campaign on four ballot measures is the easy way out, I invite you to consider that the alternative you propose is even easier–sit back while the religious right bans same-sex marriage in the Colorado Bill of Rights and then complain about it afterwards.
Slip of the tongue there, Michael.
If what you oppose is banning gay marriage, then fight that. A quick strategic analysis shows that that is the key point; as long as gay marriage isn’t banned via constitutional amendment, there is no limitation on the legislature from putting in place civil unions, if that’s what gays want.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ed Brown is wrong in claiming that HRC’s focus is federal politics. That was once true, but not for years.
Actually, I think it’s very true; HRC spent tens of millions endorsing homophobic Democrats like Kerry, but mere pennies in comparison on the state initiatives.
Why? Because the Kerry campaign and the DNC ordered them to do it, and since the majority of the HRC Executive Board are lobbyists who are dependent on Democratic money, they did it.
posted by Ed Brown on
Regardless of what staffers HRC might have, in my experience they have little real knowledge or success in do much at the local or state level.
In the 2004 election, either John Kerry or George W. Bush was going to win the election. Kerry was clearly the lessor or the two evils and the HRC acted accordingly.
Yes, the HRC has some information online about various state organizations and may give them some money or training, but HRC focuses on federal lobbying issues.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Electing the right hetero “Big Daddy” to stand up and protect us will not validate us. Nor will it even provide us with any real protection.”
Well, that depends. I don’t vote for Big Daddies. I vote for reasonable individuals who are intelligent, passionate, and liberty-oriented. Of course, my candidate rarely wins, but I don’t need a big daddy in the White House if the guy who wins the office is going to work to limit, roll back and thwart the nanny state — as only Libertarian candidates would.
posted by Ed Brown on
I have no idea who you “Big Daddy” is, but what you do with him in the bedroom is likely not my affair.
If you want to advance LGBT equal rights you have to elect people to public office that support LGBT equal rights. You also have to work to educate the public, people of faith, etc.
The LGBT community should be working on election law reforms to ensure that independent and third party candidates are able to compete for our votes.
posted by johnnie newkirk jr. on
human rights all automatic. support your cause with free posters, and free articles at http://WWW.NEWWESTMUSICPUBLISHING.COM