From U.S. World & News Report, For Gays, New Math: Rethinking Tactics After a Series of Setbacks:
The losses may have been self-inflicted. ... Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force acknowledges, "Our legal strategies got ahead of our political strategies."
Gee, when I said that, some were quick to express their indigation.
More. Trying a different strategy in Colorado: a gay-supported constitutional ballot initiative to secure domestic partnership rights.
11 Comments for “Who Now Supports the Judicial-First Strategy?”
posted by Answer! on
Schwarzenegger seems to favor the “take it to the courts, not the legislature” strategy.
Remember this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702020.html
Although I’m sure he personally favors rights for same sex couples, unfortunately, as a Republican in 2005, he had to punt. And that’s what every branch of the government seems to be doing nowadays: punting. In New York, the judiciary punts to the legislature. In California, the executive branch punts to the judiciary. In Massachusetts, the judiciary suddenly punts to “the voters.” “Not it!” seems to be the general consensus.
Meanwhile, the loony “beyond marriage” folks are chasing balls that don’t exist.
Sad times…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The US N&WR article buys into conventional wisdom that GLBT “leadership” is in control of the lawsuits and the “strategy”.
The fact is that the pressure for marriage lawsuits have always come from the bottom up, and the “leadership”, such as it is, has always argued against “premature” lawsuits.
The “leadership”, Steve, did exactly what you recommended — worked for incremental change, buying into the idea that GLBT legal equality would come, if ever, as a gift from enlightened straights who could be “won over” — until the “leadership” was pushed out of the way by pressure for marriage equality coming from the bottom up.
I don’t know if the push for marriage equality will help or hurt in the long run, but I do know that “making nice” was not getting much accomplished. It took 30 years of “making nice” to get workplace anti-discrimination laws in place in Washington state. It took 30 years in Illiniois, too. And workplace anti-discrimination laws are still not in place in 33 of the 50 states.
Hell, in Wisconsin, going to Canada and getting married makes you a criminal — nine months and $10,000 worth. That’s what “making nice” accomplished in this state.
What is to lose by fighting for equality? We can’t stop the push for marriage, anyway. The marriage battle has been joined and it is not going away.
posted by Rocco on
How in the hell can marrying in Canada make one a criminal in Wisconsin? If the US doesn’t recognize the validity of marriages made in other countries then it can hardly criminalize them, can it?
posted by Randy R. on
You are so right, Tom. The lawsuits filed in the various courts were filed by gay people wanting to get married. It was NOT a concerted effort by the so-called gay leadership.
We’ve had successes and we’ve had failures in the fight for gay marriage equality, but the bottomline is that it has opened up a dialogue about gays and our place in society, and our rights. A few years ago, gay marriage was not even a thought to most people. First you have to get that thought out there before people will believe in it. The fact is that we ARE making tons of progress — the lawsuits have forced a lot of editorializing, most of in our favor. It has forced conversations with family and friends. It forced news reports about how unfair the laws are. This is progress on a big scale.
posted by Drew on
CAUTION! I recommend you take another look at what was argued in these judicial appeals. The one in Nebraska did not even raise a central question but was periphereal. The reality is, bad arguments were put forth.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The lawsuits filed in the various courts were filed by gay people wanting to get married.
Precisely right — individual people stood up for the priorities which were important to them and their families, rather than the Democratic Party socialist agenda the self-appointed “leadership” were busy pitching to them.
Their decision to focus on their own priorities has absolutely enraged the self-appointed leadership, which is now attempting to assert control and insist that people are too stupid to figure out what they really want in life — that they should just relinquish control of their futures to the “leadership” and other self-appointed busybodies.
Unsurprisingly, this will not carry the day politically with gays. The “LGBT vote” is no longer up for sale.
posted by raj on
Tom Scharbach | August 7, 2006, 9:33pm |
It took 30 years of “making nice” to get workplace anti-discrimination laws in place in Washington state. It took 30 years in Illiniois, too.
It took 30 years to get workplace anti-discrimination laws for gays&lesbians in New York State, too. And, if memory serves, it was almost derailed by a NYS state group, then headed by Matt Foreman, who refused to support a state-level anti-discrimination law that did not included transgendered. Irrespective of whether one believes that T’s should be included in a NYS workplace anti-discrimination law–and I generally believe that it would be nice if they were–it strikes me as a bit silly for Foreman’s group not to have pushed for the bill that had been agreed to.
That leads me to believe that Foreman is more than a bit of a nut. And that’s aside from the fact that he and his groups have likely had nothing to do with the legal strategies, and they haven’t been particularly successful in their political strategies. Although his NYS group eventually did come around to support the NYS workplace anti-discrimination law for gays&lesbians.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | August 8, 2006, 1:17am | #
>>>The lawsuits filed in the various courts were filed by gay people wanting to get married.
Precisely right — individual people stood up for the priorities which were important to them and their families, rather than the Democratic Party socialist agenda the self-appointed “leadership” were busy pitching to them.
I can’t comment on the plaintiffs in the other states, but here in Massachusetts the Goodridge lawsuit appears to have been coordinated between the regional Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD, not to be confused with the national GLAAD), and a number of
same-sex couples. Apparently, GLAD fairly carefully selected the seven same-sex couples who were the plaintiffs with a view to anticipating the arguments from the opposition. For example, about half of the couples were rearing children, so the children-rearing issue could be deflected by some of the plaintiffs. I don’t recall the characteristics of all of the couples that had been selected by GLAD, but apparently GLAD did go through something of a selection process, and did not include all of the couples that had come forward.
And that’s one reason why GLAD won. Of course, it didn’t hurt that the Chief Justice of the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, who was appointed by Republican Bill Weld, had been born and raised in South Africa, and had witnessed Apartheit first hand. She wrote the majority opinion.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Rocco: “How in the hell can marrying in Canada make one a criminal in Wisconsin? If the US doesn’t recognize the validity of marriages made in other countries then it can hardly criminalize them, can it?”
Wisconsin prohibits same-sex marriage within the state. A same-sex couple cannot marry within the state. To marry, the same-sex couple must go outside the state, say, to Canada, where a same-sex couple can marry.
If Wisconsin residents go to Canada to get married, the marriage is void, and, in addition, the couple is subject to criminal penalties for evading the state’s marriage law.
Section 765.04(1) voids such marriages:
“765.04 Marriage abroad to circumvent the laws. (1) If any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who is disabled or prohibited from contracting marriage under the laws of this state goes into another state or country and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state, such marriage shall be void for all purposes in this state with the same effect as though it had been entered into in this state.”
Section 765.30(1)(a) adds the criminal penalties:
“765.30 Penalties (1) The following may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than nine months or both: “(a) Penalty for marriage outside the state to circumvent the laws. Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state.”
A warning: If you decide to go to Canada to get married, check the laws in your own state with a lawyer. Lawyers aren’t just trying to be pains in the butt — there is a reason why we caution gay and lesbian folks not to run off and get married in Canada without thinking through the consequences under the law.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
a gay-supported constitutional ballot initiative to secure domestic partnership rights
Please, pretty please, Mr. Heterosexual, can I please have my constitutional equal protection rights? Can I please, pretty please have some of the Bill of Rights apply to me?
Would you very kindly consider my humble request to be regarded as a citizen of the United States? Perhaps a 2/3 or 3/4 citizen? I promise I won’t go too far and frighten you. I know how that offends you so.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
NL, would you kindly step aside and for once allow the protection of gay couples to take precedence over your ideological warfare?
The fact that you oppose this speaks volumes about where your true concerns lie.