June 9, 2009
Courting Disaster
Local Attorney Vows to Take Same-Sex Marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court
Kelly O
DAVID COFFMAN Not on board with the big gay strategy.
Tools
On a sweltering late-spring afternoon, David Coffman, a local tax attorney, calls me to announce that he will be at The Stranger's front desk in less than 10 minutes. We had no plans to meet until that moment. In the lobby, Coffman, perspiring and beaming and wearing a gray suit, greets me with one hand and presents a framed certificate with the other. This certificate, the calligraphy reads, certifies him to argue cases before the United States Supreme Court.
Despite the impressive certification, Coffman has never actually argued before the nation's highest panel of judges. "I am a tax lawyer, not a constitutional litigator," he says. Nevertheless, he has a controversial plan, fueled by an almost messianic sense of urgent duty, to stand before the conservative- dominated court to argue for equal protection for gay couples who wish to marry.
Stranger Personals
On June 3, a week after he announced this plan, Coffman, 42, and his boyfriend, Matthew Mayne, 30, walked into the King County Courthouse and applied for a marriage license. The clerk, of course, promptly rejected the application under a 1998 state law that restricts marriage to one man and one woman (a law upheld in 2006, over the objections of gay-rights lawyers, by our state's supreme court).
His desired rejection letter in hand, Coffman began drafting a federal lawsuit that he intends to file within a few weeks in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, challenging his inability to get a marriage license. Win or lose, Coffman expects the case to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and eventually to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But Coffman's plan is exactly the kind of thing that LGBT legal groups have been working for years to prevent—and for good reason. Coffman's crusade could sacrifice a generation of gay-rights progress if the Supreme Court finds that separate (civil unions) is equal (to marriage). It's happened before. In 1896, the court found in the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson that separate railcars for African Americans constituted equal treatment under the law, a decision that the court didn't reverse for almost 60 years. Fearing just this kind of scenario, groups such as Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union have instead litigated for gay marriage in a carefully orchestrated state-by-state strategy, identifying states with progressive courts and winning marriage rights in places such as Massachusetts (2005), California (2008), and Iowa (2009). Last year, and again in May, a coalition of national nonprofits issued a notice warning attorneys and gay couples that "pushing the federal government... or suing in states where the courts aren't ready is likely to lead to bad rulings."
But those requests didn't stop two other attorneys from filing a case in California, days before Coffman showed up to meet with me, in response to that state's supreme court upholding Proposition 8 (the ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage in California). The attorneys behind that suit are arguably the two best litigators in the nation, Ted Olson and David Boies, who represented George W. Bush and Al Gore, respectively, in the presidential-election recount case of 2000. Coffman says he doesn't trust Olson and Boies to argue the marriage case because they are straight and because Olson has represented extremely conservative causes in the past. Coffman also believes that by filing his case federally, it will become joined in with Olson and Boies's case, and they will ultimately be forced to work with him.
"My goal in this suit is that there will be a gay lawyer and someone who knows what has been going on for the last 20 years in the LGBT legal community," says Coffman.
Indeed, Coffman is not some random gay tax attorney. He sits on the board of Equal Rights Washington, he serves as the attorney for Seattle's gay pride parade, and he's teamed up in the past with Lambda Legal and Legal Voice (formerly Northwest Women's Law Center). Until now, Coffman has mostly walked in step with their ranks.
Jenny Pizer, director of the marriage project for Lambda Legal, is alarmed by Coffman's plans. So is Lisa Stone, executive director of Legal Voice. "I think these issues should be left to people in organizations that are deeply familiar with this area of the law," she said. "I tried to persuade him not to file the federal marriage suit."
Coffman acknowledges his case could fail, but he says he's done
taking direction from national gay-rights groups that tell him to stay
out of the way. There's no small amount of hubris involved in his
gamble, but when challenged he offers a sort of Trojan-horse backup
plan: If his case is, in fact, joined with that of Boies and Olson,
Coffman says he might try to slow the case down, allowing time for
President Barack Obama to appoint a more-progressive Supreme Court,
thus increasing the chances of a favorable ruling on same-sex marriage.
"One thing I am good at is throwing wrenches in the works," he says.
Share via
1
He's free to do it, as are the couples Boies and Olson represent. The exercise of that freedom is ultra-cool. I do wish the groupthink strategists were more persuasive with him, but once a lawyer gets a brainstorm it can be nigh impossible to put out the fire. Anyhow, it's spilled milk now, so all I can do is calm my fear of the risks and support it.
2
Pride goeth before a fall.
It must take tremendous ego to think that your idea or desire for action is more important than the carefully thought out plans of hundreds of organizations that really do represent the community and are responsible to the community.
He is basically unaccountable, so he feels that he can risk something for all of us without consulting us.
Shameful.
It must take tremendous ego to think that your idea or desire for action is more important than the carefully thought out plans of hundreds of organizations that really do represent the community and are responsible to the community.
He is basically unaccountable, so he feels that he can risk something for all of us without consulting us.
Shameful.
3
http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/03/ne…
Roundtable
Next steps for our movement
June 3, 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8 sparked angry protests around the country, but these were just the latest mobilizations for marriage equality since the referendum passed in November.
The weekend after the ruling was announced, some 3,000 people mobilized from across California to the Central Valley city of Fresno for the "Meet in the Middle" rally for equal rights. And now, an October 10-11 date has been set for a national demonstration for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights.
SocialistWorker.org asked a group of activists and writers to give their views on the movement for marriage equality, and what its next steps should be.
-- John Henning is cofounder of the California-based group Love Honor Cherish [1].
-- Kip Williams is a cofounder and organizer of the group One Struggle, One Fight [2], which was formed in the wake of last November's election.
-- Sherry Wolf is a longtime activist and author of the new book Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [3].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHAT'S YOUR impression of the state of the struggle coming out of the California Supreme Court decision that upheld Prop 8, and what comes next?
John: I was at the rallies in LA with many members from our group Love Honor Cherish, and we handed out signs that said, "Repeal Prop 8 in 2010." It was almost unanimous as you talk to people that they really want to do this in 2010. And a year and a half is a long time--there'll be plenty of time to change the minds that have to be changed.
People are very much energized and mobilized right now because of what they've seen, so I definitely think that the sense in the community is that it's got to be 2010.
Kip: Since Prop 8 passed last November, there's been a tidal wave of activism here in California--a really fast-and-furious development of new grassroots organizations and new folks at the table.
The organization I've been working with, One Struggle One Fight, reflects what I see all over California right now, which is that there are a lot of young, new activists engaged in the fight who have never been activists before.
And I also think there are a lot of people on the left who have been activists for a long time, around a wide range of social and economic justice issues, but have never really been that concerned with the marriage issue for a number of reasons. But Prop 8 passing and taking away people's rights brought people into the fold on this issue. So I think there's a whole new network of folks who are fired up and ready to go.
I agree first off with John that 2010 is the year to go back to the ballot--the momentum is growing, and I think the worst thing we could do right now is tell everybody to sit on their hands, and we'll be back on the ballot in three years in 2012.
But also, I'm a big advocate for pushing outside of the borders of California and getting ready for a national movement for full equal protection under the law. I'm a Tennessee boy myself. I've been living in San Francisco for the last three years, but I was born and raised out in Tennessee, and reality back at home is that whatever happens here in California around Prop 8, in the South, things remain the same.
On November 15 of last year, right after Prop 8 passed, when Join the Impact called for a day of action and more than 300 cities across the world and internationally had folks out protesting at their city halls, I think it really showed us that we're ready to build a national movement for equality--not just the repeal of Prop 8, but for equality outside of California in the rest of the country.
Sherry: On all the protests I've been on, from New York to California and here in Chicago, I think the hope is magnificent and apparent. I'm looking at my e-mail inbox, and I see an openly gay teen was voted prom queen at his Los Angeles high school. It tells you about where opinion is moving in this country.
But I guess I also feel like there's a kind of a hidden danger in some of this, because the inevitability that people feel about this issue can translate into passivity around activism--believing that somehow the politicians or the courts are going to resolve this issue without the active participation of grassroots mobilization around the country.
I think that's a wrong conclusion to draw from what's happening right now, because it's not going to happen. Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the federal government is not going to happen; lifting "don't ask, don't tell" and expanding civil rights for LGBT people in the workplace isn't going to happen without a fight.
John: I agree that there's an enormous amount of work that has to be done in order to actually repeal Proposition 8 in California.
I think that Prop 8 should be the highest priority for the national movement for marriage equality, because getting that repealed will cause a wave across the country. It will also be something affirmative, as opposed to just being on the defensive, and so it's going to be a really transformative process and a transformative moment.
But it's not going to happen without a lot of people doing a lot of work. For one example, just to get a ballot initiative on the ballot, you have to get a million signatures. That will take something like 10,000 person-hours to do. And then, of course, we've got to have all the conversations to change people's votes.
So we have a huge effort in front of us. I think the energy's there, but we're going to have to constantly remind ourselves that we can't expect that somebody else is going to take care of it. That was a big problem in the campaign against Prop 8 last year, before the election. There were a lot of people who thought Prop 8 wouldn't pass, and so they didn't do anything to help make sure it didn't pass--and you can see how that turned out.
So hopefully this time, people will actually follow up their passion with action and spend weekends walking around to get signatures, and then change people's minds.
HOW DO you think the movement should relate to the more established and well-funded equality organizations, like the Human Rights Campaign and Equality California, where there's a debate about whether we should wait until 2012 to try for repeal?
Kip: Actually, I believe that Equality California has come around and announced that it's ready to move forward in 2010. But the reason that happened is because of the grassroots pressure coming from groups like Love Honor Cherish and Yes on Equality, which are two of the organizations in California that have been paving the way to get back on the ballot in 2010.
I think that the large organizations like Equality California have sat on their hands for too long. In the months after Prop 8 passed, all of the mainstream organizations put all of their energy and focus on the case in the California Supreme Court. It was really the grassroots that said that we're losing all of this time to pave the way for a better campaign next time.
I don't think we have to rehash what the problems were with the No on 8 campaign. We all know what went wrong, and it was really the grassroots that said we're not going to let another campaign be run this way--and while we sure hope that the California Supreme Court does the right thing, we're not going to count on it. We're going to get out and we're going to start doing the work right now.
So I want to say that it's been the work of the grassroots that got the larger, well-funded and more powerful organizations to come around to some common sense. But also I want to say that we need a ballot campaign--but we also need people fighting in the streets. I think it's really important to have a popular movement that goes back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8.
Also, in terms of the national landscape in the fight for equality and civil rights, I think that Prop 8 has been an interesting staging ground to push that fight nationally. Of course, a number of other states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But California was fundamentally different because it was the first time that right was stripped away from us.
So I think, as John said, the fight to repeal Prop 8 paves the way for change to happen across the country. Repealing Prop 8 in 2010 is pivotal for the national movement, but I also think it's a staging ground to begin talking about national issues. We now have President Obama, who made promises to repeal DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell," and there's been no movement on that--and he stood by while the California Supreme Court affirmed that it's okay for a slim majority of voters to take away a minority group's rights.
Obama was down in Los Angeles the day after the California Supreme Court ruling, and there was a demonstration where folks came out to confront him about "don't ask, don't tell," but also to say that "don't ask, don't tell" isn't the only issue we want to confront him about. There's a broader issue of full equal protection under the law.
Again, I think it's a really great example of how California can pave the way to build a national movement and put pressure on the White House and on our elected legislators for our demand for equal protection in all matters governed by civil law.
Sherry: I agree with Kip's approach. With the Human Rights Campaign and the statewide equality groups, they're not the enemy, but they're also not consistent allies.
But as Kip was explaining, they can be pushed. And they have to be pushed. They have tens of millions of our dollars--money that ordinary people contribute to these organizations, hoping that they're going to represent a fight for equality and a fight for civil rights. But these are people who aren't involved in activism. Their world view is shaped by politicians and wealthy LGBT business people. That's who they tend to cater to, and attempt to appease with their actions.
So, for example, the two attorneys on different sides of the Gore/Bush 2000 presidential case have launched a legal case in federal court to get the Prop 8 marriage ban halted. And I thought it was interesting that the first response of many of the mainstream equality groups was hostility.
It's as if they're saying, "Who the hell are these upstarts to take this to the Supreme Court when we've been working on this for decades." And I thought: "Precisely! You've been working on this for decades, and we still don't have any recognized civil rights in this country." Their strategy has been a failure, and it might be worth re-examining and jettisoning.
About Obama, I watched the coverage of the protest outside his speech the other evening in Beverly Hills. And he did make a joke about the protest, but it wasn't the kind of Bush-style dismissal, like when he said that the huge 2003 antiwar demonstrations were just a focus group, and he didn't pay attention to focus groups. Obama, on the other hand, went on to say that presidents actually should be held accountable for their promises.
So that opens a door to the idea that what we do on the ground--in terms of protest, and getting the signatures to get Prop 8 repealed in California, pushing for a repeal of DOMA federally--will have an effect on what he does. In some ways, Obama is actually saying, "Push me." And I think we ought to take him up on that offer.
We need to push. We need to organize protests and ongoing grassroots activity that presses the mainstream groups to open up their coffers and put money into the kinds of organizing efforts that will really make a difference--that will force the hand of a Democratic-run Congress and the Obama administration.
John: I wanted to say that I agree with Sherry's point about the need to pressure these large equality organizations. The main reason why Love Honor Cherish exists is because we felt last year that the campaign against Prop 8 was not being adequately run by the larger organizations--there was kind of a group-think mentality that resulted in a bad campaign and the avoidance of various issues.
Since November 4, we've been really singularly focused on the fact that we might lose the legal case and if so, we need to go back to the ballot as soon as reasonably possible, which we decided was November 2010. So we've really spent the last six months pressuring and pressuring and pressuring--trying to get other grassroots groups to focus on 2010, because the larger groups weren't. And I do believe, as Kip said, that this pressure is what has caused Courage Campaign and Equality California to start talking about 2010.
These groups need to be constantly pressured. Even now, Equality California is kind of saying "2010 if"--where the "if" is that we have to raise enough money and get enough groups behind our campaign and get a campaign plan going that's going to show us the route to victory. The result is that we're talking about more delays, potentially, in deciding whether we're actually going to go forward with 2010.
So the pressure needs to be applied constantly, because the larger groups tend to be funded by people who are more conservative, and they often don't want to move quite as quickly as other people do.
ALONG THESE same lines, how should activists be viewing the reality of the Democrats in the majority in Congress and in charge of the White House?
John: I'm kind of proceeding without reference to the Obama administration. I've never really had a lot of hope for him on this issue. This is kind of a final frontier, and he's just not ready to get to the final frontier.
The thing that bothers me about Obama is he's always finessing the issue--and I think in some ways, we enable that finessing behavior by coming up with ways for him to do it. I can't be part of that. Other people are good at the whole business of telling Obama that he shouldn't say this, or he should say it a different way, so that he doesn't quite ever say what he really means. So I'll leave that to other people--we're just going to go and fight for our rights, without regard to whether the president wants us to have them or not.
Kip: I really appreciate what John says. I think that there's a strategy going on behind the scenes about when is the "right time" to talk about this issue. And we come from a perspective that it's never the right time for the movement--so it's always the right time for the movement.
But I do believe that we should keep the pressure high, and I do believe that Obama will be moved on this issue. I think that if we want to push for full protection under the law federally, we're going to have to build up the political will of our legislators across the country.
I think we're going to have to frame it as a nonpartisan issue--that we can all agree, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, that people deserve equal protection and civil rights. I do believe that if we keep the pressure high, the White House and our elected legislators across the country are going to come along on this within the next few years.
Right now, I'm sitting in the house of Robin McGhee, who's is the lead organizer on this event "Meet in the Middle" in Fresno in the central valley here in California. And I'm just surrounded by these incredible, amazing organizers from all over the state.
I think this is the first time I've felt that we've had control of the message nationally--we're setting the message that we're demanding this as a civil rights issue. I feel like the anger and the resolve and the hope is just unstoppable. I don't mean to sound young or naïve, but I genuinely believe that as long as we don't shut up, they're going to have to come along.
Sherry: I'm thrilled to hear about the Fresno protest because I think that it's important to get out of the gay-borhoods and cities, and bring people from the Bay Area and LA into places where homophobia is stronger in this country.
I also feel like the time has come for another national protest. We really haven't had a national protest in this country since 1993, and even that one, if you think about it, was organized after the 1992 election, so that no pressure would be put on Bill Clinton before he came into office.
I know there's the beginnings of a push for this coming October in Washington, D.C., and if there was another one on the West Coast, I believe they'd probably draw out at least hundreds of thousands, if not over a million people, for LGBT civil rights, for equal marriage, for lifting "don't ask, don't tell," and for passing an all-inclusive employment non-discrimination act. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen if we're going to put the pressure that's needed on the Obama administration and on Congress--to force their hand to include LGBT people as a constitutionally protected class of people, which we currently are not.
Kip: Actually, there's going to be an official announcement of a call for a march on Washington, D.C., on October 10-11. This is being initiated by Cleve Jones and Torie Osborn and others--we have a Web site up at nationalequalitymarch.com [4].
The call to action has a single demand of full equal protection on all matters covered by civil law, and the philosophy that we're part of a broader movement for peace and social justice across the world. We believe in a decentralized organizing strategy that involves people organizing by congressional district across the country. So the hope is that the organizing of the march will lay the groundwork for an ongoing infrastructure after the march, based on 435 congressional districts across the country.
Sherry: I'm thrilled to hear that there's a push among people with a profile like Cleve Jones for a national protest.
I feel like one of the next steps nationally over the coming weeks--especially since that protest call is coming out prior to the Gay Pride parades, and of course this is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots--would be to bring a little bit of Stonewall back into gay pride parades this year and have political, civil rights contingents, demanding a repeal of Prop 8 and the other civil rights demands.
The gay pride parades have been far too commercialized for some years now, and devoid of politics in too many places. So it would be a step forward for our struggle if we could have contingents in every city--of political protesters and grassroots activists, making demands and beginning to publicize the October national protest for LGBT civil rights.
Transcription by Andrea Hektor
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Featured at Socialism 2009
Hear Sherry Wolf, Kip Williams and other activists speak on the panel "Prop 8 is Going Down! Winning Gay Marriage in California" at Socialism 2009 [5] in San Francisco. Check out the Socialism 2009 [6] Web site for more details. See you at Socialism!
More...
Roundtable
Next steps for our movement
June 3, 2009
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8 sparked angry protests around the country, but these were just the latest mobilizations for marriage equality since the referendum passed in November.
The weekend after the ruling was announced, some 3,000 people mobilized from across California to the Central Valley city of Fresno for the "Meet in the Middle" rally for equal rights. And now, an October 10-11 date has been set for a national demonstration for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights.
SocialistWorker.org asked a group of activists and writers to give their views on the movement for marriage equality, and what its next steps should be.
-- John Henning is cofounder of the California-based group Love Honor Cherish [1].
-- Kip Williams is a cofounder and organizer of the group One Struggle, One Fight [2], which was formed in the wake of last November's election.
-- Sherry Wolf is a longtime activist and author of the new book Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [3].
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHAT'S YOUR impression of the state of the struggle coming out of the California Supreme Court decision that upheld Prop 8, and what comes next?
John: I was at the rallies in LA with many members from our group Love Honor Cherish, and we handed out signs that said, "Repeal Prop 8 in 2010." It was almost unanimous as you talk to people that they really want to do this in 2010. And a year and a half is a long time--there'll be plenty of time to change the minds that have to be changed.
People are very much energized and mobilized right now because of what they've seen, so I definitely think that the sense in the community is that it's got to be 2010.
Kip: Since Prop 8 passed last November, there's been a tidal wave of activism here in California--a really fast-and-furious development of new grassroots organizations and new folks at the table.
The organization I've been working with, One Struggle One Fight, reflects what I see all over California right now, which is that there are a lot of young, new activists engaged in the fight who have never been activists before.
And I also think there are a lot of people on the left who have been activists for a long time, around a wide range of social and economic justice issues, but have never really been that concerned with the marriage issue for a number of reasons. But Prop 8 passing and taking away people's rights brought people into the fold on this issue. So I think there's a whole new network of folks who are fired up and ready to go.
I agree first off with John that 2010 is the year to go back to the ballot--the momentum is growing, and I think the worst thing we could do right now is tell everybody to sit on their hands, and we'll be back on the ballot in three years in 2012.
But also, I'm a big advocate for pushing outside of the borders of California and getting ready for a national movement for full equal protection under the law. I'm a Tennessee boy myself. I've been living in San Francisco for the last three years, but I was born and raised out in Tennessee, and reality back at home is that whatever happens here in California around Prop 8, in the South, things remain the same.
On November 15 of last year, right after Prop 8 passed, when Join the Impact called for a day of action and more than 300 cities across the world and internationally had folks out protesting at their city halls, I think it really showed us that we're ready to build a national movement for equality--not just the repeal of Prop 8, but for equality outside of California in the rest of the country.
Sherry: On all the protests I've been on, from New York to California and here in Chicago, I think the hope is magnificent and apparent. I'm looking at my e-mail inbox, and I see an openly gay teen was voted prom queen at his Los Angeles high school. It tells you about where opinion is moving in this country.
But I guess I also feel like there's a kind of a hidden danger in some of this, because the inevitability that people feel about this issue can translate into passivity around activism--believing that somehow the politicians or the courts are going to resolve this issue without the active participation of grassroots mobilization around the country.
I think that's a wrong conclusion to draw from what's happening right now, because it's not going to happen. Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by the federal government is not going to happen; lifting "don't ask, don't tell" and expanding civil rights for LGBT people in the workplace isn't going to happen without a fight.
John: I agree that there's an enormous amount of work that has to be done in order to actually repeal Proposition 8 in California.
I think that Prop 8 should be the highest priority for the national movement for marriage equality, because getting that repealed will cause a wave across the country. It will also be something affirmative, as opposed to just being on the defensive, and so it's going to be a really transformative process and a transformative moment.
But it's not going to happen without a lot of people doing a lot of work. For one example, just to get a ballot initiative on the ballot, you have to get a million signatures. That will take something like 10,000 person-hours to do. And then, of course, we've got to have all the conversations to change people's votes.
So we have a huge effort in front of us. I think the energy's there, but we're going to have to constantly remind ourselves that we can't expect that somebody else is going to take care of it. That was a big problem in the campaign against Prop 8 last year, before the election. There were a lot of people who thought Prop 8 wouldn't pass, and so they didn't do anything to help make sure it didn't pass--and you can see how that turned out.
So hopefully this time, people will actually follow up their passion with action and spend weekends walking around to get signatures, and then change people's minds.
HOW DO you think the movement should relate to the more established and well-funded equality organizations, like the Human Rights Campaign and Equality California, where there's a debate about whether we should wait until 2012 to try for repeal?
Kip: Actually, I believe that Equality California has come around and announced that it's ready to move forward in 2010. But the reason that happened is because of the grassroots pressure coming from groups like Love Honor Cherish and Yes on Equality, which are two of the organizations in California that have been paving the way to get back on the ballot in 2010.
I think that the large organizations like Equality California have sat on their hands for too long. In the months after Prop 8 passed, all of the mainstream organizations put all of their energy and focus on the case in the California Supreme Court. It was really the grassroots that said that we're losing all of this time to pave the way for a better campaign next time.
I don't think we have to rehash what the problems were with the No on 8 campaign. We all know what went wrong, and it was really the grassroots that said we're not going to let another campaign be run this way--and while we sure hope that the California Supreme Court does the right thing, we're not going to count on it. We're going to get out and we're going to start doing the work right now.
So I want to say that it's been the work of the grassroots that got the larger, well-funded and more powerful organizations to come around to some common sense. But also I want to say that we need a ballot campaign--but we also need people fighting in the streets. I think it's really important to have a popular movement that goes back to the ballot to repeal Prop 8.
Also, in terms of the national landscape in the fight for equality and civil rights, I think that Prop 8 has been an interesting staging ground to push that fight nationally. Of course, a number of other states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. But California was fundamentally different because it was the first time that right was stripped away from us.
So I think, as John said, the fight to repeal Prop 8 paves the way for change to happen across the country. Repealing Prop 8 in 2010 is pivotal for the national movement, but I also think it's a staging ground to begin talking about national issues. We now have President Obama, who made promises to repeal DOMA and "don't ask, don't tell," and there's been no movement on that--and he stood by while the California Supreme Court affirmed that it's okay for a slim majority of voters to take away a minority group's rights.
Obama was down in Los Angeles the day after the California Supreme Court ruling, and there was a demonstration where folks came out to confront him about "don't ask, don't tell," but also to say that "don't ask, don't tell" isn't the only issue we want to confront him about. There's a broader issue of full equal protection under the law.
Again, I think it's a really great example of how California can pave the way to build a national movement and put pressure on the White House and on our elected legislators for our demand for equal protection in all matters governed by civil law.
Sherry: I agree with Kip's approach. With the Human Rights Campaign and the statewide equality groups, they're not the enemy, but they're also not consistent allies.
But as Kip was explaining, they can be pushed. And they have to be pushed. They have tens of millions of our dollars--money that ordinary people contribute to these organizations, hoping that they're going to represent a fight for equality and a fight for civil rights. But these are people who aren't involved in activism. Their world view is shaped by politicians and wealthy LGBT business people. That's who they tend to cater to, and attempt to appease with their actions.
So, for example, the two attorneys on different sides of the Gore/Bush 2000 presidential case have launched a legal case in federal court to get the Prop 8 marriage ban halted. And I thought it was interesting that the first response of many of the mainstream equality groups was hostility.
It's as if they're saying, "Who the hell are these upstarts to take this to the Supreme Court when we've been working on this for decades." And I thought: "Precisely! You've been working on this for decades, and we still don't have any recognized civil rights in this country." Their strategy has been a failure, and it might be worth re-examining and jettisoning.
About Obama, I watched the coverage of the protest outside his speech the other evening in Beverly Hills. And he did make a joke about the protest, but it wasn't the kind of Bush-style dismissal, like when he said that the huge 2003 antiwar demonstrations were just a focus group, and he didn't pay attention to focus groups. Obama, on the other hand, went on to say that presidents actually should be held accountable for their promises.
So that opens a door to the idea that what we do on the ground--in terms of protest, and getting the signatures to get Prop 8 repealed in California, pushing for a repeal of DOMA federally--will have an effect on what he does. In some ways, Obama is actually saying, "Push me." And I think we ought to take him up on that offer.
We need to push. We need to organize protests and ongoing grassroots activity that presses the mainstream groups to open up their coffers and put money into the kinds of organizing efforts that will really make a difference--that will force the hand of a Democratic-run Congress and the Obama administration.
John: I wanted to say that I agree with Sherry's point about the need to pressure these large equality organizations. The main reason why Love Honor Cherish exists is because we felt last year that the campaign against Prop 8 was not being adequately run by the larger organizations--there was kind of a group-think mentality that resulted in a bad campaign and the avoidance of various issues.
Since November 4, we've been really singularly focused on the fact that we might lose the legal case and if so, we need to go back to the ballot as soon as reasonably possible, which we decided was November 2010. So we've really spent the last six months pressuring and pressuring and pressuring--trying to get other grassroots groups to focus on 2010, because the larger groups weren't. And I do believe, as Kip said, that this pressure is what has caused Courage Campaign and Equality California to start talking about 2010.
These groups need to be constantly pressured. Even now, Equality California is kind of saying "2010 if"--where the "if" is that we have to raise enough money and get enough groups behind our campaign and get a campaign plan going that's going to show us the route to victory. The result is that we're talking about more delays, potentially, in deciding whether we're actually going to go forward with 2010.
So the pressure needs to be applied constantly, because the larger groups tend to be funded by people who are more conservative, and they often don't want to move quite as quickly as other people do.
ALONG THESE same lines, how should activists be viewing the reality of the Democrats in the majority in Congress and in charge of the White House?
John: I'm kind of proceeding without reference to the Obama administration. I've never really had a lot of hope for him on this issue. This is kind of a final frontier, and he's just not ready to get to the final frontier.
The thing that bothers me about Obama is he's always finessing the issue--and I think in some ways, we enable that finessing behavior by coming up with ways for him to do it. I can't be part of that. Other people are good at the whole business of telling Obama that he shouldn't say this, or he should say it a different way, so that he doesn't quite ever say what he really means. So I'll leave that to other people--we're just going to go and fight for our rights, without regard to whether the president wants us to have them or not.
Kip: I really appreciate what John says. I think that there's a strategy going on behind the scenes about when is the "right time" to talk about this issue. And we come from a perspective that it's never the right time for the movement--so it's always the right time for the movement.
But I do believe that we should keep the pressure high, and I do believe that Obama will be moved on this issue. I think that if we want to push for full protection under the law federally, we're going to have to build up the political will of our legislators across the country.
I think we're going to have to frame it as a nonpartisan issue--that we can all agree, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, that people deserve equal protection and civil rights. I do believe that if we keep the pressure high, the White House and our elected legislators across the country are going to come along on this within the next few years.
Right now, I'm sitting in the house of Robin McGhee, who's is the lead organizer on this event "Meet in the Middle" in Fresno in the central valley here in California. And I'm just surrounded by these incredible, amazing organizers from all over the state.
I think this is the first time I've felt that we've had control of the message nationally--we're setting the message that we're demanding this as a civil rights issue. I feel like the anger and the resolve and the hope is just unstoppable. I don't mean to sound young or naïve, but I genuinely believe that as long as we don't shut up, they're going to have to come along.
Sherry: I'm thrilled to hear about the Fresno protest because I think that it's important to get out of the gay-borhoods and cities, and bring people from the Bay Area and LA into places where homophobia is stronger in this country.
I also feel like the time has come for another national protest. We really haven't had a national protest in this country since 1993, and even that one, if you think about it, was organized after the 1992 election, so that no pressure would be put on Bill Clinton before he came into office.
I know there's the beginnings of a push for this coming October in Washington, D.C., and if there was another one on the West Coast, I believe they'd probably draw out at least hundreds of thousands, if not over a million people, for LGBT civil rights, for equal marriage, for lifting "don't ask, don't tell," and for passing an all-inclusive employment non-discrimination act. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen if we're going to put the pressure that's needed on the Obama administration and on Congress--to force their hand to include LGBT people as a constitutionally protected class of people, which we currently are not.
Kip: Actually, there's going to be an official announcement of a call for a march on Washington, D.C., on October 10-11. This is being initiated by Cleve Jones and Torie Osborn and others--we have a Web site up at nationalequalitymarch.com [4].
The call to action has a single demand of full equal protection on all matters covered by civil law, and the philosophy that we're part of a broader movement for peace and social justice across the world. We believe in a decentralized organizing strategy that involves people organizing by congressional district across the country. So the hope is that the organizing of the march will lay the groundwork for an ongoing infrastructure after the march, based on 435 congressional districts across the country.
Sherry: I'm thrilled to hear that there's a push among people with a profile like Cleve Jones for a national protest.
I feel like one of the next steps nationally over the coming weeks--especially since that protest call is coming out prior to the Gay Pride parades, and of course this is the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots--would be to bring a little bit of Stonewall back into gay pride parades this year and have political, civil rights contingents, demanding a repeal of Prop 8 and the other civil rights demands.
The gay pride parades have been far too commercialized for some years now, and devoid of politics in too many places. So it would be a step forward for our struggle if we could have contingents in every city--of political protesters and grassroots activists, making demands and beginning to publicize the October national protest for LGBT civil rights.
Transcription by Andrea Hektor
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Featured at Socialism 2009
Hear Sherry Wolf, Kip Williams and other activists speak on the panel "Prop 8 is Going Down! Winning Gay Marriage in California" at Socialism 2009 [5] in San Francisco. Check out the Socialism 2009 [6] Web site for more details. See you at Socialism!
4
http://socialistworker.org/2009/05/26/de…
Comment: Sherry Wolf
To win gay marriage, we need a divorce
Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [1], looks at a critical question for the struggle for same-sex marriage.
May 26, 2009
POP PSYCHOLOGY has long had a term for the political marriage between LGBT people and the Democrats--it is a dysfunctional relationship.
The Democrats court the votes and money of gays and lesbians, but offer few gains and a stunning share of abuse in exchange. For those LGBT activists wooed by the Democrats, ditching the more militant strategy that got Democrats swooning in the first place for a don't-rock-the-boat approach is the price to play in this torturous display of unrequited love.
While we await the decision of the California Supreme Court on whether or not to uphold the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 on May 26, it is worth taking stock of the political strategy activists have largely adhered to in recent decades. Collaboration with the Democrats, the so-called "party of the people," has impeded progress, not helped it.
Thirty-five years have passed since gay civil rights legislation was first proposed in Congress. Yet LGBT people remain an unprotected class of citizens by the U.S. Constitution. Whereas the denial of the rights of gays to work for the federal government, for example, was carried out with the stroke of President Eisenhower's pen in Executive Order 10450 in 1953, no such swift action has been taken to overturn decades of institutional discrimination.
Since the birth of the modern LGBT movement out of the Stonewall Riots in 1969, the Democrats before Obama controlled the White House for 12 years under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. For a lot of that time, both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats as well.
But during this time, as well as under Republican administrations, the Democrats have been opportunist at best, and hostile at worst.
Little compares to the treachery of the Clinton administration. A masterful public speaker capable of Academy Award-style performances of empathy, Clinton could famously "feel your pain," but apparently could not alleviate any of it.
Clinton came into office promising an end to draconian laws against gays in the military. He caved after four days and signed into law what is perhaps the only known order by a commander-in-chief for gays and lesbians to march back into the closet. While initially perceived as a more benign form of discrimination, his policy--known as "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue"--has allowed for a witch-hunt of tens of thousands of military personnel and the discharge of more than 12,500 LGBT people from the military.
Nearly six years into his presidency, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 11478 providing partial relief for lesbian and gay federal employees--not including the 3 million military personnel.
But his action left intact sodomy laws (not overturned by the Supreme Court until 2003), anti-same-sex marriage legislation (which he signed) and the military's unequal status for LGBT people (which he introduced), and it didn't take up the rights of those who are transgender (who experience the highest rates of violence, unemployment and discrimination of any sexual minority). All this exposes the severe limitations of the electoral route for winning civil rights for LGBT people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TODAY, THERE'S something profoundly disturbing about Barack Obama, the son of a Black man and a white woman, using the racial segregationists' call for "states' rights" when it comes to same-sex marriage.
All the more so since the California court--in initially overturning the state's gay marriage ban in May 2008 and legalizing same-sex marriage until the passage of Prop 8--cited as precedent the 62-year-old decision that overturned anti-miscegenation laws and opened the door for Obama's own parents' legal union.
If Barack Obama--one of the most popular human beings on the face of the planet--were to use his bully pulpit to push legislation (or sign an executive order) that would sweep away all institutional barriers to the freedoms and civil rights of LGBT people, it could be done.
That would be that. LGBT folks would have formal equality--as do women and Blacks--and the state would no longer be able to lend its imprimatur to antigay bigotry.
But this is not going to happen without a massive mobilization of grassroots activists in the streets and sitting in--to challenge the centers of power, including the Democrats at the helm.
Journalist Matt Bai, writing in the Sunday New York Times, cites a Quinnipiac poll showing that 60 percent of Americans under the age of 34 believe it is discriminatory to deny equal marriage rights--and concludes that "the gay rights movement...can now seem obsolete."
Bai is wrong. LGBT civil rights activists cannot operate as if we are the only ones trying to shape the debate in this country. The right wing has proven time and again that it has the money, power and seemingly limitless ability to spew noxious lies in order to get its way. Thus, opinion polls last fall showed Prop 8 was headed for defeat until the right mobilizaed a public campaign in California to discredit gay marriage as a threat to children and religious autonomy.
There is something tempting about the belief that LGBT civil rights like marriage are inevitable. After all, even John McCain's campaign adviser, Republican Steve Schmidt, has come out for gay marriage, and more and more politicians--including Barack Obama--stare at their shoes as they mumble that tired line about their belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Yeah, right.
But the public opinion that is gnawing away at the politicians hasn't shifted on its own. The increasingly positive poll numbers toward sexual minorities is a magnificent expression of how ordinary peoples' actions, not those of politicians, can alter popular consciousness.
Decades of silence, hostility, equivocation and near paralysis by leading Democrats regarding LGBT civil rights is proof that protest and activism--not pleading for whittled-down legislation and waiting for politicians--is the route to progress.
Even in Illinois, the first state to overturn sodomy laws in 1961, gay politicians like Greg Harris defend tepid, second-class legislation for civil unions over gay marriage as the more "realistic" strategy.
Harris' bill, called the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, even caves to lie that LGBT people are trying to force religious institutions to solemnize same-sex unions. No church has ever been required to officiate at ceremonies it doesn't agree with, nor will one ever be. The hand-wringing language in this legislation is unnecessarily apologetic to the right.
In California, the statewide equality group, Equality California, is hemming and hawing over whether to even push for a new pro-gay marriage ballot measure in 2010 in the event that the state Supreme Court upholds Prop 8. The organization is wary of harming the Democrats' midterm election chances, rather than demand they pass civil rights legislation.
Here, it's useful to remember the words of historian Howard Zinn in a recent speech published at SocialistWorker.org:
Where progress has been made, wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it's been because people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn't just moan. They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary.
To win equal marriage--and pursue all other civil rights--LGBT activists and our allies need to slap the Democrats with divorce papers and organize independently. As sex advice columnist Dan Savage would put it: DTMFA--dump the motherfucker already.
More...
Comment: Sherry Wolf
To win gay marriage, we need a divorce
Sherry Wolf, author of Sexuality and Socialism: History, Politics and Theory of LGBT Liberation [1], looks at a critical question for the struggle for same-sex marriage.
May 26, 2009
POP PSYCHOLOGY has long had a term for the political marriage between LGBT people and the Democrats--it is a dysfunctional relationship.
The Democrats court the votes and money of gays and lesbians, but offer few gains and a stunning share of abuse in exchange. For those LGBT activists wooed by the Democrats, ditching the more militant strategy that got Democrats swooning in the first place for a don't-rock-the-boat approach is the price to play in this torturous display of unrequited love.
While we await the decision of the California Supreme Court on whether or not to uphold the anti-gay marriage Proposition 8 on May 26, it is worth taking stock of the political strategy activists have largely adhered to in recent decades. Collaboration with the Democrats, the so-called "party of the people," has impeded progress, not helped it.
Thirty-five years have passed since gay civil rights legislation was first proposed in Congress. Yet LGBT people remain an unprotected class of citizens by the U.S. Constitution. Whereas the denial of the rights of gays to work for the federal government, for example, was carried out with the stroke of President Eisenhower's pen in Executive Order 10450 in 1953, no such swift action has been taken to overturn decades of institutional discrimination.
Since the birth of the modern LGBT movement out of the Stonewall Riots in 1969, the Democrats before Obama controlled the White House for 12 years under Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. For a lot of that time, both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats as well.
But during this time, as well as under Republican administrations, the Democrats have been opportunist at best, and hostile at worst.
Little compares to the treachery of the Clinton administration. A masterful public speaker capable of Academy Award-style performances of empathy, Clinton could famously "feel your pain," but apparently could not alleviate any of it.
Clinton came into office promising an end to draconian laws against gays in the military. He caved after four days and signed into law what is perhaps the only known order by a commander-in-chief for gays and lesbians to march back into the closet. While initially perceived as a more benign form of discrimination, his policy--known as "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue"--has allowed for a witch-hunt of tens of thousands of military personnel and the discharge of more than 12,500 LGBT people from the military.
Nearly six years into his presidency, Bill Clinton signed Executive Order 11478 providing partial relief for lesbian and gay federal employees--not including the 3 million military personnel.
But his action left intact sodomy laws (not overturned by the Supreme Court until 2003), anti-same-sex marriage legislation (which he signed) and the military's unequal status for LGBT people (which he introduced), and it didn't take up the rights of those who are transgender (who experience the highest rates of violence, unemployment and discrimination of any sexual minority). All this exposes the severe limitations of the electoral route for winning civil rights for LGBT people.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TODAY, THERE'S something profoundly disturbing about Barack Obama, the son of a Black man and a white woman, using the racial segregationists' call for "states' rights" when it comes to same-sex marriage.
All the more so since the California court--in initially overturning the state's gay marriage ban in May 2008 and legalizing same-sex marriage until the passage of Prop 8--cited as precedent the 62-year-old decision that overturned anti-miscegenation laws and opened the door for Obama's own parents' legal union.
If Barack Obama--one of the most popular human beings on the face of the planet--were to use his bully pulpit to push legislation (or sign an executive order) that would sweep away all institutional barriers to the freedoms and civil rights of LGBT people, it could be done.
That would be that. LGBT folks would have formal equality--as do women and Blacks--and the state would no longer be able to lend its imprimatur to antigay bigotry.
But this is not going to happen without a massive mobilization of grassroots activists in the streets and sitting in--to challenge the centers of power, including the Democrats at the helm.
Journalist Matt Bai, writing in the Sunday New York Times, cites a Quinnipiac poll showing that 60 percent of Americans under the age of 34 believe it is discriminatory to deny equal marriage rights--and concludes that "the gay rights movement...can now seem obsolete."
Bai is wrong. LGBT civil rights activists cannot operate as if we are the only ones trying to shape the debate in this country. The right wing has proven time and again that it has the money, power and seemingly limitless ability to spew noxious lies in order to get its way. Thus, opinion polls last fall showed Prop 8 was headed for defeat until the right mobilizaed a public campaign in California to discredit gay marriage as a threat to children and religious autonomy.
There is something tempting about the belief that LGBT civil rights like marriage are inevitable. After all, even John McCain's campaign adviser, Republican Steve Schmidt, has come out for gay marriage, and more and more politicians--including Barack Obama--stare at their shoes as they mumble that tired line about their belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Yeah, right.
But the public opinion that is gnawing away at the politicians hasn't shifted on its own. The increasingly positive poll numbers toward sexual minorities is a magnificent expression of how ordinary peoples' actions, not those of politicians, can alter popular consciousness.
Decades of silence, hostility, equivocation and near paralysis by leading Democrats regarding LGBT civil rights is proof that protest and activism--not pleading for whittled-down legislation and waiting for politicians--is the route to progress.
Even in Illinois, the first state to overturn sodomy laws in 1961, gay politicians like Greg Harris defend tepid, second-class legislation for civil unions over gay marriage as the more "realistic" strategy.
Harris' bill, called the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act, even caves to lie that LGBT people are trying to force religious institutions to solemnize same-sex unions. No church has ever been required to officiate at ceremonies it doesn't agree with, nor will one ever be. The hand-wringing language in this legislation is unnecessarily apologetic to the right.
In California, the statewide equality group, Equality California, is hemming and hawing over whether to even push for a new pro-gay marriage ballot measure in 2010 in the event that the state Supreme Court upholds Prop 8. The organization is wary of harming the Democrats' midterm election chances, rather than demand they pass civil rights legislation.
Here, it's useful to remember the words of historian Howard Zinn in a recent speech published at SocialistWorker.org:
Where progress has been made, wherever any kind of injustice has been overturned, it's been because people acted as citizens, and not as politicians. They didn't just moan. They worked, they acted, they organized, they rioted if necessary.
To win equal marriage--and pursue all other civil rights--LGBT activists and our allies need to slap the Democrats with divorce papers and organize independently. As sex advice columnist Dan Savage would put it: DTMFA--dump the motherfucker already.
5
http://socialistworker.org/2009/06/10/me…
Analysis: Ashley Simmons
Met in the middle for equality
LGBT activists are coming together to re-energize the fight to win same-sex marriage rights in California, writes Ashley Simmons.
June 10, 2009
ON MAY 30, the Saturday after the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban, more than 5,000 same-sex marriage supporters from across California gathered in the Central Valley city of Fresno for the Meet in the Middle for Equality statewide rally.
Led by Robin McGehee, Fresno locals organized the event to empower activists in rural communities who have often been ignored by the Democratic Party and mainstream liberal groups, and to draw attention to the need for organizing around lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in all areas of the country.
Local activists were dismayed that 70 percent of Fresno voted "yes" on Proposition 8 after the "No on Prop 8" campaign pulled virtually all of its ad spots and most of its campaign resources from the area, essentially writing off the fifth-largest city in California as a lost cause.
McGehee and others want to turn that around, stating in the Meet in the Middle mission statement, "Win or lose, we are kicking off a statewide and national effort toward full federal equality, and we are kicking it off in Fresno."
The day began in the agricultural town of Selma, Calif., with 100 activists planning to march 15 miles into downtown Fresno. Organizers modeled the march after the 1965 civil rights march from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery.
McGehee, who grew up in Jackson, Miss., addressed the connection of the movement for same-sex marriage with the civil rights struggles of the past. "We are here to paying respect to the social movements before us," she said. "This is a symbolic march from Selma to Fresno, Calif. It's important to show respect to the social movements before us, like the Freedom Summers and the farm workers movement"
A diverse group set off, with civil rights veterans from the United Farm Workers, NAACP and Southern Leadership Conference joining new grassroots activists, including members of One Struggle One Fight and the Fresno-based Straight Advocates for Equality. Lt. Dan Choi, who was recently discharged from the U.S military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, marched proudly, waving a rainbow flag and wearing a T-shirt that read, "Don't Hide."
As temperatures rose above 90 degrees, the marchers crossed train tracks and passed fields with grapevines, receiving horn honks and thumbs up from beat-up pick-up trucks and freight train conductors, as well as the many LGBT rights supporters heading into Fresno on buses and in car caravans.
Rev. Eric Lee said of the march, "The pain in my feet and in my back does not compare to the pain and suffering of discrimination and injustice. So I will walk another 15 miles, another 15 miles, and another 15 miles--putting one foot in front of the other until we have equality."
At the city limits of Fresno, the march was joined by over 150 local married LGBT couples and organizers. The triumphant march finally snaked through the packed downtown Fresno City Square, greeted by the 5,000-strong Meet in the Middle crowd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE EVENT was such a huge success because it was organized from the bottom up.
Over 70 activists met each Monday in Fresno to plan Meet in the Middle, an indication of the grassroots activity within the LGBT movement. The crowd was diverse, with hundreds coming in on buses from San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles, joining thousands of residents from Fresno and the surrounding counties.
The mood was decidedly confident as veteran activist Cleve Jones took to the stage, declaring:
We are here today to bear witness in a new chapter in our history of struggle. We will wait no longer...There are no fractions of equality. Every compromise, every delay undermines our humanity. We seek nothing less than equal protection under the law, in all matters governed by civil law, in all 50 states.
Holding up slain LGBT leader Harvey Milk's bullhorn, Jones continued, "I bring this here today to remind you of what is possible." He called for mobilization in all 435 congressional districts for a national LGBT rights march on Washington D.C.
The crowd cheered furiously in support of a planned 2010 ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8 when Chaz Lowe of Yes on Equality spoke about the need "to ensure that next time around, it will come from the grassroots and represent all of us. This campaign doesn't belong to me or Yes on Equality. It belongs to the whole movement."
In support of the Fresno community during the economic crisis, a canned food drive was set up at the rally. According to the Meet in the Middle coalition, it "encourages equality for all, and believes that full equality includes economic as well as social justice." The group called attention to the fact that while 8 percent of the country's produce comes from the Central Valley of California, thousands in the area go to bed hungry, or belong to the ranks of Fresno's homeless population of 16,000.
According to the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figure, Fresno County currently has a 15.5 percent unemployment rate. To the many residents struggling under crippling economic circumstances, Meet in the Middle was an inspiration, showing ordinary people coming together to fight for human dignity and justice.
Anthony, a Fresno resident who has been unemployed for a year, expressed his support for the rally. "This is the biggest event for equality rights I've ever been to," he said. "I'm tingling all over."
Then he spoke about his anger at the budget cuts that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been making to in-home support services. Anthony had been avoiding getting on government aid because, like many working people, he was too proud to ask for help. He just started receiving food stamps this week, and he said he "feels like a human being again."
Janine Carmona of One Struggle One Fight delivered a powerful argument for building a fighting LGBT movement that can link with various struggles against oppression and exploitation:
There are so many intersections between our struggles and the struggles of other people, that we actually share victories and losses. As long as someone somewhere is oppressed, we are not free, and we understand that. We are fighting entrenched, systematic institutionalized homophobia and transphobia that is expressed through laws, policies, regulations and constitutional amendments.
You know what to do with a law that is fundamentally unjust, don't you? What do you do? You break it!
Meet in the Middle represents an important step forward for the burgeoning LGBT rights movement in California, which is going on the offensive for marriage equality and much more.
Ragina Johnson contributed to this article.
More...
Analysis: Ashley Simmons
Met in the middle for equality
LGBT activists are coming together to re-energize the fight to win same-sex marriage rights in California, writes Ashley Simmons.
June 10, 2009
ON MAY 30, the Saturday after the California Supreme Court ruled to uphold the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban, more than 5,000 same-sex marriage supporters from across California gathered in the Central Valley city of Fresno for the Meet in the Middle for Equality statewide rally.
Led by Robin McGehee, Fresno locals organized the event to empower activists in rural communities who have often been ignored by the Democratic Party and mainstream liberal groups, and to draw attention to the need for organizing around lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights in all areas of the country.
Local activists were dismayed that 70 percent of Fresno voted "yes" on Proposition 8 after the "No on Prop 8" campaign pulled virtually all of its ad spots and most of its campaign resources from the area, essentially writing off the fifth-largest city in California as a lost cause.
McGehee and others want to turn that around, stating in the Meet in the Middle mission statement, "Win or lose, we are kicking off a statewide and national effort toward full federal equality, and we are kicking it off in Fresno."
The day began in the agricultural town of Selma, Calif., with 100 activists planning to march 15 miles into downtown Fresno. Organizers modeled the march after the 1965 civil rights march from Selma, Ala., to Montgomery.
McGehee, who grew up in Jackson, Miss., addressed the connection of the movement for same-sex marriage with the civil rights struggles of the past. "We are here to paying respect to the social movements before us," she said. "This is a symbolic march from Selma to Fresno, Calif. It's important to show respect to the social movements before us, like the Freedom Summers and the farm workers movement"
A diverse group set off, with civil rights veterans from the United Farm Workers, NAACP and Southern Leadership Conference joining new grassroots activists, including members of One Struggle One Fight and the Fresno-based Straight Advocates for Equality. Lt. Dan Choi, who was recently discharged from the U.S military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, marched proudly, waving a rainbow flag and wearing a T-shirt that read, "Don't Hide."
As temperatures rose above 90 degrees, the marchers crossed train tracks and passed fields with grapevines, receiving horn honks and thumbs up from beat-up pick-up trucks and freight train conductors, as well as the many LGBT rights supporters heading into Fresno on buses and in car caravans.
Rev. Eric Lee said of the march, "The pain in my feet and in my back does not compare to the pain and suffering of discrimination and injustice. So I will walk another 15 miles, another 15 miles, and another 15 miles--putting one foot in front of the other until we have equality."
At the city limits of Fresno, the march was joined by over 150 local married LGBT couples and organizers. The triumphant march finally snaked through the packed downtown Fresno City Square, greeted by the 5,000-strong Meet in the Middle crowd.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE EVENT was such a huge success because it was organized from the bottom up.
Over 70 activists met each Monday in Fresno to plan Meet in the Middle, an indication of the grassroots activity within the LGBT movement. The crowd was diverse, with hundreds coming in on buses from San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles, joining thousands of residents from Fresno and the surrounding counties.
The mood was decidedly confident as veteran activist Cleve Jones took to the stage, declaring:
We are here today to bear witness in a new chapter in our history of struggle. We will wait no longer...There are no fractions of equality. Every compromise, every delay undermines our humanity. We seek nothing less than equal protection under the law, in all matters governed by civil law, in all 50 states.
Holding up slain LGBT leader Harvey Milk's bullhorn, Jones continued, "I bring this here today to remind you of what is possible." He called for mobilization in all 435 congressional districts for a national LGBT rights march on Washington D.C.
The crowd cheered furiously in support of a planned 2010 ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8 when Chaz Lowe of Yes on Equality spoke about the need "to ensure that next time around, it will come from the grassroots and represent all of us. This campaign doesn't belong to me or Yes on Equality. It belongs to the whole movement."
In support of the Fresno community during the economic crisis, a canned food drive was set up at the rally. According to the Meet in the Middle coalition, it "encourages equality for all, and believes that full equality includes economic as well as social justice." The group called attention to the fact that while 8 percent of the country's produce comes from the Central Valley of California, thousands in the area go to bed hungry, or belong to the ranks of Fresno's homeless population of 16,000.
According to the most recent U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figure, Fresno County currently has a 15.5 percent unemployment rate. To the many residents struggling under crippling economic circumstances, Meet in the Middle was an inspiration, showing ordinary people coming together to fight for human dignity and justice.
Anthony, a Fresno resident who has been unemployed for a year, expressed his support for the rally. "This is the biggest event for equality rights I've ever been to," he said. "I'm tingling all over."
Then he spoke about his anger at the budget cuts that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been making to in-home support services. Anthony had been avoiding getting on government aid because, like many working people, he was too proud to ask for help. He just started receiving food stamps this week, and he said he "feels like a human being again."
Janine Carmona of One Struggle One Fight delivered a powerful argument for building a fighting LGBT movement that can link with various struggles against oppression and exploitation:
There are so many intersections between our struggles and the struggles of other people, that we actually share victories and losses. As long as someone somewhere is oppressed, we are not free, and we understand that. We are fighting entrenched, systematic institutionalized homophobia and transphobia that is expressed through laws, policies, regulations and constitutional amendments.
You know what to do with a law that is fundamentally unjust, don't you? What do you do? You break it!
Meet in the Middle represents an important step forward for the burgeoning LGBT rights movement in California, which is going on the offensive for marriage equality and much more.
Ragina Johnson contributed to this article.
6
The gay rights "movement" has a conservative/right wing and a progressive/left wing. ERW and Join the Impact are the right wing of the movement. We're still trying to build a left wing.
7
I'm sorry, but I don't give a flying fuck if they call it Marriage or a Civil Union, as long as I receive the same rights as straight couples... and if it takes 60 years to change the name? WHO FUCKING CARES! Marriage is just a word, the rights bestowed are all that counts.
I'm glad Dave is doing something proactive, rather than sitting back and waiting for this fictitious "master plan" to materialize.
I'm glad Dave is doing something proactive, rather than sitting back and waiting for this fictitious "master plan" to materialize.
8
@7:
"Proactive" in this case is equal to "foolhardy." Try now, and the easy answer is the one they've already given - [simple version warning] gay marriage isn't widespread, in the US or elsewhere, and therefore it's not some sort of fundamental right. Wait for states and other nations to act first, and that argument is gone. Not that it SHOULD be that way, but the concept of adhering to precedent has saved abortion rights, and the converse of the "wait for the states" argument ended bans on interracial marriage. [Loving v. Virginia]
"Proactive" in this case is equal to "foolhardy." Try now, and the easy answer is the one they've already given - [simple version warning] gay marriage isn't widespread, in the US or elsewhere, and therefore it's not some sort of fundamental right. Wait for states and other nations to act first, and that argument is gone. Not that it SHOULD be that way, but the concept of adhering to precedent has saved abortion rights, and the converse of the "wait for the states" argument ended bans on interracial marriage. [Loving v. Virginia]
10
What a dumb thing to do! If his case gets to the US Supreme Court he will lose and the issue of gay marriage will be set back for decades.
He sounds very arrogant. Perhaps he cares more about his own career than the cause of marriage equality?
Why would he be "done taking direction from national gay-rights groups"? Um, hello? Those national gay rights groups are WINNING. A calculated, state by state approach is the way to go.
He sounds very arrogant. Perhaps he cares more about his own career than the cause of marriage equality?
Why would he be "done taking direction from national gay-rights groups"? Um, hello? Those national gay rights groups are WINNING. A calculated, state by state approach is the way to go.
11
Sure... because individual rights are achieved collectively by each man subordinating himself to the standards of the majority... just like artistic value... right?
12
What a dumb thing to do! If his case gets to the US Supreme Court he will lose and the issue of gay marriage will be set back for decades.
He sounds very arrogant. Perhaps he cares more about his own career than the cause of marriage equality?
Why would he be "done taking direction from national gay-rights groups"? Um, hello? Those national gay rights groups are WINNING. A calculated, state by state approach is the way to go.
He sounds very arrogant. Perhaps he cares more about his own career than the cause of marriage equality?
Why would he be "done taking direction from national gay-rights groups"? Um, hello? Those national gay rights groups are WINNING. A calculated, state by state approach is the way to go.
13
This is such a Pacific Northwest move I do not even have words for it. Someone who thinks they should get to do whatever they want jumps in the fray with lots of noise and thrashing about. "I'm good at throwing a wrench in things." Yup you are aren't you. Sometimes the level of naivety in this region astounds me. It's like children playing at law and government.
14
Civil Unions are not, never have been, never will be the same as Marriage. Any one that makes that claim knows little or nothing about the issues. Please do some reading before making such an imbecilic claim.
Coffman is being a tad rash, but this is America and he has the right to fuck things up for others, or to gain Marriage for those that want to get married.
Not knowing is the part that scares people.
Coffman is being a tad rash, but this is America and he has the right to fuck things up for others, or to gain Marriage for those that want to get married.
Not knowing is the part that scares people.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (14) RSS