solarbird | How it's going to go down

So here's how I think it's going to go down, and what we can do about it in the next two years.

Next year, we get judges. Lots and lots of Thomas/Scalia-style judges. One in the Supreme Court, of course, but a lot at the lower levels as well. Thomas and Scalia both voted for gayfolk being criminal in nature, the last time they had a chance to do so. I believe they will again, given the opportunity. So will other judges out of their mold. Democrats will run interference, but not on our behalf; they'll do it for abortion rights. We'll gain some benefit from that, but it won't be enough. President Bush will be smart and selective about his nominees, and he'll get the kinds of judges he wants more often than not.

The year after that (2006) will be the next run of the FMA. It'll be used to whip up with the vote for the midterms. It may pass out of Congress. If it does, we're fucked. 38 states need to affirm it, and they only need to do so by bare majorities - some legislatively, some by votes. That sounds like a lot, but two years after anti-gay amendments went 13 for 13 - not all the votes were held on Tuesday - the states won't think twice. And it will be a version that bans both marriage and civil unions.

So once the FMA passes - not guaranteed, but not at all unlikely - marriage and domestic partnership hopes go away everywhere, for a long time. And worse, so does the Constitutional basis for overturning Bowers vs. Hardwick, because we'll be an excluded class. (The legal term is strangers to the law.) Our status before the law will be Constitutionally unequal, rather than simply not addressed.

What needs to happen between now and then is this:

If you have relatives in the red states, or good friends, and you're not out to them, you no longer have that luxury.

If you're in a red state, and you're not out, you no longer have that luxury either.

A lot of us used to live in red states. We moved to blue states, where it's safer, where there are more jobs, where we're more likely to find partners. Most of us can't move back, of course. But some of us never came out to friends - or more importantly, family - back home. I did. But lots - and I do mean lots - of people I know didn't.

Being in the closet over the last several years has probably made lives easier for a lot of people. But we're in a war that can no longer be avoided or ignored, and as James Dobson of Focus on the Family put it today on his radio show, evangelical conservatives have "won the most important battle." They have the Presidency, they have Congress, and they're about to have the courts.

They are in charge, and they are more than looking forward to making sure we know it. Again, as Dobson said, they see this election result as a reprieve from God, and they're not going to be told to wait around until later again.

Worst of all, red state voters have mostly made up their minds, and there's not a lot of effective convincing left to do for most of us; it has never been easy under the best of circumstances. I honestly don't think, for the most part, that there's anything people can do - unless you have another kind of emotional inroad, something to get past the automatic reactions, something to make them actually listen to you when you try to tell them why destroying gay families is bad.

That can mean being a daughter or a son.

That can mean being an old friend.

If you value your families, if you value your identity, if you value your right to live with your partner - if you value being able to travel freely in your own country without fear of arrest...

...you have to make your case with family and friends back home.

And for most of you, if not all of you, that'll only work if you come out. That's what it'll take to reframe the debate. That's what it'll have to be to have any chance of making any headway at all on this issue. You have to get them on your - and hence, our - side, and then you have to hope they'll fight on your behalf - that they'll fight for their family.

You have to hope that they'll fight because now they know it's about you.

It's a long shot, but it's all we've got left. We have no more time, we have no more options; closets are a faux safety and a luxury we can no longer afford. Evangelical conservatives want your head on a platter, and if you're counting on the Democrats to save us, think again; they may not even stand in the way after this election.

Hell, they may even help. According to Salon, Bill Clinton told Senator Kerry to sacrifice us; that he'd pick up swing-state voters by endorsing the 11 anti-gay initiatives on the ballot this election. Kerry, to his credit, didn't. It cost him dearly, and I doubt the Democrats will make that decision twice.

If you stay in the closet now, you are part of the problem.

No excuses. No exceptions. Come out to your red-state family and friends, and make your case. Make it personal.

It's just about all we have left.

Current Mood: resolute
Current Music: The Doom Song | Gir

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

crunchy-gremlin.livejournal.com

Yeah well as I see it we are on the verge of another social revolution. It will be bad. It will be much like the others we have had. black rights. womens rights. Only it will be worse as there will be no definate outward distinction of who is who.

It's a sad shame that after we have been through this at least three times we are going to have to go through it again.

But each step makes a difference. As a country we are in a much better social place then where we were back in civil war time.

I think one of the main issues here is that in order for the christians to come around they have to admit that their bible is written or at least interpretted by man and that interpretation can be wrong.

Thats going to be a tough pill to swallow and its going to hurt thier faith.

From:

mistwolf.livejournal.com

And yet, why should it? The bible espouses slavery, espouses women as inferior... This isn't the first time the bible has "sided" with the people trying to repress others, yet each time it comes up, they still hold it as 'valid' a reason as ever to subjegate those that are different...

From:

cow.livejournal.com

(Please note: I'm doing my best below to voice this in terms of politics alone, and am not making value judgments, so please don't read opinions like 'good' or 'bad' into this.)

I would actually be very surprised if an anti-gay amendment reaches the federal government again in the near future. A lot of old-school conservatives are very much against such a thing -- aside from those who have family, friends, etc., and are therefore more understanding, a lot of them are just in favor of states' rights.

In the old paradigm, such a thing as gay marriage would be handled by the states. The populace of some states (i.e. Massachusetts, and soon Washington) choose to have it, while others (Alabama, Mississippi, and a whole bunch of other places you don't want to live) choose not to. That's the way the country is supposed to work--we're a union of states.

As long as states continue to make that choice on their own, through amendments and such, I doubt we'll see another federal amendment. It would just fracture a Republican party already beginning to divide on itself.

From:

poodlgrl.livejournal.com

Because reproductive rights don't involve women?

From:

solarbird

Bush listed it as a domestic priourity in his speech yesterday. He said he wants one. Not to mention that the evangelical fundamentalist base that elected him yesterday wants it very, very badly.

We'll see it. It was too good at getting out the vote.

From:

solarbird

Um, what?

Seriously, what?

No, I didn't address abortion in this post. The characteristics of the major coming abortion-rights fight are different - and much more winnable. And Arlan Spector is warning Bush not to try to shove through anti-Roe agenda judges - but he hasn't said, and I don't think is going to say, anything about queer rights.

Don't get me wrong, both of these issues are in the air. But I think there are more ways to convince people to preserve abortion rights than there are ways to save us from this.

(Yeah, it was written towards a queer audience, which doesn't include you; I guess I could have clarified with a note on the top or something. It was late, I didn't.)

From:

cow.livejournal.com

hmm. I didn't see that, so I stand corrected on what I said.

I still will find it very surprising if he actually tries -- sure, it would help his evangelical fundamentalist base, but it would alienate the moderates, swing voters, and paleocons.

What I suspect we'll get instead is a lot of nasty rhetoric and more states passing amendments.

At least, I hope I'm right. Nasty rhetoric and state amendments are very bad, but actually amending the Constitution to enshrine the removal of rights from a segment of the population is so, so much worse.

From:

solarbird

it would alienate the moderates, swing voters, and paleocons.
Thing is: they don't really care.

I mean honestly, they don't. Not in most states. They'll go, "oh, well, gee, I don't agree with that," but it won't change their votes.

All you have to do is look at Virginia. Last year, Virginia past a sweeping set of "marriage protection" laws that, amoungst other things, revoked right of contract for queers. They made it illegal to buy joint health insurance with your same-gender partner. They made it illegal to assign power of attourney to your same-gender partner.

The most elemental economic liberty - that of private contract - was revoked. If any private contract between gayfolk provides for anything that approximates any benefit of marriage, it is illegal.

And the moderates, and the swing voters, and the paleocons do not care.

Andrew Sullivan spent a lot of time trying to get anybody on the Republican side to speak out against this - other than him - and failed. The universal response was either not caring, or, "yeah, that's bad, but I don't care about minourity affairs."

They didn't agree with it in theory,
but they couldn't be bothered
even to say "that's bad"
on their blogs.

That's why it'll come up. Bush won this election with the evangelicals. He padded his house and senate margins with the evangelicals. He knows this is how he, and how his faction of the Republican party, wins.

We have to change that, or we're done.

From:

poodlgrl.livejournal.com

Thanks for clarifying. I get confused sometimes and think I'm queer.

I was responding to this statement:

Democrats will run interference, but not on our behalf; they'll do it for abortion rights.

- - - if it's for reproductive rights, and you are a woman, it IS on your behalf.

From:

solarbird

Ah, okay. Yes, absolutely true, but it won't be because of dykes. In won't be on "our" behalf in the context of this fight. Better?

From:

cow.livejournal.com

hmm. Interesting. (I'm also not too familiar with Virginia, I must admit.)

I'm conceding most of the points I made, simply because I'm not as well informed on these issues--they don't personally affect me, and so while I read up on them, I don't know nearly as much as I should. Limited time in the day, and all.

I'll have to think some more on this -- strategies and such. hmm.

From:

poodlgrl.livejournal.com

I just feel frustrated this week with some of the dialogue about reproductive rights. Reproductive rights are everything - literally. It's like air to breathe. Without our reproductive rights we wouldn't be here sitting around arguing semantics about other things - because I would have 5 kids and so would Anna probably, and neither of us would have an education, or a job, or safety from violence, etc. It's such a depressing, helpless, horrible week.

From:

annathepiper

*snugs Kelli* Yeah, I hear you, hon.

From:

llachglin.livejournal.com

And, to make this even more of a downer, I have to disagree with you on one part of your otherwise dead-on analysis. While I think you're right about what's going to happen with human rights for gay people, I think that abortion rights are actually in MORE danger.

Why? Because getting rid of abortion rights (and shortly thereafter, reproductive freedom in general) is a simple matter of new Supreme Court justices but screwing over gay people entirely requires a constitutional amendment. Abortion rights are preserved solely by the beating heart of Justice Stevens, who is well into his 80s. When he dies, which is statistically likely in the next four years, Bush will do everything he can to appoint an anti-choice justice in his place, and I don't think Arlen Specter is going to matter one bit, as much as I wish he and moderate Republicans should matter.

Bush will also almost certainly get to replace the two older conservative justices, and appoint a new Chief Justice for the next generation.

Once judges are in place, the right wing can pass whatever legislation it wants federally or in states where they have the slightest majority, and the courts will back them up.

In short, barring a filibuster of all Bush-appointed judges (and the Republicans are toying with a provision that would allow them to change Senate rules allowing judicial filibusters that would require only a simple majority vote), abortion rightsare already dead, but just don't know it yet. And birth control is soon to follow, if only one more liberal justice dies or retires.

That may sound like alarmism, but it's reality. The question is what we do about it.

From:

solarbird

The Southern Baptist Convention's guy on NPR this morning was insensed at Specter over this, calling it a betrayal and saying he'd damned well better not stand in the way of the People's Will. So that'll be fun.

From:

llachglin.livejournal.com

As much as I might disagree with other aspects of Specter's politics, I think those of us worried about the radical right might want to consider donating to him and sending consistent letters of pressure and support his way if he's really the guy that's going to lead the moderate opposition to Bush's judicial nominees. Maybe we can even get him to oppose the radicals on the issue of marriage, too.

I am a bit worried, though, because he supported Clarence Thomas. But that was years ago under a wildly different political situation.

From:

bloolark.livejournal.com

Just remember, although the US has its head up its ass, not everyone does.

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110504saskMarr.htm

From:

lothie.livejournal.com

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's still very true that everyone has to decide for him or herself whether or not to come out, WITHOUT BEING JUDGED FOR THAT DECISION. The minute you start judging somebody and telling them that they are part of the problem, then you yourself will become part of the problem. IMO of course.

Secondly, I don't think that the FMA will ever pass. There are too many people, even among those who think that gay marriage = evil, who believe that amending the Constitution in that way is wrong.

And THAT is what we need to fight about, and THAT is what will get people excited. We need to make people understand that no matter how they feel about the morality of gay marriage, a Constitutional amendment is not the way to go -- TOYING WITH OUR SACRED DOCUMENT IS WRONG. Dick Cheney's got a gay daughter, for gossake. If that isn't stopping him from doing all he can to stop the amendment, then why would telling Mom and Dad we're gay, by itself, help?

Again...IMO.

From:

solarbird

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's still very true that everyone has to decide for him or herself whether or not to come out, WITHOUT BEING JUDGED FOR THAT DECISION.
Traditionally? I'd agree with you. But not now. If we don't crack open that red state bloc, we're fucked.

I could, of course, be wrong. But I don't think I am.

From:

llachglin.livejournal.com

...why did so many in 11 states vote for an amendment at the state level?

Underestimating the fervor of the opposition and their capacity to commit acts of evil only empowers them to commit more extreme acts. They keep saying they want to ban any legal recognition of relationships between people of the same gender, going far beyond marriage. Why should we think they aren't sincere?

And if people will vote for state-level amendments, those same people and their legislators will vote for a federal amendment. I used to put faith in state legislatures not to do that, but that was before Oregon and Michigan and nine other states showed otherwise, and the country demonstrated that it was willing to back Bush with opposition to gay people being the decisive factor.

If we fight, we might be able to stop these things. But that's because we are standing up and mobilizing opposition, and not because those who oppose gay marriage as sinful are somehow opposed to amending the Constitution.

From:

solarbird

There are a few.

I should mention that. There are some. Bob Barr, for god's sake, opposed the FMA on Federalist principles.

We need to create as many of those as we can. The way I see to do that is change political reality on the ground enough that people can say, "I hate gay marraige, but I oppose monkeying with the Constitution. Let the states handle it." To do even that much, those legislators will need to think they can get away with it. To think that can count.

This election, even some senators to voted for the FMA last time were being attacked for not being anti-gay enough. We have to make it safe to be anti-FMA on some grounds. Somewhere.

Because if we're going to stop it, we're going to stop it in Congress. Not the states.

From:

lothie.livejournal.com

We may very well be. But I don't think essentially forcing people to do something like coming out is the answer. Encourage? Yeah. Guilt trip? No.

From:

lothie.livejournal.com

Were these all amendments to the states' constitutions, or were they laws?

Passing a law is one thing. Amending the Constitution of the United States is another. Huge difference, HUGE.

Don't get me wrong. I think that

solarbird is right that coming out to people not previously come out to is a good strategy. But I think also talking to those who oppose gay marriage about not amending the Constitution is a very good plan.

From:

solarbird

They were all amendments to State constitutions.

From:

lothie.livejournal.com

*looked it up*

I still feel there is a huge difference between that and an amendment to the US Constitution. In fact, a major argument could be made that with so many state constitutional amendments in place, a US Constitutional amendment would be redundant.

Conservatism can work FOR us here as well as against. I'm not saying that encouraging (as opposed to pressuring) people to come out to people they haven't come out to previously is not a good idea. But I think there are many different *good* ways to fight the FMA proposal.

From:

solarbird

I'm not forcing anybody to do anything. My disapproval is not force.

But if "guilt trips" are what it takes, "guilt trips" are what it takes. If we don't do everything we can to stop it, then we are guilty of not doing everything we can to stop it. And as far as I'm concerned, there aren't any excuses that justifies inaction on this one, last, effective front.

Well, there's one. If you're certain - and I do mean certain - that coming out would turn a "disinterested, not voting" family into anti-gay activists, I'd accept that. If they hate you that much, I can deal with that. Not because of discomfort, but because it's counter-productive.

Similarly with friends.

Other than that, or something like it - don't try to explain it to me, because I don't have time, and frankly, I don't care. As far as I can tell, our backs our against the wall, and if you don't stand up now, you'll likely never get to. And that hurts all of us. From where I stand, that's being part of the problem.

I'm not pretending it won't suck. It will. I'd like the time and money I've spent or lost fighting my "fellow citizens" just for my right to exist back, too; I won't get it. Life isn't fair. I wish it was.

From:

solarbird

In fact, a major argument could be made that with so many state constitutional amendments in place, a US Constitutional amendment would be redundant.
OH no. They're entirely pre-empting that argument - I just got done listening to today's Focus on the Family. (They're going after Arlen Specter, and are going to try to get the Senate to change its rules to disallow fillibusters.) They're very much aware that state constitutional clauses can be thrown out as violating the national constitution, and are assuring their base that state measures are inadequate.

They want the FMA, they want it out of Congress and to the states, and they want it in the next two years. They'll stomach four, but they want it in two.

From:

banner.livejournal.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html

For consideration

From:

solarbird

I've been reading that analysis over the last couple of days; I certainly hope it's right. The problem is that I don't think the two situations are mutually exclusive; a broad but evangelically-powered victory only makes me feel mildly better.

Plus, there are a lot of gayfolk in red states. I don't think they should get crushed either.

Also, the fundamentalists certainly have themselves convinced they won this election, and are extremely energised against us. James Dobson was on Focus on the Family just last night; they want anti-abortion/anti-queer judges and the FMA, and they want them now, and they're cranking the phone/letter trees back up already.

They're going for it. We need to stop them, or we are fucked.

From:

banner.livejournal.com

Well of course the fundamentalists are trying to say they won the election, the Democrats are saying it all over the place so the fundies would be fools not to capitalize on it!

From:

solarbird

That implied cause-and-effect relationship would make more sense to me if they hadn't worked their asses off for the last 20+ years trying to get to this point. No, they've been working towards this for a long time, worked particularly hard this election (since it was a good election for them to work, given the candidate and environment), and they see themselves as having got a shot now, and they're going to take it.

From:

banner.livejournal.com

The only shot they have is in the foot. They're misjudging America as much as the Democrats did in this election.

From:

solarbird

And if that's true, I want to see 'em do it as much as they possibly can. I want nothin' but toes on the ground and remnants of an ankle above.

From:

risu.livejournal.com

Can you sketch the scenario you see?

I mean, yes, they are misjudging America. But how are you envisioning that causally impacting their plans?

From:

banner.livejournal.com

First they will be ignored, then people will start making jokes about them. Then they will be laughed at.

There is no greater harm you can do to a man or a movement then to make it the object of comic ridicule and laughter.

From:

risu.livejournal.com

That's fair.

Do you think that the President, Congress, and Supreme Court will be participating in this laughter, or are you expecting this laughter to prevent them from harmful action, or do you expect that it will cause any damage they do to become swiftly undone?

Or is there a possibility I've missed? I know that the state and local pictures are not everywhere dismal, but most of the scenarios I can think of where that actually matters are pretty castle-in-the-skyish right now.

From:

banner.livejournal.com

They have no power in Congress or with the President. Their only power is to try and sway the people. And if the people are laughing at them I don't see that going over very well.

Read the article I posted the link to above. There is no Evangelistic uprising in this country, they did not carry Bush to office and did not vote for him in any numbers greater than they had before. Saying that they're about to take power, or have more power now than they did before is a myth, same as the 'Gay Marriage cost Kerry the election' is a myth.

And I'm sure if they go around 'damaging' things, someone will call the police.

From:

banner.livejournal.com

Remember Dan Quayle? The man who was one of the most feared men in the United States government (which is why Bush picked him), until someone hit on the interesting concept of making him the object of ridicule. It worked because most people didn't know him, or his history, and the newsmedia was part and parcel of the attempt.

Now a lot of people already feel that way about the fundies. Let's face it, it's hard to respect people who stand on corners with bibles preaching all hours of the day and night with their slack jawed zombies following them around, isn't it?

Oral Roberts, Tammy Faye, all those people shot their wad back in the Reagan days and they sure didn't do much good then, and everyone still remembers good 'ole Jim Baker. (and there is always another David Koresh in the woodwork just waiting to come out)

The fundies tend to insult and offend not only people on the left, but everyone on the right who doesn't believe as they do. They're like the Scottish trying to decide on a king, they cause more infighting everytime any one group gets an inch ahead of the others and they're not going to start cooperating in this lifetime (probably not the afterlife either for that matter).

They'll never pick up any kind of following and rarely be able to cooperate to get ahead as well. Politicians know this, so while they may pay them a little lip service now and then, that's about all they'll pay them.

Look, you've worked in politics before, what is the surest way to keep something from coming up? Get people working on another issue, one that has lots of popular support, is totally different, and will eat up lots of time. Social Security Reform and a Flat Tax. Push those two issues and the Congress will be so tied up with them (and no church deductions hurt the fundies!) that they'll never have time to get serious on anything else. The fundies will get lost in the noise.

From:

risu.livejournal.com

Okay.

Note that whether they gave Bush the election is irrelevant to whether Bush listens to them or considers them his base or considers himself one of their number. But if you feel that the President and Congress won't listen to them, that's an adequate answer to the original question.

(Dara is more equipped to answer this idea, or say, 'yah, that could be right', than I am.)

From:

solarbird

I think the idea that neither President Bush nor significant numbers of people in Congress listen to them is farcical on its face. Bush has made a regular habit of meeting with members of the religious conservative leadership, just for example, including, iirc, Dobson himself, and others like Gary Bauer, who is a Dobson ally. The FMA was brought to two Congressional votes last year (one Senate, one House even after it was dead in the Senate) for the purpose of energising the fundamentalist base and exposing anti-FMA legislators to potential vulnerability in the fall campaign.

I think the assertion that they won't get what they want to be more defensible, though I do think that insisting there's nothing to worry about is doing a little bit more than just whistling as you walk by the graveyard. President Bush has said that he wants more Scalia/Thomas judges on the Supreme Court, and both of them opposed overturning Bowers vs. Hardwick. Another one of them replacing any of the five who voted to overturn in the decision two years ago would certainly allow states to legislate against gayfolk again, if such a law challenge reached them - and it would, given that Virginia, at least, has refused to repeal its sodomy and other anti-gay laws with that in part as their intent.

So, in short, I don't think Banner's evaluation is close to sustainable. But just because I think his read is wildly wrong doesn't mean that I don't hope he is right. I absolutely do! But I don't think he is.

From:

siiix.livejournal.com

i agree, its not forcing
maybe a bit pushing, i think people need that somethimes

From:

risu.livejournal.com

Hm!

Bush seems to be going for the FMA regardless of who actually elected him. So this is one case where rational analysis of what he should do might be misleading.

But!

More analysis suggesting that the Religious Right had very little to do with Bush's victory shows up in bradhicks' livejournal for 11/8 and 11/9. I don't know how slanted his analysis is, but the man has a sexy mind. ^_^