In terms of our civil rights and some display of leadership by that "fierce advocate" in the White House, I've run out of it.
Three things:
First, Jennifer Vanasco, in a piece titled "Another Shrug from Obama":
Obama has been mostly silent on our issues since taking office. Insiders tell us that he will keep his promises. They tell us to be patient. They tell us to wait.
Maybe they're right. Maybe not. Maybe the Obama Administration really is working like crazy behind the scenes to dismantle DOMA and Don’t Ask, to support the Employment Non—Discrimination Act and the Uniting American Families Act. Maybe they're just hoping if they placate us enough, we’ll go away.
All we know for sure when it comes to this Administration is that hope is not enough. Promises of "change" are not enough. We supported Obama with our dollars and our labor, and it is time he supports us in return.
But until he does, the good people of Illinois — like good people all over the country — have to wait for their rights.
And then, Dale Carpenter, who counsels patience:
The problem is that losing has consequences beyond the immediate loss. Initiatives -- from gathering the needed signatures to running an effective campaign to winning -- require a huge investment of money, people, and time. Such resources are finite. The $60 million or more that will be spent in 2010 could go to other things, like state and congressional elections or fighting a possible SSM repeal (Maine? Iowa?) or amendment ban in another state. Those volunteers and organizers could be doing other productive things with their time. And losing in 2010, especially if the margin is greater than in 2008, will be deflating. It will harm morale. It will scare off legislators elsewhere. And it will be taken (incorrectly) as a sign that the tide is beginning to turn against SSM, with numerous political consequences in the short term. Losing doesn't mean you start from scratch the next time you try. It means you start from scratch with a bigger political, psychological, and financial burden. Waiting until 2012 would be better, in this sense, than losing in 2010 and trying again in 2012.
I have a fundamental disagreement with Carpenter on this, aside from the fact that he seems almost gleeful at the prospect of losing a repeal effort in 2010. I don't think waiting is a viable strategy, if it ever was (and I'm not convinced on that score: waiting has gotten us exactly what?). We need to be at least as determined and dogged as our opponents, who will keep trying again and again until they get what they want. The difference is that if we keep trying, we reach out to people. People come to know who we are, and that's to our advantage, win or lose.
We made progress on civil rights when we were yelling and screaming. Then we decided to be prudent. Know what? People aren't impressed with how responsible you're being. They're impressed with the emotional reality that you bring to your cause: when they see your face, hear your words, know who you are, that changes them. Sitting on the sidelines being prudent doesn't change anything. It just means you've been co-opted. (See above, re: "fierce advocate.")
As for the perception that a defeat in California will give the impression that marriage is now a losing proposition, let me point out a sequence of events:
Proposition 8 adopted in California
Iowa legalizes same-sex marriage
Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage, overriding the governor's veto
Maine legalizes same-sex marriage
Prop 8 upheld by California Supreme Court
New Hampshire legalizes same-sex marriage
And let me point out that Prop 8 was No on 8's election to lose, and they did it -- by being prudent.
Finally, via Andrew Sullivan, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
It occurs to me, reading this passage, that those potential "supporters" who are going to be repulsed by confrontational tactics maybe aren't supporters at all. They are "more devoted to 'order' than to justice" and will support our reach for civil rights as long as it doesn't actually impinge on their reality. They are also the very people who will turn around and vote to take away those rights in the next election. They're not our friends. The most that can be said for them is that they're not crazy.
(I'm rushing this morning. I may come back and clean this up a bit, but I wanted to get these thoughts at least sketched out.)
2 comments:
...interestingly, if one substitutes the word "white" for "black" in MLK quote...it applies quite well to the LGBT Struggle for equal rights.
It was the Black voters of California, that while voting for "their man" (Obama), voted against the challenge to the established marriage order - and deny the LGBT Community an important milestone in attaining their Equality.
President Obama : have you forgotten the legacy of MLK ?
You can walk and chew-gum at the same time. There is no need to delegate the Civil Rights Struggle of LGBT and other minorities to the "car back-seat", while you attempt to fix the Economy !!!
There was a lot of back and forth over that 70% figure, with the PC left in particular trying everything they could think of to discredit it. However, most polls that I've seen since show marked lack of support for gay rights, including marriage, among blacks -- on the order of 10-15 points lower than other groups.
I'm not pointing a finger, but it seems to me that, rather than trying to sweep this under the rug and pretend that blacks are being victimized (which, astonishingly enough, is a reaction I've seen), what we need to be doing is a massive education effort. Let's face it, some of the most highly visible and virulent anti-gay voices are black ministers, who have a huge influence. We're doing nothing to counter that influence.
It's quite obvious that the national leadership is incompetent in this area (as it seems to be in most), and that there aren't strong enough or visible enough voices in the black community to do this -- at least, not on their own. I don't know what the answer is, but I'd sure like to hear from someone who has one.
Post a Comment