For Homo.uals, New Math
Rethinking tactics after a series of setbacks nationwide
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060806/14marriage_2.htm
By Scott Michels
August 6, 2006
After the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized homo.ual marriage
in 2003, and "gay and lesbian" couples began to wed in San Francisco and
Portland, Ore., soon after, it seemed to Lisa Stone that a new era was
sweeping the country. In 2004, Stone, a Seattle homo.ual-rights advocate,
sued to overturn Washington's 1998 homo.ual-marriage ban. "There was a
youthful optimism about what was ahead of us," she says.
Now, though, "nobody's swept up anymore," says Stone. For advocates of
homo.ual marriage, the outlook is dark, that early enthusiasm tempered by a
wave of anti-homo.ual-marriage voter initiatives and a string of courtroom
losses. And more court decisions and initiatives expected this year could
result in devastating setbacks. "We may face a reality by the end of this
year that is so radically different ... that we may have to completely
rethink and rework how we're going to move forward," says Ed Murray, a
homo.ual Washington State representative. Jordan Lorence of the conservative
Alliance Defense Fund is more blunt: "One side is clearly prevailing, and one
is losing."
The losses may have been self-inflicted. Despite some early recognition of
homo.ual couples' legal rights in Hawaii and Vermont courts, the Massachusetts
case seemed to spark a torrent of voter hostility. Today, 44 states have
laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman, and voters have written
homo.ual-marriage bans into the constitutions of 19 states--16 since 2003.
Decisions. Last month, the Washington and New York high courts, thought to
be friendly to homo.ual rights, refused to recognize a "right" to homo.ual
marriage, calling it an issue for the legislature. A federal appellate court
upheld Nebraska's ban on homo.ual marriage, civil unions, and domestic
partnerships. Even the Massachusetts high court declined to stop a proposed
voter initiative to outlaw homo.ual marriage. If approved by the legislature, it
will go before voters in 2008. Six constitutional amendments to restrict
marriage to a man and a woman are on the ballot this November, in places
like Wisconsin and Virginia, and most are expected to pass. And six cases,
most seeking a state constitutional right to homo.ual marriage, are now pending,
many of them in states where courts are still thought to be sympathetic to
homo.ual rights, such as New Jersey and Maryland. "If we lose, it's probably
going to be a couple of decades" before there's a widespread right to homo.ual
marriage, says Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal in New York. "If
we win a bunch, we're talking about a very different state of affairs."
At the same time, the number of states where constitutional amendments seem
like a sure bet is dwindling. Attempts to get marriage bans on the ballot
failed in at least five states, including Florida. Says Patrick Guerriero,
president of the Log Cabin Republicans, "There's some recognition among
Republicans that using this as a wedge issue is probably going to be
relatively short-lived."
Avoiding backlash. Some activists are putting more emphasis on backing
homo.ual-friendly candidates in local and state races and winning more legal
rights--but not necessarily marriage--in the legislatures.
[ed. The way it is supposed to be done, not going behind the citizens backs
because you personally think it is a fabulous idea then treating it like a
sacred cow that can't be questioned or blocked by the population, like so
many other issues...]
A group of nearly 250 homo.ual-rights supporters recently urged less focus
on marriage, saying it "has left us isolated and vulnerable to a virulent
backlash." Legislative victories could avoid that backlash. "The politics is
driven by the lawsuits," says Matt Daniels of Alliance for Marriage, which
opposes homo.ual marriage. "No more lawsuits, no more state amendments." Matt
Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force acknowledges, "Our legal
strategies got ahead of our political strategies."
But fighting in the legislatures may not be easy, either. In 1996, Congress
passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of homo.ual
marriages and allows states to pass similar laws. Since then, at least 38
states have done so. The California Legislature last year passed the
nation's first marriage equality law, only to have it vetoed. Prospects even
in places like New York remain uncertain.
A quick or comprehensive resolution, from a federal constitutional amendment
or a Supreme Court decision, isn't likely anytime soon. Both sides expect
the current patchwork to continue for the near future, with a few states
allowing marriage. A majority of Americans support giving same-. couples
some legal rights, according to a Pew Research Center poll released last
week, and six states, including Connecticut and California, and a growing
number of businesses and cities, already do so.
Advocates of homo.ual marriage are taking the long view. Courts are far more
receptive to homo.ual-rights claims today than even a decade ago. Opposition to
homo.ual marriage has dropped 9 percent since 1996, to 56 percent, though it
has grown in the last few months, the Pew Center poll shows. "Once people have
the chance to see gay couples married," says Evan Wolfson, executive
director of Freedom to Marry, "hostility fades."
[ed. Criticism has been legislated out of existence, therefore you have the
old Socialist trick of compliance-by-silence...]
Opponents hope any court rulings in favor of homo.ual marriage will galvanize
support for state or nationwide constitutional bans. "It's time for us to
take this decision out of the hands of judges for once and for all," says
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council. But proposed federal bans have
failed in Congress, and a raft of new state amendments seems unlikely.
Back in Washington State, there's little chance homo.ual marriage will be
legalized anytime soon. But earlier this year, the Legislature passed a law
banning discrimination based on .ual orientation--29 years after it was
first introduced. "There's a little more weariness," says Stone, "and a
little more wisdom."
[ed. The only thing you need to learn is not to ignore the people in the
pursuit of your "enlightened" agenda - whether they agree with you or not,
even then, is up to them...]
Newsboard:
http://www.gossiping.net/phpBB2/?mforum=newsboard
--
Antimulticulture
http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
Unite Against Multicult'ism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
http://www.alphalink.com.au/~eureka/mccorm.htm
Asianisation of Australia: The Grand Plan
|