Look, I’m a straight equal marriage supporter of the “Kill it any way, anyhow” mindset. I’m with you on this. And I’m not going anywhere. But in addition to the above, here’s a few things that I sincerely hope you’ll consider:
1) This may go to a popular vote. You don’t like it and I don’t like it, but the ballot initiative has taken an important step in that direction and that’s just the reality of it. IF that were to happen, cursing the names of those who support SSM but wish to express their opinion via popular vote is not a fantastic way to continue to hold their support. This isn’t a hostage crisis, as some have indicated. It’s just a fact. If that’s where we wind up, we’ll need each and every last ally in order to assure that not only is the initiative defeated but that it is CRUSHED in such a manner that it is beyond reproach.
2) As much as I hate the phrase “process liberal” (Mechanically separated process liberal, buy one get one free in Aisle 5!), we’re all process people, in my opinion. Only our prioritization of processes differ. I travel to every MassEquality rally or counter-rally against VoteOnMarriage that I can with the same sign: “Civil Rights: Not Subject to Popular Vote”. Marriage equality was decided by the court to be an aspect of our civil rights as equals before the Commonwealth. We don’t vote on consideration to take those away, and that’s final. That’s my process. Interestingly enough, I’m sure that many holding the Machiavellian attitudes on this issue would stick closer to process vis a vis changing the Constitution when it suits us, like with the Patriot Act. That’s OK, I’m guilty too and it’s because critical thinking is a valid aspect of wading through this beautiful disaster which is American politics. Just as important though is understanding how people can still be allies even when their views are not identical. This avoids echo chambers, and that’s good too.
3) As mentioned above, your straight supporters are your friends, maybe your best ones in fact. Really! I can really only speak for myself, but I’m not going anywhere. Your straight supporters exist for a variety of reasons: They may have a gay relative or friend whom they don’t want to see treated as a second-class citizen, they may worry about the slippery slope leading to their own rights being taken away, or they may just know it’s the right and just thing to do. I don’t think any of the reasons above are temporary, and I don’t see straight supporters leaving, unless they feel like they aren’t welcome anymore.
I mentioned before that I’ve put a lot into this issue, and I’ve spoken publicly about aspects of it to various mainstream and LGBT media outlets. This has made me a target for criticism, hate mail, harassment, and the like from VOM folks down to my own father, who signed the ballot initiative petition. When I mention this, it isn’t to ask for your pity or admiration. It’s to ask for a basic level of respect, and I guess to show that this isn’t a fad or “fashion statement” to me. It’s something I really believe in.
It’s often mentioned that straight folks have nothing to lose in this battle. I don’t exactly agree, because erosions in civil rights affect everyone sooner or later. But, in the partial sense that this is correct is the piece which I think most bears consideration. Those of us who are active in this fight do so in spite of the fact that it doesn’t directly affect our personal civil standing, and precisely because we still care about equality. I personally do this because I know it’s a fight for justice and equality, and I hope if the tables were turned you would do the same for me.
This isn’t directed towards anyone in particular. It’s just something I’ve been thinking about since yesterday. I never thought that my integrity or the strength of my support would be called into question as it was, based on my sexual orientation and/or my defense of those who are equality supporters of a slightly different kind. I’d imagine some of my ilk and theirs were taken aback by this, I know I was. This is my response.
We’ve got a lot of work to do still. Let’s roll up our sleeves and get started together.
including writing this post
<
p>
my husband and i are with ya’
Back in the 1970s, it was extremely rare to find straight people who supported — never mind being adamant about — gay rights. This has been an amazing almost unbelievable transformation in my lifetime. Yet I know a number of heterosexual Liberals who have been active and effective on this issue.
Thanks, Rollbiz. Like you and so many others here, I feel betrayed by my government this week (sadly, not for the first time, nor I fear, for the last).
<
p>
We do have to prepare for a public referendum campaign in 2008 or 2010. It may not happen, but the earlier we prepare, the better off we will be.
<
p>
Out here in the ‘burbs and small towns, straight and gay people have worked together and will have to work together to reach voters and reps. Mixed groups have met with reps to voice their opinions. “When I got married, it felt like I was drinking from a whites-only drinking fountain.” “We don’t want to get married until our gay friends also can marry.” “Should my child be gay, I want her to have the same acceptance and opportunity that my marriage has given me.” “I want my children to grow up in a country where all people, gay and straight, are fully equal under the law.” (All these from a meeting with a State Senator) in 2004.
<
p>
Now I think we all have to have more conversation with all our friends, relatives and reps. “How would you feel if your spouse died, but the new law said you could never remarry?” “Has your marriage deteriorated over the last two years?” “Has gay marriage changed anything for you?” “Your church does not have to marry same-sex couples if it doesn’t want to-many churches already have their own rules about religious marriage and divorce.”
<
p>
We need to work together to change hearts and minds. We will work together because this issue affects all of us. Differently, of course, but all of us nonetheless.
<
p>
Thanks, Rollbiz, and thanks to every other straight and gay person who rolls up their sleeves and gets working on the next vote and on the public campaign.
<
p>
Since you link to my post, I’ll respond.
<
p>
Rather than insult you, my point was only to suggest my own paranoia that if, come election day we have a surprise snowstorm or deluge of rain, people tend to stay home and not vote. Who will venture out? Those with the most at stake. No one hired buses to bring marriage equality supporters to the state house, did they? (I didn’t hear of any.) Yet MFI had nine buses coming in from as far as Chicopee and Sandwich. Think they won’t be doing that on election day? They truly frighten me.
<
p>
I’m happy to apologize for my implication that you will all fade away. I accept that I am wrong.
<
p>
<
p>
I agree that it affects everyone sooner or later. I’m glad you get that. I don’t think everyone does (e.g. Paul Donato).
<
p>
<
p>
Actually, it is, which is why I’m responding. You don’t need to temper your statement.
<
p>
<
p>
It’s just that the night of the ConCon, I cried. I still cry just thinking about it. Call it my Mel Gibson moment, because it dredged up an underlying fear that relying on the “kindness of strangers” can get us only so far. As we are a minority, we know we can’t do this without you. We desperately need you. I’m a control freak. I don’t like having my future in the hands of others.
<
p>
White people died for the Civil Rights movement. Christians died protecting Jews and gays. I hear so much hatred coming from straight people that I forget that they, too, are a minority. At least, let’s hope.
<
p>
I hope this never gets to the ballot. But if it does, that we can organize a Patrick-like campaign that can stay above the mud and win the respect and votes of true Americans.
Until this f-ing thing is defeated, kaput, deleted, and those assholes go home to their own states and our gay brothers and sisters retain their rights.
<
p>
I too have felt people were being unfair to members of this board regarding the process, who are as staunch supporters of gay marriage as anyone I know. We fight, we bicker, but the names that some people have used…so not helpful. Hurtful.
<
p>
But I can tell you right now, I do understand why it’s such an emotional issue for many people…the right to be married, to be protected and to protect one’s spouse and children, that’s all well and good, but this is also about getting the human dignity and respect that EVERYONE deserves and which for so long was denied to homosexuals.
<
p>
Well, us straight people ain’t going anywhere. We’re in it together. Even if it doesn’t affect me or anyone in my familu directly, it affects my human family. Get angry, get active, but yes, let’s please get on the same side.
Just to let you know, when I said it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular I did mean it. It was primarily meant to respond to statements by a few people, but honestly not meant to harp on any one person.
I think the fact that they all show up in charter buses paid for by others with signs paid for and designed by others actually says something about their lack of individual commitment. How many of those people would have bought supplies, thought of their own sign message, drawn it up, put it in their car and driven, taken a bus or train, etc. to show up at the State House?
<
p>
I was there in Nov. and it is frightening to see them roll up, obviously blessed with the out of state money of a big political campaign. But as we’ve seen so much this year, money can’t buy one love…
It shows their high level of organization not their lack of commitment.
<
p>
One awful advantage that the Right Wing has over us is the social cohesiveness of their churches. This gives them a rich social network that enables them to organize Bus Trips for Discrimination.
<
p>
Ultimately, this is a problem for Liberals, who, according to survey data, do not tend to go to church as often. I’m beginning to wonder whether we shouldn’t encourage as many of our number as possible to Drink Liberally and become Unitarian Universalists.
<
p>
I, alas, drink little and attend UU services rarely. Hardly an example for what I propose.
I actually think the busses are the single positive thing the VOM crowd does. I think it is laudable to find a way for interested people to participate, who otherwise might have little to no mobility. For some boarding those busses, it may be no more than a chance for a field trip somewhere, anywhere. But it seemed to me that many of them were there for the core reason of participation. If we could persuade folks on our side to tithe 10% of their paychecks to our organizations, we’d have fleetfulls showing up on major occasions, and we’d all agree that that was grand.
A spelling flame…lame huh.
I’d actually love to see them stage a “buss-in”. đŸ™‚
Sorry if some of the venting on Tuesday got out of hand. A lot of GLBT folks get really emotional about the prospect of being squashed by the tyranny of the majority, but it’s important that we distinguish friends and enemies. Straight folks who support gay marriage are worth their weight in gold as far as I’m concerned. Be assured that you have the appreciation of GBLT folks far and wide in your stance, rollbiz, and we’ll take you up on your offer of support gratefully.
<
p>
There’s a candlelight vigil to call for an end to hate and violence next Wednesday at 6:30 on the Common, at the Boylston and Tremont corner. We’d love to have you and other BMG folks there if you can make!
Hey straight allies! Have you considered joining PFLAG (Parents & Friends of Lesbians and Gays)? We need your help building a strong network of allies nationwide. (Plus PFLAG can be really fun and rewarding!)
We absolutely will not win this battle without our allies. Let me take this moment now to thank all of the straight allies to the lgbt community who are doing their best to learn about the complexity of our lives and struggles, and fighting for our civil rights. With all of the frustrations I have with the gay leadership, politics in general, etc. I would hope that my allies always feel comfortable and welcome to join the fight or discussions. I would also hope that gay activists will be more willing to join up with other fights as well, such as health care and reproductive rights.
Thanks for a great diary rollbiz.
<
p>
I’d just add one thing — there’s no such thing as “my” civil rights — they’re our civil rights. One of the homophobic talking points is that activists are trying to carve out a special right for themselves, which isn’t true at all.
<
p>
We’re all fighting for the right to marry someone of the same gender — even if we don’t use it. I want everyone to have that right, not just gay people, just like I want everyone to have the right to trial by jury, not just currently accused. The future is not so clear that we all know what rights we will need, so I want to make sure that we have all that we should. In this way, we are all in the same fight.
It was the birth of my son that made me reconsider my own preference for a civil union compromise. What if this right is personally important to him someday?
<
p>
My position on the “right” of this website is because I am a legal conservative. This means that I don’t think that securing new rights by way of litigation is particularly effective or healthy over the long run. Thus, I don’t think Goodridge is a particularly good decision, even though I support SSM, for the same reason that I don’t think Roe v. Wade is a very good decision, even though I support abortion rights. Ultimately, I think that the right to SSM will be far more secure if it achieves political legitimacy, which can only happen with a political process. In this instance, “political process” does not necessarily equate to “letting the people vote”; the failure to reach the ballot by
<
p>
I understand why others feel differently, and, after a day, regret the heated tone of my comments posted during the CC, though I still disagree with the adjourn strategy.
<
p>
In any event, this disagreement is now irrellevant.
<
p>
Somebody recently posted a comment that all of their frinds are liberal, because they enjoy arguing with people with whom they agree.
Rollbiz, although you are not aiming your comments at anyone in particular, you did link to my comment twice, so I feel my response has been requested.
<
p>
I will state up front that you, our straight allies, are vital to our success, and I value you all as much as I value my own contributions. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t bother to argue with you. I have even coined a new acronym on another blog, LGBTQI-A, in honor of our allies, because you seldom get the recognition deserved (“A” for Allies).
<
p>
Kira’s post pretty well reflects my feeling on the matter. It is terrifying to put one’s legal future in the hands of so many strangers, no matter how dedicated those strangers are. Because sometimes even friends evaporate at crucial times. Regarding BMGers, the tipping point for me was this:
<
p>
When the minority is the group whose rights are most at stake, I believe it is appropriate to let the minority have a majority voice in tactics. Otherwise, whether you mean to be or not, you become another slice of the majority imposing it’s will on us in yet another way.
<
p>
This doesn’t mean that your opinion on the tactics should be ignored, but I really do believe it should be weighted. That’s just how I feel about it. I don’t mind your procedural approach. What I mind is that it didn’t come along with a stronger dose of humility. I will continue to value your ideas and hard work, and I trust the reverse it true also.
<
p>
A final note: I speak ONLY for myself. So please don’t hold against all of LGBTQI-land any hard feelings I may have sparked. Likewise, I’ll not take your point of view to be necessarily representative of any ally but you.
<
p>
Excelsior!
<
p>
Your ally,
Laurel
~Luctor et Emergo~
…for where everyone is coming from. That big picture is often lost in the heat of the threads, and, in particular, it’s easy for things to degenerate into a two-sided pitched battle in which we lump responsibility for everything said (and the tone of it) collectively onto everyone that seems to be arguing on one of the sides.
<
p>
I know I personally haven’t given a lot of context, since I lurk most of the time and only seem to de-lurk for snippy comments about gay rights. I’m interested in a broad range of issues, supportive of the general progressivism here, and reasonably active politically–but pretty content to listen and learn until it’s the parameters of my intimate life that are up for discussion. Let it be said that I have tremendous respect for the knowledge and integrity of everyone who diaries and comments here as one bit of context.
<
p>
Thanks for this diary, rollbiz. It’s worth acknowledging that you have done more, in terms of commitment and action, than the overwhelming majority of gay and lesbian people have on behalf of equality.
<
p>
Here’s the tough issue: When things get expressed as “you” (gay and lesbian people) need “us” (progressive heterosexuals)–and at least one person put it that way explicitly–the dynamic is one of power and not one of friendship. When somebody pulls out that ultimate trump card in an argument with a friend–“Oh yeah, well you’d better be careful, because you don’t have that many friends, you know!”–it’s humiliating and belittling. Even if it’s true. Especially, in fact, if it’s true. Is it really friendship when that’s the dynamic?
<
p>
It’s also just generally difficult to see the “us” and “them” dichotomy so clearly, glibly, instinctually resorted to. It’s bad enough to hear that if I lose my temper in some instance I just may get punished by losing the right to care for the person I love. Great, that’s fair. But not only that, I may have just messed things up for every other gay commenter on BMG, every other gay person in the Commonwealth. I mean, come on!
<
p>
This sounds like a whine, probably. The purpose is just to explain the psychology behind the reaction, from my point of view. Not necessarily to you, rollbiz, but to anyone reading. Of course I should suck it up and not be so sensitive, and I do put up with it and more all the time from many different quarters. We all have to get along in the world as it is. It’s just that some days my threshold of tolerance is lower than others, and after this concon and the discourse in the weeks leading up to it, my threshold is low.
<
p>
If people want to use that trump card (and I hope some people give some thought to renouncing it), I at least want it clear to them what they’re engaging in when they do it. If it gets played so easily–just on the basis of some irritating comment or another, among friends–how can I really, deep down inside, believe that we’re all on the same page in agreeing to get rid of it once and for all?
and understandable to be sensitive, I can imagine, if your sexual preference becomes the subject of hatred and bigotry. I can’t even imagine going through that. I could see getting very upset at people, even those who are friends.
<
p>
But it’s also hard to be those friends who are jumped all over for such things as understanding the laws of the Commonwealth and wanting to see consistancy in the application. (Not that, you know, it WAS, given that they killed the health care amendment. sighs)
Lynne and others, please be careful in terminology and avoid using the term “sexual preference”. Homosexuality it isn’t any more of a preference than is heterosexuality. “Sexual orientation” is the correct term. “Sexual preference” is the term used by the right to imply that we’re just misbhaving, and asking for ‘special rights’ to sanction that misbehaviour to boot (when we all know they’re actually trying to preserve hetero-only special rights, like marriage).
<
p>
Notice how back in 1994 when Romney was sucking up to gay voters, he studiously used the correct term “sexual orientation”. But now that he’s found his conservative roots under all that pomade, he is carefully using the term “sexual preference”. So please, I know it was totally accidental on your part, but please don’t feed the political trolls by using their undermining and insulting terminology. Thanks!
<
p>
p.s. We’re not going anywhere either. Allies are allies. We can withstand a food fight now and then.
…but the only inconsistency in the application of the Commonwealth’s laws is that the anti-gay amendment was actually held to the 25% standard, which has apparently not been binding on any other citizens’ petition amendment in the past 25 years, and probably won’t be on any other future ones.
<
p>
Can we all agree on that point and try to spread the meme far and wide? (Bravo to MetroWest editorialists.)
–or won’t understand–is that the laws and constitution of the United States and the Commonwealth often require that processes be judged by their results.
<
p>
For example: The death penalty isn’t going to be ruled unconstitutional by this federal Supreme Court anytime soon. But it nonetheless has lost tremendous standing across the country–legally and politically–not primarily because of its inherent cruelty but because of its arbitrary and discriminatory application. Even people who believe in it in theory have noticed that most of its victims are minorities–and that a frightening percentage of them are later proven innocent. For that reason there have been moratoriums on the death penalty for everyone on death row–not just for those wrongly convicted. Discriminatory application has impeached the entire process.
<
p>
We judge processes by results all the time. Is it right to follow around people who comes into your store and say, “Can I help you?” every 30 seconds? Yes, if you do it to everybody. No, if you do it only to minorities.
…is written into the state constitution, if so, then it has binding to all citizen petitions trying to amend the constitution…daVID, what’s the answer.
….I think his point was that the concept of using procedural maneuvers to kill an initiative amendment being “unconstitutional” has only been applied with such force for the marriage amendment.
…has another group brought the issue to the SJC during this time period?
The Health Care folks filed a brief in the case and their claims were addressed in the opinion.
<
p>
Second of all, do you really mean to say that to get a vote on an amendment citizens must not only collect the signatures but then get to the SJC to scold the legislature, citing the specific petition?
<
p>
Each time?
<
p>
That is not what Article 48 says and it is not what the SJC says either.
What it sounds like is exactly what got me upset in the first place, which was the “us” vs. “them” mentality. So I totally understand that at least…
<
p>
Thanks to you and everyone else who dropped by to have their say.
<
p>
It isn’t “us” and “them” unless one party starts abusing the other. That’s what was happening. Yeah, it was a crappy day with crappy results, and lots of people were really upset.
<
p>
But friends don’t beat up on each other. They work together. When one friend starts beating up on the other, the friendship suffers. Progressives are a large number of relatively small group interests, and we’re only effective when we work together. When one small group stops trying to embrace the others but instead lashes out in frustration, they run the risk of finding themselves on the outside looking in.
<
p>
Homosexuals, blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, organized labor, environmentalists, the addicted, the poor, and the destitute are all minorities. Each of those groups needs all the other groups if we are to be successful in improving our lives and each others.
<
p>
For the record, I suspect the post you referred to was my soon-to-be relatively infamous suck an egg post. Note that I included the parent comment, to point out that the “us” and “them” frame of the argument was proposed by the parent, not by me. So, welcome to democracy where the minority needs the help of the majority to enact or protect legislation. And, welcome to activism, where you can’t expect to “vent” at your friends and still have them work hard to help your cause. Each of us only has so much time, energy, and patience.
<
p>
Each person has his own trump card. Nobody around here is managing a massive “we’re not gay but we support gay rights” brigade. Did I play mine? Hell no. But I don’t want anyone else to play his trump card either, and I take offense to being told that someone else deserves to “vent” at me when I’ve done nothing but help that person’s cause.
<
p>
A few posts down from mine on the thread linked, rollbiz makes the point quite clearly in my opinion.
…but I singled it out only because it was a clear example of a general point I was trying to make, not at all because I have (or want) a particular beef with you.
<
p>
FWIW, I don’t believe in venting, as such, either. If–god forbid–we have to go through another round of divisive discussions around here on this marriage issue, I will keep in mind what you and everyone else have said when considering how to argue.
<
p>
Thanks for responding.
Nearly all of us around here want the same end result. We disagree about how to get there, but that’s part of the process.
<
p>
Honestly, I’m at a loss about how to get the additional five or so votes needed. I believe that that is where we should all be focusing, but I just don’t have any clue where to begin.
This is a time where all groups should be reaching out to all other groups and forming a network. We need to stand together, and on May 17th gay marriage will be three years old. Let’s throw it a birthday party on the State House steps!
<
p>
This will be near the time that the legislators are meeting for the next ConCon, and if we have to we can move up the date. The important thing is that we work together, and are seen together. Until now we have had few great leaders on our community, and no unifiers. Not only do we need both, but we need people impassioned acting as a constituency that is goal oriented. That great leaders we have can do little to help us when we do not take up defending our own cause, or follow their lead.
This issue hits very close to home. I would just love to lash out, and probably have in some small ways. As someone who is very effected by this turn of events, I can tell you my mood was what I’ll term as “allergic” on January 2nd and 3rd. I damn near ripped my Mom a new one over a completely unrelated issue because I was just so pissed off that night (and very sick) and she really hit the right buttons – and she’s in your camp, only with a gay son to boot.
<
p>
So, yes, there are people on this website who need to cool down a bit. I totally agree with you that going on the attack – with personal insults – isn’t going to be how we are going to win. Within a few days, I suspect you’ll see the insults become a directed rage that will actually do some good. A little anger can go a long way in focusing the movement into the right direction by motivating a lot of people into using tactics that are actually going to work, some of which I’ve discussed on my website. The time for writing letters is over; now its time to shake up the entire political system by replacing these DINOs – hopefully starting with the Senate President.
I’m a person with multiple disabilties who works with the Salem disability commission, and here’s how I explain my position on SSM:
<
p>
People think disability issues are settled with the Americans with Disabilities Act. But what the ADA never existed? Or what it if was a state law, but a group decided to put on a referenda?
<
p>
We might have politicians holding up “good” disabled people (i.e. those in wheelchairs, or children, or who otherwise fit people’s stereotypes.) We would hear over and over, “We’d help people with disabilities but for all those others who aren’t really disabled.”
<
p>
People’s perceptions of people with disabilities are too often shaped by celebrity (the late Christopher Reeves) rather than the neighbor with a walker that they won’t think about. There are bitter fights between disability groups over who gets the resources, and these spill out into the public at large.
<
p>
I’ve seen this up close. It’s ugly. And it’s disheartening; I have had to be convinced more than once that disability rights were worth fighting for.
<
p>
I’ve described this, and I now imagine the fight for gay marriage to be many times more vicious, many times more hateful than anything I’ve ever experienced in my advocacy.
<
p>
I may be straight but I am dead bleeping set on marriage equality.
<
p>
Take care,
<
p>
Dave Moisan
…the idiots at MassRehab sent me on a job interview at a bank. When I went in, they said, ‘But you’re not a cripple!’. I explained that I had what is now called an invisible disability. ‘Oh’, siad the HR lady, ‘we were in the market for somebody with a wheelchair or a brace. Your credentials are fine, but we could NEVER let somebody with YOUR disability work with the PUBLIC!’.
<
p>
I apologized for coming to the interview, and left feeling like I’d been kicked in the stomach.
<
p>
So, Dave – your analogy is dead on. I was fired from many jobs in my youth, not because of a lack of production or ability, but because WHEN they found out, it ‘creeped people out’. My personal favorite was when a black person I worked with insisted I be fired – and honestly, he really didn’t see any comparison.
<
p>
And yet – I would NEVER have wanted to be helped by anything other than a clear-cut law. Some under-the-table compromise would have been as humiliating as the outright rejection. Yes, it would have taken time; yes, it would take on-going education of others, usually person-by-person – but that was true anyway.
<
p>
And like the many gay people who are affedted by this – I would be a great advocate for my own cause!