counter statistics

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Reader Response to Bush Signing a Gay Rights Law

Holly Cairns said...
Hey Lloydletta,

You might know I support 'Civil Unions' (and the asking for civil unions instead of for marriage)

But you should have a look at Sara's court shopping et. al comment on this:
www dot mnprogressiveproject dot com/diary/2417/creating-chaos-through-bush-v-gore

Maybe this is old thought to you, but I found it really interesting! Here's part of it:
How this applies to Gay Civil Rights and Marriage, I am not all that sure. That vote came pretty close in California, and if the coalition were stronger, a little bigger, with a better electorial strategy, I think it could win in a few years. I suspect courts will, in much of the country, fall into line if perhaps ten states do either Civil Unions or Marriage -- in general the constitution tends to protect contracts entered into in one state being valid in all other states (full faith and credit clause) -- one normally doesn't have to get divorced or re-married every time one crosses state lines. Marriage is reserved to the states, but it is also a contract with all sorts of joint property implications. So my guess is when 8-10 states establish statutes protecting single sex marriage or civil unions, the Federal Courts will take up the issue and make it Universal. Ditto for Adoption -- one doesn't unadopt kids because you move from state to state. In this respect the work ahead for the Gay-Lesbian community is significantly different from what we faced in the Civil Rights movement days, American Apartheid had many many more facets that required litigation initially, and then legislation, and then more litigation and then more legislation. Remember it was a whole economic system, that in effect legitimized a form of bondage. (Sharecropping). Took about 40-50 years if you start counting with the 1936 Anti-Lynching effort, which is where I date the beginning of the modern American Civil Rights Movement.

1:20 PM

Holly Cairns said...
Oh yeah, and the Gay Rights Law is really the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008... which allows employees to designate beneficiaries other than the normal beneficiary "spouse".

While it does sound like a step in the right direction for same sex partnerships, it goes pretty far to call it a 'gay rights law'.

3:20 PM

I think Gay Patriot makes a reasonable point. Under Clinton, we got DADT and DOMA. Bush signed this bill. President Bush has deserved criticism from gays. When he does the right thing, he should be thanked.


Holly Cairns said...

Change... Does it come via litigiously, or through legislation?

As Sara said in her comment (some of which I copied for you, hopefully it was 105) the courts have been key, not legislation.

You're getting excited about the the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, not the "gay rights bill". I guess I'm still raining on your parade, huh. :-) I just think you'll anger people by saying it's a gay rights bill, and you'll get the wrong reaction (in the long run).

Holly Cairns said...

10 percent (not 105)

Holly Cairns said...

So, now that I've applied for a few jobs I can come back to this.

Look at Minnesota's Gubernatorial history:

26 Rep, 5 DFL, 3 FL, and 1 Reform (Indep).

If a DFL candidate like John Marty supports gay marriage, he'll be defeated. Like it or not, we'll just see another Republican governor.

So in the end, what do we get?

To me, right now it's incredibly important we elect DFL candidates. Democrats are for smart regulation and have always championed programs which help hardworking families. We need to protect the middle class' opportunity to prosper...

Asking our legislators to support specific causes which alienate (perhaps even the majority of the population) is a mistake and I'm tired of LOSING TO REPUBLICANS.

DavidD said...

If the DFL candidate for governor actually grows a pair (or has one already, I suppose) he or she will give Independence Party supporters reason to consider crossing over. Many people in the IP have left the DFL because so many DFL legislators (and legislative leadership) are spineless when it comes to doing what's right. Every IP candidate for governor has been openly in favor of equality.

Jacob Reitan claimed that he and his family wouldn't support the DFL nominee if he or she didn't support full marriage equality... So it should be an interesting year. Perhaps gay people will finally see the reality.

Holly Cairns said...

Grows a pair? Crude, dude!

The Independent party must be more to the left than moderate Democrats and Republicans, wanting gay marriage. Who is the Independent candidate for gov, again? I'll be glad to see him or her ask for gay marriage.

DavidD said...

I am not sure who the IP will endorse this year (note the 'I' in IP stands for Independence, not independent. It's common for people to make this mistake.)

The IP is to the left of the DFL on some issues and to the right of the MnGOP on others. We tend to be much more federalist on the national stage and a bit more progressive at the state level.

In 2006 we saw a great influx of DFL support when Hatch was nominated (who, by the way, is now trying to legislate against 3rd parties.) In 2007/2008, we saw a lot of republicans come over because they are tired of the lack of fiscal discipline in the ruling parties. Furthermore, these republicans tend to be socially inclusive.

The Franken/Coleman/Barkley race also showed that people are willing to vote outside their normal party when they are disenfranchised. Liberals know we are a party that values their social liberty and the conservatives know we are a party that embraces their fiscal sanity. Yes, it may be a protest vbte, but when enough people protest the IP has candidates they are comfortable with and we can sometimes pull off a win. This was definitely the case when Ventura won and was the case with about 50% of the Barkley voters.

The whole "grow a pair" thing has become somewhat of blog joke because some people at a certain GLBT equality group in Minnesota are far too sensitive towards the phrase.