After 8: Where Do We Go From Here?
By Nick Sifuentes - Nov 10th, 2008 at 5:30 pmPart two of a three-part post (see part one here).
Since the passage of Proposition 8, large protests and rallies have routinely made state and national news. I’m heartened by the fact that widespread, sizable protests indicate that those who support same-sex marriage aren’t taking defeat lying down; on the other hand, where the hell were these protests three weeks ago? No on 8 should have been organizing rallies equal in size and fervor to those going on now. It wasn’t until the right to marriage was snatched away that apathetic supporters of same-sex marriage began to protest. That early apathy is something No on 8 could never have fixed. The failures of the No on 8 campaign should serve as critical lessons on how to better run a coalition for marriage equality in California. Unfortunately, Proposition 8 opponents are currently seeking redress via the legal system. (While I’m obviously sympathetic to their aims, I’m opposed to their method.)
Some compromises before we achieve full equality is hardly the worst fate that could befall gays and lesbians in California. While that may sound callous, the bottom line is this: there are other, arguably more significant fronts in the struggle for gay rights, and California’s domestic partnership laws are encompassing enough that de jure discrimination against same-sex couples will not really be a major factor in their lives. Such laws might help gain solidarity from those who see the fundamental injustice of denying a basic right to a class of citizens. Should courts decide to invalidate all same-sex marriages performed over the last few months, there will probably be an outpouring of regret from fence-sitters who bear witness to news reports of over 18,000 couples being forcibly divorced by the state.
Where stoically shouldering the burden imposed on us by those who supported the Yes on 8 campaign will humanize gays and lesbians, subverting the will of the people via the court process will only antagonize—and galvanize—those who supported the measure in the first place. Even if courts were to side with supporters of same-sex marriage (an event I feel is unlikely, simply because history shows that the legal sphere is often not so separate from the political), the California ballot initiative process makes it easy for opponents of same-sex marriage to re-qualify a similar constitutional amendment in the next electoral cycle.
Voters might remember that a large number of “gay activists” overturned the so-called will of the majority via the court system; such an argument was made by Yes on 8, referencing the California Supreme Court’s overturning of Proposition 22 in initially allowing same-sex marriage earlier this year. Proposition 4, which forced parental notification prior to minors’ abortions, has been on the ballot in California in 2005, 2006 and again in 2008; though it has been defeated each time, nothing prevents the right wing from qualifying it again in 2010. A legal victory now would merely presage a more bitter fight at the ballot box in two years’ time.
So if a legal challenge is not the path to a lasting equality, what is? The task over the next two years is to build a true movement rather than an ad hoc assemblage of oppositional forces. This sort of campaign must begin now, and must be a coalition effort. LGBT activists should reach out to communities from which support was difficult to muster, but who are likely to side with marriage equality once they are actually reached out to. “
Reaching out” means more than simply collecting a laundry list of endorsements; reaching out means engaging these groups in two-way dialogue, ideally in a fashion that both furthers the end of the marriage equality movement and works to address the needs of supportive constituencies as well. It is not enough to approach people and simply ask them to support our efforts; we must be willing to work for the benefit of all minority and marginalized groups, whether they be ethnic minorities, minorities based on gender or sexual identity, or those who are marginalized because they are economically disadvantaged. Failure in this would doom us to John Stuart Mill’s epitaph on useless activism: “They preferred endeavouring to alter the feelings of mankind on the particular points on which they were themselves heretical, rather than make common cause in defence of freedom, with heretics generally.”
This is a fantastic post. Absolutely spot-on. Every organizer of the LGBT movement in California should take this as a road-map.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:35 pm