You are viewing [info]mbranesf's journal

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Setbacks and momentum

  • Nov. 4th, 2009 at 9:08 PM

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time.We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. " -President Barack Obama


An Open Letter to the Membership (Homosexual Agenda, US Division):

We did not declare the “culture war.” We did not fire its first shots, nor did we ask for a war at all. But fuck if we aren’t going to win it!  Yesterday’s setback with the Maine gay marriage referendum is heartbreaking, but it is just one setback in a long-running war, declared on us by the wingnuts, that we are, in fact, winning year by year, slowly but certainly.

Consider these facts: Forty years ago, we were hardly on the map. We were the most reviled minority imaginable. Even otherwise reasonable people hated and feared us and used us scapegoats for every evil. While it’s true that far too large a percentage of our Membership still lives in fear of exposure and persecution, great gains have been made in many areas of our culture and many regions of thus country. The insinuation of our values into the larger society (as per the Articles of the Agenda) has been so successful as to doom inevitably the evil dreams of our enemies. Popular culture in the form of TV, movies, music and the online media is neither going away nor becoming more homophobic. Indeed, it has become entirely rude and unacceptable to act that way outside the rightwing mediasphere. They call it “political correctness.” I call it common civility. When they rail against our elitist “Hollywood” culture, what do they think the result will be?  Do they honestly believe that TV shows will start to ban gay characters? Do they think that Fine Living Network and HGTV and Bravo will simply go out of business? Do they picture a year when movies will preach homophobia and Nazism and then be feted at the Oscars for it? Do they really believe that the whole population will swear off secular music, books and visual art?  Do they dream of a homo-free internet? Do they expect everyone to adopt mall hair and prairie dresses? Also, aside from our inextricable presence in every nook and cranny of the mass culture, we have actually gained some real civil rights in the US, little by little. It’s been a two-steps-forward/one-step-back kind of progress, for sure, but the momentum is clear. Forty years ago, we had nothing. Now we have legal gay marriage in several US states despite our recent defeats in California and Maine, and that’s not going to change. We have employment discrimination protection in some of the states (and soon federally). They will not roll back these gains everywhere no matter how hard they try and no matter how hard they work on having excessive numbers of straight Christian babies (a fool's strategy if ever there was one! They're just creating more "recruits" for us!).

Which brings me to my main point: the trend of history and the default mode of reality is liberalism. When people wanted to end the atrocity of human slavery in America, conservatives freaked out and declared it would end the world. But slavery was ended and it was not reinstated and the world did not end. When women demanded the overthrow of the preposterous idea that they were not qualified to vote in elections, conservatives recoiled and warned that the sky would fall. Women gained the right to vote, and some real knuckle-draggers tried and failed to roll back that progress.  Women will never lose the right to vote. When tee-totaling religious nuts and other self-righteous moralizers decided that no one should be able to have a drink, they succeeded for a while. But Prohibition was a disaster, was repealed, and has no chance at all of returning. When sensible people realized that slavery hadn’t been sufficiently eradicated from our society, the great civil rights actions by the government and the courts and the people achieved new legal protections for racial minorities. The many attempts to turn back the clock on these advances have largely failed.  Abortion was legalized, and though the right to choose has been subjected to constant attack and erosion, the people will not tolerate the complete elimination of that right ever again. In the 1980s, the Supreme Court upheld sodomy laws, continuing the criminalization of our sexual orientation. But in 2003, an even more conservative Supreme Court overturned that precedent and it finally became legal in all fifty states to be gay. Over a decade ago, Matthew Shepard was murdered and the enemies of our people spent every minute of every day of that decade blaming him for it and celebrating the death of a faggot. Last week President Barack Obama signed the Matthew Shepard Act, a far more devastating blow to our opponents in the long run than the one they inflicted on us in Maine last night.

The direction is clear: we will win. We will still have to fight a lot more battles in the years to come, but the gains we have made in the victories we have won will not be taken away. We will lose sometimes, but we will win a lot more often. It is the unstoppable momentum of progress, the undeniable validation of reason and justice. Bit by bit, the enemy will be worn down, taken apart, stomped on, destroyed. By declaring open war on us, they have done far more harm to themselves than to us. They’ve hastened their own end by decades. Sane people see through it. They see what hate looks like when they see images of people cheering because we can’t marry the person we love, and it disgusts them.


(note the religious rapture that hurting us seems to induce in them)

Occasionally I hear murmuring of accommodation among the Membership. Some people may think it just as well to adopt an attitude of live-and-let-live. I’d remind everyone once again that we did not start this war. We would have been fine with a live-and-let-live approach. Indeed that’s what we wanted all along. But they wanted a culture war. Well, they got their fucking war and they are losing it despite what happened yesterday. I say we press onward to final victory.

Long Live the Agenda!

Christopher Fletcher
Cell Commander

  • 5 comments
  • Leave a comment
  • Add to Memories
  • Share
  • Link

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]mikegriffiths wrote:
Nov. 5th, 2009 04:02 am (UTC)
Well spoken
I agree with the theme being said here. Rights have improved through time, for so many different groups. Sometimes I wonder if prosperity help civil causes and worry that harder economic times might lead to some erosion of this progression. Scapegoats are needed more often when times are tough. Still, I like to cling to optimism, which this article did. Love live personal freedoms.

Mike Griffiths
[info]tychoish wrote:
Nov. 5th, 2009 04:01 pm (UTC)
I think the pro-gay-marriage fight is lost, and that we should
retreat.

I think we should regroup in an effort to abolish state-sanctioned
marriage of all sorts, and forbid states from issuing marriage
licenses to *anyone*.

The following considerations and alliances would need to be taken:

- This isn't a queer thing, really, and I think the abolition of
marriage would benefit the position of women in the society. Give
them control over their children.

- Some method to establishing legal kinship for the purposes of
durable powers of attorney and inheritance. I'd propose using
adoption law, in some form. We need legal mechanisms that would make
people part of our families (and remove them,) as well.

- Some method for establishing second (and third) parental
rights. Again, use adoption law, and I think even proported
"biological" fathers would need to adopt their children.

- Some sort of registry of religious marriage. Throw 'em a bone, put
their names on a list, and be done with it.

- Have some sort of nationalized health care, system. I'm convinced
that--at least for queers in the current moment--one of the leading
reasons why people want to get married is through spousal insurance
programs that most major employers provide. Which is a really lame
reason to want to join a regressive social institution, and
economically harkens back to the "family wage"...

anyway.
[info]mbranesf wrote:
Nov. 5th, 2009 04:36 pm (UTC)
Actually, Tycho, I agree pretty much completely with the points you make. I have often thought that the focus in the US on the marriage issue sometimes swamps the larger issue of equal rights for everyone in ALL areas. But it's a cultural reality in this country that the vast majority of people are obsessed with marriage as some kind of marvelous instititution and it has always been all bound up with our weird, unique-in-the-world approach to the Christian religion. It's not like this in much of Western Europe. France, for example, does not have gay "marriage" but they have legal unions for samesex couples that are the same thing as far as legal matters are concerned, and that has been fine with most gay people in that country because they just don't care about the "sacred institution" of marriage the way Americans do. Which is why there is not as big a campaign to call it marriage there. It's hard to get too exercised about it when there is no legal advantage to calling it marriage and when the culture doesn't find the word itself to be magical.

These are good ideas, but as you have seen with the attempt (and possible imminent failure) at getting even a modest health insurance reform bill passed in Congress, we have no chance anytime soon of real nationalized health care much less abolishing state-sanctioned marriage or having some kind of radical reform of how families are legally constituted. But, in my dreams, if I could be dictator for a little while, I would probably implement reforms much like you suggest. For now, however, in the dingy real world, I think there is little else we can do than fight the battles that are possibly winnable. The biggest of these of getting rid of DOMA. If that can happen, it could render irrelevant a lot of the state anti-gay marriage laws by forcing those states to recognize gay marriages from the states that allow it and open the door to some Federal rights. As it stands, the gay marriages that exist in those few states don't really amount to much legally since most of the benefits of marriage are conferred by the Federal government (such as Social security survivor benefits) and not the states. But since Federal law is held hostage by a majority of US Senators who represent about 10% of the US population, this probably will never happen.

Here's another reform I would implement in my dictatorship: abolish the Senate and all the states' upper houses as well. The House of Reps would then function something like a parliament and we wouldn't have this nonsense like one Senator from one rural state, representing fewer people than live in a medium-sized American city, stopping the whole nation's business.
[info]tychoish wrote:
Nov. 5th, 2009 05:30 pm (UTC)
I think the conceputalization of this problem as being with "religion" is sort of a false starter: Spain's parliment passed a gay marraige ammendment, and Spain is, I think the term is "hella catholic". The problem is really with American-originiated fundamentalism, which causes all sorts of problems (particularly as interpreted in islam/judiasm/mormonism/luthranism), but that's another fight for another day. In general I'm totally fine leaving marraige and so forth to religions to police as they see fit, as long as there isn't meaningful relgious power there.

DOMA will be overturned at some point, I'm pretty sure given that it's pretty clearly violates the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. While I understand the rhetoric of going after an equal protection clause, that ground is much more legally ambigious than the full faith and credit stuff, but that's just me.

I think that the argument for "being tatical" with regards to the queer rights activism sounds really good on paper, but the fact that this often translates into frought electoral fights for something that we probably don't really want/need anyway, and fights that we *keep loosing*... I dunno, it seems like not a good trend to continue with.

---

While we're on the subject of Legislative reform, I do support more parlimentary systems, and I think they tend to be more democratic (in some sense of the term). At the same sense, I have a lot of respect for small deliberative bodies that aren't subject to the same sort of currupting influence that the 2 year election cycle forces on the Congress. See some of Lary Lessig's recent work on corruption and campaign finance for more about this.

The other problem with removing the senate is that while "rural" areas are more conservative (which is probably a bad thing, particularly for queers) disenfranchizing poor working people (farmers) is also a bad thing...
[info]mbranesf wrote:
Nov. 5th, 2009 05:55 pm (UTC)
Correct about the religion--the American brand of fundamentalism. The contrast with Spain is interesting in that while Spain is a very Catholic country traditionally, the Spanish people are much less fanatically religious (or even church-going) in general than Americans. Spain has had a left-leaning government for a while that has done a lot of things, including legalizing gay marriage, over the strong objections of the Catholic church but it seems to have happened with relatively little push-back or rebellion from regular people. And that's in a place with a state-endorsed church. Here it's just so different, both politically and religiously, that what happened in Spain is simply impossible here.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )