I am black and live in Southern CA, where this fight never seems to end. There was a vote and the voters made their intentions known. Had the vote gone the other way, in favor of gays, no one would complain. Instead, the news would be heralding how progressive we are in CA, how the voters voted against bigotry, etc. But because the vote did not go the way of gays, we are supposedly intolerant, etc. I am not happy with a lot of things that passed in CA, including the marijuana clinics, but I accept it as the majority making known their wishes. If gays are so tolerant of people, then please let them respect the system and the rights of voters to choose what they want in their states, and don't want. Simple as that. Has nothing to do with intolerance...if anything, it seems that gays are more intolerant of people who don't approve of their lifestyle than ever before.
And to be honest, we women have fewer rights than gays do. I was fired from my job for filing a sexual harrasment complaint. I doubt I would have been fired if I was gay and harrased for being such. There would have been groups suing on my behalf and it would have made the media in some capacity. But because I was a woman, I was basically told "oh, well".
To me, seems that gays are getting the better end of the deal in so many areas that others are not. So please, gays, accept what is voted upon by the people rather than being angry at people who vote, and how they vote.
Gay Rights 2.0
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
The battle over gay marriage didn't start with Proposition 8, but longtime activists say this particular initiative's passage woke people up in a way that other states' battles simply haven't. Many gay advocates, reveling in the prospects of an Obama win, never really thought the proposition had a chance of passing in liberal California—and so they did nothing to support the effort against it. When it did pass, it struck a particular chord amid a presidential election that most gay advocates were cheering as a huge step forward. It was also more intrusive than gay marriage failures in other states, in that it revoked a right that had already been granted—and enjoyed—by some 18,000 California couples. "It was really like a splash of cold water in the face," Signorile says.
There's no going back now, but even proponents of Prop. 8 say the mass mobilization—had it happened beforehand—might have meant a different kind of battle. "I don't know if it would have brought about a victory for them, but it certainly might have changed the outcome," says the California Family Council's Ron Prentice, the chair of the "Yes on 8" campaign. As organizers look ahead, many wonder if the netroots effort going on now could change gay activism in the way it's reshaped mainstream political organizing. Still others hope it will revitalize the grassroots' role in a movement they say has been dominated over the last two decades by big bureaucratic groups in Washington.
The failure of the $40 million "No on 8" campaign has also fueled the post-Prop. 8 backlash. Many young activists have berated organizers for being sheepish about including actual same-sex couples in their ads, and for responding slowly to attacks by the pro-Prop. 8 side, who themselves dedicated a good chunk of resources to Google ads, blogging and maintaining groups on social networking sites. Others, including many older gay activists, say they're disappointed that groups like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest gay and lesbian advocacy group, made little effort to capitalize on the post-Prop. 8 momentum.
Many were particularly offended by an e-mail a local HRC steering committee sent to San Francisco constituents on Nov. 10, as Join the Impact groups were coordinating in cities around the nation. It was to remind members about "Spa Night": an evening of wine, mingling, "pampering and relaxation" that would help raise money for the $40 million group. HRC says the Spa Night offering was donated by a local business, and while they recognize the e-mail may not have been the best PR strategy, "it was certainly not something we were expending resources or energy on," says Brad Luna, the group's communications director.
HRC President Joe Solmonese, meanwhile, says that directing the movement on the ground is not where his organization fits in. "The role for large institutional organizations like us is to be mindful of our place," he tells NEWSWEEK. "We want to provide resources and our membership to the grassroots activism that's going on, but not try to steer them in any particular direction."
As longtime advocate Jennifer Chrisler points out, progress comes through a variety of places: courts, legislatures, lobbying groups and grassroots organizing. Perhaps the local ground-up energy will be a rallying cry for other battles: overturning the Arkansas ban on gay adoption, passing a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), or bringing an end to the U.S. military's gay ban. "Movements aren't movements unless there are people involved in them," says Chrisler, who heads the Boston-based Family Equality Council. "But it also takes strategy. It also takes ripe moments when you have a chance to articulate a message."
Discuss