Prop 8 Realpolitik

[purejuice]

Nothing I have seen or heard since I began my life in civil rights in the late 1960s has persuaded me differently, despite the taunts of a younger and crankier generation of lawyers, that civil rights will be gained anywhere except in a court of law. If there.

I have been spelunking around to see if there is a Thurgood Marshall for gay rights, since I'm truly ignorant of the legal history which has gone down since 1976, when I wrote the first story I know of in any mainstream publication about gay marriage.

Thirty-two years down the road, I submit, Marshall would have had Brown v. the Board of education behind him and be headed for a bitter and alcoholic old age on the Supreme Court.

He is my hero. The blueprint for civil rights success was born in his head and actuated because he did not falter from the incredibly long and lonely march he set out for himself as the lone litigator of the NAACP. Which you should join if for no other reason than that there would be no civil rights without Marshall.

He first decided what was the one and only single issue he could prosecute. Desegregation of the schools he chose for several reasons. Bottom line, it would have the most impact, it was winnable, and he could do it with the pittance he had.

He had a strategy, first to desegregate private schools. Then, when a homerun case, with several impeccably photogenic plaintiffs, the right lineup on the Supremes, emerged, or when he emerged it, he completed the long march.

I have been wondering why the gay rights activists have no such general. It's been nearly two generations since I wrote my story.

I have been appalled, frankly, by LA activists, whose main response has been let's do a fundraiser by promising to send a vicious post card to the Mormons for every $5 you contribute.

Meanwhile, girls in Afghanistan are in the hospital being treated for the acid burns on their faces. Acid was thrown in their faces as they tried to attend high school. I don't know about you, but I'm sending money to RAWA today.



Meanwhile, I'm going to be inspecting the record of Lambda and consider sending them some money.

Finally, if I were the gay general, instead of starting arts industry witch hunts and getting fourth-rate Mormon theater directors fired on account of their $1000 contribution to enemies of gay marriage, I would be organizing a serious investigation into Mormon finances.

This story is at least 20 years old, but I have no doubt serious malfeasance is still a foundation of the Mormon -- and the other religious orgs, such as the Knights of Columbus, who were actors in the Cali debacle -- church. Twenty years ago, when for various reasons I was the world's expert on Dwayne Andreas, the World Food Programme and farm subsidies/commodities fraud, the Mormons were the banditti of the Agriculture department, manipulating the farm subsidies programs through their entirely corrupt congressional delegation, running others out of the farm subsidy business and so on. I'd investigate this system first by talking to Ag department and Senate Ag committee retirees, to find out what the scams are, then by determining the agribusinesses that are Mormon held, and what their tithing system is. I would definitely tie in the questionable legal relationship of government subsidy and universal Mormon tithing to the church, and its tax exemption. Time for that to go.

I been tired of stupid (see user info). Stupid and ugly? I'm not having it.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/proposition-8-challenged.html?print=t
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug/04/nation/na-roberts4

Comments

[fj.livejournal.com]

The litigation strategy is not new. The marriage efforts are litigated state by state, the first one having been Hawai'i. All succeed in the State Supreme Courts at some level (I actually consider Vermont a failure of chickenshit judges), but many fail afterward as states amend their constitutions, if the amendment process is easy. Other states have preemptively amended their constitutions which makes the court cases harder. Since marriage licenses are local, there really is no way to federally litigate this, and quite frankly, I'd suspect amending the US constitution during a federal court case would succeed. They hate us that much.

Currently many groups and individuals are pressing the IRS to have both the LDS and the Knights stripped of their tax-exempt status for meddling in politics. I suspect this will fail.

[epilady.livejournal.com]

It will definitely fail, but it will also hopefully send a very clear message that they can't do shit like this ever again without getting their feet put to the fire. They spent a lot of money on passing Prop 8 and they will spend a lot of money on all these lawsuits. THAT will be successful.

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

i think the atomized and yet generally hostile approach is not working. sending the mormons postcards calling them bigots will never pay off. what will pay off is investigating them.

and, it seems to me, 30 years wasting time on litigation about marriage when the precedent is that a constitutional amendment will obviate it, state by state, is not a realpolitik solution. how's it workin' for ya?

ie., marshall chose his issue rather than letting the single-issue voter turnout strategy of the right wing chose the issue. gay marriage may not be your winning civil rights issue. certainly it is not being prosecuted in a way that will win. (see lambda link.)

[fj.livejournal.com]

i think the atomized and yet generally hostile approach is not working. sending the mormons postcards calling them bigots will never pay off.

Eh, that's just blowing off some steam and fundraising at the same time. These cases are expensive.

30 years wasting time on litigation about marriage when the precedent is that a constitutional amendment will obviate it, state by state,

You really, strikingly, obviously, need to read more. It's not 30 years old, to begin with. But it is nice you consider yourself smarter than all the homos out there.

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

obviously i'm not. but there are precedents/blueprints for success in this department which most strikingly are not being deployed.

i'm looking into the gay civil rights case cited as the most important cited in the la times link for an insight into what the lawyers think is possible. they're the key.

[fj.livejournal.com]

obviously i'm not.

Then I very gently suggest you amend your tone when talking to actual GLBT people about it ('How is it working for you' indeed -- feh, it worked just fine in MA. VT. It will in CT, and very likely in NY. For a 10 YEAR OLD EFFORT, it has more gains than any queer born before 1990 even thought possible in their lifetimes.) There's a condescension issue here you may want to be aware of towards minorities.

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

you should hear the way they talk to me! there is little support for this approach (gay marriage as a civil rights litmus test) among the gay community here, amongst whom i live and with whom i am in touch on an hourly basis.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/our-work/in-court/cases/romer-v-evans.html

is cited as the most important gay civil rights case to come up before the supreme court.

please note that litigation of a carefully chosen, winnable, overarching, precedent-setting civil rights issue before the supreme court is not the only strategy i'm thinking about here.

what i'm saying is gay marriage may not be it; that gay marriage has been chosen by the right wing as an issue to get angry white men to the polls; <------- that the gay community needs to get out of that discourse, which is a set-up; and into successful, permanent, and effective nut-cutting. this isn't it.

pressuring the IRS, and other atomized/"venting" approaches is, i'd have to say, prima facie, way less effective than laying out the facts of Mormon farm subsidy/tithe/political action malfeasance. in fact i think it's counterproductive. somebody -- karl rove, i suspect -- has hijacked the civil rights agenda here for gay people, and "venting" sends another 20 homophobes to the polls.

[fj.livejournal.com]

I think a fundamental question you are skipping is, what is the endgame GLBTs want? Where do we want to be? Are we kept from schools? No, but we used to be very unsafe until Jamie Nabozny (through a court case) put a stop to that. Are we segregated? Not in any actionable way so forget bussing and things like that. Are we unsafe? Yes, but hate crime legislation is federally dead. Are we kept from work? ENDA died in the Clinton administration by one Senate vote. The last eight years were a legislative wasteland.

So what equality do we want to achieve? Of course Lambda Legal thinks a federal judicial win is important. Thing is, that is exactly what people are trying to recreate for marriage on the state level, because there is no opening for it on the federal level. Checks and Balances being what they are, it actually is possible then in the US to legislate a stae judicial win away.

What would Mr Marshall have done if segregation had been brought back through a federal amendment?

Right now the amendment of the CA consitution could actually end up before the Supreme Court. I expect Lambda Legal to then be there. With money from sending postcards to Mormons.

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

i am skipping it because of the aforesaid ignorance and also because of the atomization.
you're precisely correct. a strategy needs to be emplaced. for a litigation freak like myself, i think lambda may be the place to send my money. as unjust as the courts are, there is a viable standard and procedure there for adjudication.
i don't know what mr. marshall would have done, but i suspect it would have been along the lines of what lambda is doing.
and it's aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall strategy.
the other thing that was happening during the brown v board years was the broadcast of the firehoses and the dogs into the homes of decent people all over the world. when the peckerwoods started beating up the new york times reporter and the TV cam guy, it was over for them. the media must be involved with a sense of real injustice, and i submit that marriage for rich people is not something that will get a reporter to risk his/her life. separation of church and state? just from my tiny corner of the world? you betcha. a flash mob of clever cyberqueers sjhould start digging that stuff up, and if i were the gay general -- which i'm not -- i wouldn't stop until i had indictments. is there a gay southern poverty law center/morris deas?

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

one argument i'd like to see in court is the revelation by god to the mormon imperial wizard of the day that black people, and cambodians, could, after all, be admitted to the mormon church and also to mormon heaven. he woke up one morning and decided that the mormon church was no longer going to discriminate against people of color.

if god can change his mind, why should not the mormons do it again? their civil rights doctrine is mutable, and should be found so in a court of law.

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

REVELATION given to Spencer W. Kimball, March 6, 1978, Salt Lake City, Utah.
1. Hearken, my servant Spencer, unto the voice of the Lord thy God, and receive my word in answer to thy fervent pleas!
2. Lo, I am well pleased with thee and my servants the Apostles and with all the righteous Saints of my Church. Because of your righteous obedience you are blessed, and I now reveal my Word unto thee, to proclaim unto my Saints and unto all the World;
3. For thou hast oft inquired of me regarding the skin of blackness which marks many of my faithful children, because of which the blessings of my priesthood and of my exaltation have been denied to them;
4. And thy cries and the cries of my black children have ascended unto me, and I now reveal unto thee further light and knowledge in this matter.
5. For my Church is like unto your father Abraham, whom I did sorely tempt, in that I commanded him to take his beloved son and offer up his life as a sacrifice to me;
6. And lo, Abraham in the fulness of righteous obedience did take his son, and did bind him to an altar of rough stones, and did raise the knife to sacrifice him, according to the command which I had given him.
7. And by mine angel did I stop his hand, for his sacrifice of obedience was complete.
8. For human life is not to be taken as a sacrifice to me, except the sacrifice of the Only Begotten, of which Isaac was a type, for such a doctrine and practice is repugnant to me.
9. But it was for Abraham a test of obedience to my Word.
10. And lo, likewise the doctrine of the curse of Cain and the mark of blackness, as well as everything pertaining thereto, is also repugnant to me, but was given unto my Saints as a test.
11. And ye have been valiant and righteous in obeying the words of my mouth which were given not as true doctrine but only as a test for your benefit.
12. Now, therefore, rejoice in my blessing and receive my Word! For no more shall ye make any distinction among my Saints as to their race or as to the color of their skin; for I the Lord God am no respecter of persons, but all shall come unto me and all may be worthy to receive all the blessings of my Gospel without let or hindrance.

http://packham.n4m.org/blacks.htm

[fj.livejournal.com]

"venting" sends another 20 homophobes to the polls.

Being nice never got any minority group anything.

[purejuice.livejournal.com]

i agree. there was almost nothing nice about thurgood marshall, especially in the ruthless way he cut off hundreds of people who needed to have their civil rights protected -- most notably, those subjected to peonage -- because their cases were unwinnable.