Big news that’s really not, a pair of straight Southern California college students, Ali Shams and Kaelan Housewright have filed a ballot initiative withe the Southern California Attorney General’s office that would replace marriage with domestic partnerships for all people in the state. It’s the second marriage equality related initiative filed with the Attorney General– an earlier one, still awaiting circulation would repeal Proposition 8.
The real news is that no gay rights or marriage equality group supports them.
We asked the gay rights leaders we spoke to in today’s feature about these initiatives. Find out what they said after the jump.
As we mentioned in the feature, neither Equality California nor the Courage Campaign, the two groups doing the most to organize marriage equality activists have any current plas to support the ballot initiatives that have been filed. Why?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Marc Solomon, the recently hired marriage director of Equality California explains:
“I think, from my standpoint, Prop. 8 over the long haul can not stand. We have to organize to repeal it, but the question is when, not whether. We really need to think this through and do research, meaning we need to look at detailed polling of when the smartest time to bring a ballot initiative forward would be.”
and Rick Jacobs of the Courage Campaign, who previously suggested that a ballot initiative ought to happen sooner rather than later, agrees, saying:
“One of the things we want to do is make sure that the next fight is on our terms and that requires us to be smart about choosing how we want to pitch our battle. There need to be polling, which of course is never perfect, but will be instructive about how to proceed further.”
The ballot initiative must get 600,000+ signatures supporting it before it by the beginning of August before it can be considered for the 2010 ballot.
The Gay Numbers
It seems like they are saying they are not even willing to go out there to get the signatures.
The Gay Numbers
Follow up: My point is that this attitude of not trying, but making excuses, is emblematic of the gay rights movement in general.
Frankly, if you go back to the Democrats in the 1990s and earlier in this decade when the DLC controlled the conversation this mind set was dominant. They had all these excuses for tying the hands of the party and anyone running under the party banner.
Now, is not the right time for x or y or z. We will lose if we do that. We can’t win in Indianna. It’s impossible for us to get more than 50 percent because we are a right of center country and blah, blah, blah
The truth: this was their perception. Not reality. The problem here is that the gay movement believes the right wings view of the landscape. Yes, we lost last year. But, the reason why becomes important when comparing why Kerry lost to Obama. It’s a reflection of not just message, but style and whether we want it more. Even if we lose, the attitude should not be “oh well there’s a right time for this.” The attitude should be “we are going to wear the voters down.” The right certainly takes this attitude. In 2 successive cycles, they have put up an anti-abortion law requiring parental notification. Do you see them saying we shouldn’t do it again? The question is not whether now is the right time, but rather whether time is a factor at all. Just do it. Take the risk of actually being proactive.
Raphael
I’ve heard so many lefties and queer radicals claim that they are against marriage in general. Here’s a chance to see if they can walk the walk and get behind this measure.
rogue dandelion
the saddest thing about this article, of which there are many, is that it implies the cute guy in the picture is straight.
I hope they are simply waiting for the supreme court’s verdict before they attempt to collect signatures.
sam
@Raphael: The really annoying thing is that the lefties and queer radicals DON’T support traditional marriage. Unfortunately, their views are almost completely marginalized by the paired-off, brownstone-inhabiting, small dog-owning powergays who dominate the organized groups.
Raphael
@sam: I just think that a lot of the queer “radicals” use their (legitimate) opposition to traditional marriage to cover their apathy and laziness, and general aversion to getting anything actually done.
Flex
I don’t believe that we should ask absolute strangers for our equal liberties at the ballot box, but I will support a future initiative to repeal prop8. It is dead wrong, and so are it’s supporters, and so is any court that would uphold it.
But if prop 8’s repeal depends on heavy voter turn out, we must choose a date that would benefit in the best possible way.
Maybe the next presidential election?
outLOUDstock
I find it appalling that the leaders of Equality California and Courage Campaign can’t or won’t support the Domestic Partnership initiative. While I believe the term Civil Union is better than Domestic Partnership, the point is that the state should NOT be in the marriage business period. If this is a compromise that has a chance of passing, why disregard it?
nb
if you take the term “marriage” out of the debate. Then the right really has no leg to stand on. You’re not trying to redefine the term “marriage” as It has been known for years. And with outthat point, it really just exposes the reason for theM not wanting same sex unions is just hatred
The Gay Numbers
@Raphael: Not to mention the sterotype in which all gays who want marriage are middle class and white.
John
While I whole-heartedly agree that government should be out of the marriage business and this is a good idea in the abstract, there is a practical problem with such a move: the subsitution of domestic partnerships for marriage would be a real problem for all couples (gay or straight) in California. Federal law and other state laws recognize “marriage” explicitly and to remove that (even for everyone) means that every “domestic partnership” in California could not be eligible for recognition by the Federal government or other states. Yes, maybe it would serve the anti-gay married folks right to lose all that, but it would hurt the gays that have been married, our married gay allies and, long-term, gays who want full marriage rights.
The long-term strategy needs to be for recognition of gay marriage in California. Gaining marriage rights for gays and lesbians opens the door for recogniztion by the Federal Government and other states if DOMA is repealed (as Obama says he wants to do). So, even though it’s a great concept, but has some real problems in real-life application.
One note, though, on the response from those State groups: I would hope Equality California and similar groups are smart enough to know this and would be able to explain it, rather than just dismiss efforts out of hand like they seem to have done here. They should show appreciation for the thought and then explain why it’s not the best path. That would empower and educate folks.
NB
no john thats where your wrong. this doesn’t close a door for couples in CA to be recognized by other states. this opens a door for other states to follow suit. every one is hung up on the term “marriage” and that is what is holding same sex couples back in states like AK, TX, FL, and on and on. once we get rid of that term, and tell them “hey we aren’t trying to redefine the term, we just want equal rights, you can have the term and ceremony in your church as you want” then i think a lot more middle of the road people will be more open to joining our side, and voting we us
John
No, NB, I’m not wrong and you are missing my point. One, your post assumes that every state in the nation and the federal government will suddenly go “a-ha” and follow California’s example. That’s just not realistic – some might, but for your theory to work, the other 49 states, DC and the federal government would EACH have to pass a similar amendment. Here in Florida (where I live) that would take a 60% vote. Even if California did this, there is no assurance and, I’d argue, very little likelihood that the rest of the country would follow suit.
Second, your argument assumes that our opponents would go “a-ha” and suddenly not be opposed to gay unions not called marriage. I’ve debated them before and when pressed, they admit that they oppose ANY governmental recognition of same-sex relationships. Yes, it might persuade some of the moderate folks who are uneasy about gay “marriage” but to think suddenly it would be a slam dunk is naive.
Third, from a legal perspective (I’m a lawyer and have studied this stuff a good bit), there is a ton of law and code (federal and state) addressing marriage. To do the wholesale shift would require a good deal of legislative action to substitute domestic partnerships for marriage on the books. Until that happened, everyone in a state no longer offering marriage would be out of luck when seeking those protections.
My point (again) is that while I agree in an ideal world government would get out of the “marriage” business altogether, from a TACTICAL standpoint, I don’t think it’s a realistic way to go. More effective is to get DOMA repealed (or declared unconstitutional) and work through the courts so states are forced to recognize same-sex marriages. You can disagree with the speed of whose plan works first and whose is more realistic, but my take is that while well-meaning, it’s not a winning strategy and takes our eyes off the prize.
NB
no you assume i think every stat will go “a-ha” and follow suit. just like you assume once you have gay marriage in CA, other states/fed will follow suit and force it upon every one… i do know that as long as god is involved, and we are seeing as attacking the institution or “marriage” we dont have a chance, as more and more states pass bans(az/fl) against it. obama/senators/etc have stated many times that this is a state issue, and will not get involved. and further more it is not right for the fed government to force states to recognize this.
second, those are far right that you debate, if we can swing enough marginal people to compromise. we would get a lot farther, a lot quicker. we can get a lot more support compromising with people, then forcing them too, and trying to “redefine” what they deem as “traditional” in a religious sense.
so many of these “leaders” are hell bent on trying to win this term, this word. that they deem so important. they cant seem to see other avenues to get to the final goal of being equal.
John
NB-
We just disagree on the most workable tactic. I think, realistically, the courts are the most likely way we’ll get to full “marriage” equality for everyone. Obama is on record for saying he wants DOMA repealed. Then it’s just a matter of someone getting married in a state that allows (such as Mass), going to a state that won’t recognize and suing for recognition under full faith and credit. State Supreme Court will rule one way or the other and the Supreme Court would likely address. With current makeup, no way of knowing, but possible in the time this would take that could overturn all bans on an equal protection basis.
More power to anyone who has a solution. I just don’t think the one proposed is likely to work and you do. How about we agree to disagree and both keep working to overturn the b.s. one way or another?!
Sebbe
Soloman is right.
Sensible
Everyone — this solution, of abandoning the word “marriage” in state law and returning it purely to private uses, allowing its “definition” to be a matter of private determination, was actually suggested by the California Supreme Court ruling last year. The suggestion is there — but the legislature is too dense and cowardly to pick up on it. But everyone should also know that this is the solution that will erase the divisions. Most Mormons would actually join with members of the gay community in pushing for this kind of solution. Evangelicals would not, but as Mormons represented the most coordinated group of donors and workers, this would be a significant step toward reconciling two groups seen as previous at odds. And what could be more beneficial for state unity? And lest anyone think this is a far reach, let me point out that I’m Mormon. And the one subject on which my many gay friends and relatives, as well as leaders of my church, all agree on… is this solution. Make everything a civil union, designate parameters for what constitutes a civil union, and let private marriages — regardless of definition — all qualify for civil union status. That way nobody would have to accept anyone else’s definition, but everyone gets precisely the same civil protections. There is no other way. Otherwise the lawsuits will truly never end. This is not about who wins… and who loses. It’s about finding a solution that everyone can live with.