The gay leadership in this country, excluding Log Cabin, tends to think that gay rights in this nation have vanished and that we should start heading towards Canada or Europe. They have bought into the far right's belief that this is a nation that will never accept gay marriage, civil unions or civil rights.
Well, before people start boning up on their French, you might want to hear about two decisions in two so-called "red states," or states that voted for Bush.
In Montana the state Supreme Court ruled that the Big Sky Country's public universities must provide the partners of gay employees health insurance.
Here is what Justice James C. Nelson wrote in a concurring opinion. He was criticizing the bans on same sex marriage.
"Sadly,many politicians and 'we the people' rarely pass up an opportunity to bash and condemn gays and lesbians despite the fact that these citizens are our neighbors and that they work, pay taxes, vote, hold public office, own businesses, provide professional services, worship, raise their families and serve their communities in the same manner as heterosexuals."
I have no idea what Justice Nelson's political leanings are, but he gave a basic conservative argument for gay rights. We are not a protected group that wants special rights; instead we want to be treated like everyone else. Gay couples live in every neighborhood and they work in all sorts of places. They also go to church and pay taxes like all Americans. We aren't asking for special rights, but the same rights straight couples have.
In other news from the Red States, a judge in Arkansas ruled that the state's ban on gays adopting children was an overreach by the Child Welfare Agency. The judge thought the ban was regulating "public morality," something the agency has no business doing.
What both of these stories show is that life in the Red States is not as backward as some gay leaders think. Instead of ignoring the South and Midwest, groups like HRC should be working in these states to change hearts and minds. As a friend has said, Manhattan (and San Francisco) is not the only parts of America where the gay rights movement should be busy.
Posted by Dennis at January 2, 2005 11:15 PMThe political use of this by the theocratic crowd will be more denunciations of "Activist Judges"....
Posted by: Eva Young at January 3, 2005 03:20 PMBrian,
In my observations, the courts often find it their job to make justice, not make laws. They don't make laws, they decide whether or not laws are just and constitutional. I sometimes have more confidence in lawmakers because they are accountable to the public, but by the same token, I also find them less trustworthy because they are likely to make decisions based on what gets them elected, not what is truly just and right. Courts aren't accountable to the public, usually, but because of that they do not depend on votes to stay in office, and therefore have more freedom to make decisions based on justice, not popular opinion.
A good deal of the time, public opinion is simply wrong.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at January 3, 2005 01:57 PMSimply put: I'd be more optimistic if LEGISLATURES or governors in these red states had pushed through something sensible like this.
Posted by: Brian at January 3, 2005 11:12 AMI'd like to be as optimistic as you but it's worth noting that in both cases, these decisions were made by the judiciary. That one or a handful of judges should decency is hardly an indication of a sea-change in public opinion. Judicial decisions that are too far ahead of public opinion risk provoking a politically-inspired backlash as evidenced by the dozen or so state referenda that approved anti-gay constitutional amendments.
Posted by: Brian at January 3, 2005 11:11 AMJill,
What you propose is pretty much what I've written about over the past year or so on this site. My thought is that the best way to combat the far religious right is to adopt their tactics and strategies, and turn those against them. Pretty much that was what the religious right did to gain power - they looked at how liberal groups gained momentum decades ago, and adopted some of those "grassroots" ideas. It worked.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at January 3, 2005 09:21 AMWhile this is great news, I still fear for the future as the Bush administration seems determined to load the benches with conservative judges. I fear that logical, balanced opinions like these may diminish in the future. Perhaps we need to discuss the most effective ways to stop right-wing groups as they continue their quest to legislate morality.
Posted by: Jill Wenzel at January 3, 2005 09:00 AM