I commented here and here that President Bush’s effort to write antigay discrimination into the U.S. Constitution had sparked a creative backlash.
In San Francisco this weekend, the backlash took the form of longtime gay couples from across the nation formalizing their commitment by obtaining long overdue marriage licenses — in apparent violation of a California state law denying government recognition of gay citizens’ marriages.
In cyberspace, that backlash became personal on Friday. John Aravosis and Robin Tyler on Friday launched DearMary.com, a warning shot at the family of Vice President Cheney.
Question: Are either or both forms of backlash constructive?
Here’s the press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 13, 2004
Contact:
John Aravosis, John@DontAmend.com, Co-Chair, DontAmend.com
DEARMARY.COM TAKES GAY MARRIAGE BATTLE TO VICE PRESIDENT
VP’s lesbian daughter Mary now center of amendment debate
www.DearMary.com
WASHINGTON, DC – A new Web site today thrust US Vice President Dick Cheney’s openly lesbian daughter Mary to the center of the nationwide debate over gay marriage. DearMary.com is soliciting public letters to Mary Cheney that will be published on the Web site and in nationwide newspaper and magazine ads paid for by money raised via the site.
“DearMary.com brings the battle home for Dick Cheney, literally,” said John Aravosis, creator of the Web site and national co-chair of DontAmend.com, a national civil rights organization opposing any effort
to add anti-gay amendments to the US Constitution (DearMary.com is a project of DontAmend.com.)
“If the Vice President thinks gay relationships are such a threat to society that we need to amend the US Constitution, then he needs to explain why a lesbian in a same-sex relationship is running his re-
election campaign,” Aravosis added. “Are we a threat or aren’t we?”
Mary Cheney, 34, has been openly lesbian for years, and worked as a “professional homosexual” advocating for the gay community while working as the paid gay liaison at Coors, and while serving on the
board of the national Republican gay rights group, the Republican Unity Coalition (RUC). Mary Cheney has since quit the RUC and now runs her father’s re-election campaign where she is reportedly earning $100,000 a year (source: Washington Post).
“Mary Cheney is a lesbian in a committed relationship,” said Robin Tyler, national co-chair of DontAmend.com. “Even though she cannot take responsibility for her father’s actions, she can and should take responsibility for her own. Just because her father is the vice president is beside the point. Is it moral for Vice President Cheney to put his boss before the welfare of his family? It is time for the
child to have the courage to publicly stand up to the father and say, ‘don’t do this, it is just plain wrong.’ Other children in far less privileged positions have done it. So, where is Mary Cheney?”
During the 2000 election, then vice presidential candidate Cheney said during a debate that he believed the gay marriage issue should be left to the states. Just a few weeks ago in an interview with the Colorado press, VP Cheney flip-flopped, saying he’d now support a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
“Vice President Cheney attacks our families, yet seems to think his family is irrelevant to the debate,” said Aravosis. “The vice president is a hypocrite. He is selling his daughter to the highest bidder in the name of ‘family values.’ The American people have a right to know that this man is no role model for our families or our nation.”
DearMary.com is a project of DontAmend.com and the Equality Campaign, Inc. We are a national grassroots campaign devoted to stopping any amendment to the US Constitution that would ban marriage equality for the LGBT community. DontAmend.com was founded by veteran civil rights advocates Robin Tyler and John Aravosis, who also where cofounders of the successful StopDrLaura.com campaign targeting anti-gay radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
– 30 –
Does the name Judge Roy Moore mean anything? Because Judge Moore chose to ignore the law, the public display of the Ten Commandments was set back. There is a big difference between what happened in San Francisco and what will happen in Provincetown. One is legal and the other isn’t. Government officials who flaunt the law will in the end hurt those people they purport to support. In this case, there will be a backlash in favor of antigay constitutional amendments because of the perception that the proponents are lawless.
My last sentence should have been:
In this case, there will be a backlash in favor of antigay constitutional amendments because of the perception that the proponents *of gay marriage* are lawless.
I agree there are similarities to the Roy Moore/Ten Commandments issue — and differences.
Both sets of protesters were intent on thwarting established legal provisions because they felt the provisions were extremely unjust and that basic American and human rights were being violated.
In the case of the 10C, protesters felt that their faith was being outlawed because one symbol of it was not permitted to stand alone on public property.
In the case of S.F., thousands of gay couples were fed up with the liberal and gay-conservative activists and politicians — from Barney Frank and John Kerry on down to the relatively powerless progressives at NGLTF — who were encouraging the couples to be shut up about marriage and settle for employment rights.
The couples felt that the nation is about to enact a constitutional amendment that explicitly nullifies most of their existing rights as couples — their health benefits, their property rights, their custodial rights, ANY “incident of marriage” established under any federal or state law.
It’s a fact: No matter what the drafters of the FMA intended — and they disagree among themselves — that’s how broadly and recklessly the FMA is written.
Acting against the advice of activists, whose efforts thus far to stop the FMA have been ineffectual, the mayor of San Francisco and thousands of gay couples acted on their own. The mayor says that California’s DOMA law violates the state’s constitution. That, of course, will have to be decided now by California’s courts.
As with past civil-disobedience movements for religious and racial civil rights, there is a sense among gay couples (not the activists) that if the nation’s laws can be turned against them so cruelly and unjustly, then such laws are illegitimate and will be ignored.
I said in another post, and I’ll repeat here, that I wish the couples well and hope for the best, but I also think it’s incredibly sad that America can’t work through its disagreements without taking away the rights of anyone who is unpopular. Without equality for all, the legal system loses its integrity.
Rich, if a pending constitutional amendment were to nullify all your rights as a husband and father — and your wife’s rights — then I think you and your neighbors, and your friends in church, might feel the same way as those gay couples do.
P.S. Whether spontaneous civil disobedience will be constructive, I think, depends on what one believes the prospects for the FMA already are.
For some, it is a foregone conclusion that the FMA will pass. After all, 38 states have already passed DOMA laws and state constitutional amendments.
Whether or not the marriages are constructive in consequence, they are seen by some gays, quite honestly, as a “Rosa Parks moment” in which the truth of their relationships stares down unjust laws — at least temporarily. Like Rosa Parks, these couples didn’t ask for permission from lawmakers or committees of activists. They simply acted because it was the right thing to do.
My comments concern the mayor of San Francisco and not those who took advantage of the situation he created. In no way am I saying any of the emotions involved are illegitimate.
Under California domestic partnership laws these couples have some rights. I believe your analysis of CMA is sound and would render those limited rights as unconstitutional.
The civil disobedience here is not couples getting marriage licenses. They are disobeying nothing. The civil disobedience of the mayor, on the other hand, could undo all you are working for. Citizens can voice their greivances and demonstrate against injustice. Elected officials must behave inside the constraints of the law. As much as it feels otherwise, I do not believe the mayor of San Francisco is acting in your best interest.
I agree with you about the mayor to some extent. My guess (from 3,000 miles away) is that he’s being honest about being motivated by the ugliness of the State of the Union address — but the Chronicle coverage strongly indicates that he’s also seeking to one-up his more liberal political rivals, bigtime.
Two friends of mine from Southern California, who have been a couple since about 1980, are waiting in line in San Francisco now. They have hoped and planned to marry for years. And I’m very much in favor of them getting married. One of the two sees getting married agnostically in terms of love, family and commitment. The other is motivated by those factors as well as by faith. I wasn’t able to talk with them much on the cell phone yesterday, but I imagine the second of them sees the particular timing of their marriage as very much a matter of Christian civil disobedience against an unjust law, even if it’s the county clerk or mayor who’s technically breaking the law.
I am not normally in favor of elected officials violating state law, but in this case I support Newsom, because he is trying, at least legally, to deal with a conflict between state law and the state Constitution. When the state law is unconstitutional, at what point should elected officials refuse to cooperate with it? And shouldn’t their decision at least in part be based on the potential damage of their actions?
In this case we have an act of civil disobedience that harms absolutely no one, and demonstrates to the American people that gays and lesbians are alive, well, and desperate for marriage – so much so that they will sit in the rain all night just for the potential to be married.
Judge Roy Moore not only violated the law, he violated clear precedents from the Supreme Court and attempted to cloak his secular job in his own religious interpretation (there is more than one version of the 10C, so by choosing the one he did, Moore was explicitly choosing a religion to promote), which did real damage to the chances for justice of anyone who did not follow his religion. There is a world of difference in their actions.
I wanted to take some time in order to properly answer the personal question of what if I had a relationship that was not recognized by the state and wanted to take away or continue to take away the rights that go along with marriage.
Just as your friend’s faith informed him towards civil disobedience, my faith informs me that the government’s opinion does not change the fact that I am married. I did not take an oath to the government. When I belonged to a different denomination I took an oath to be a lay officer. The government in no way recognized no confered any rights or benefits upon me because of it. If I failed in my responsibility I would have been tried in an ecclesiastical court. The reality of things was not constrained by the government’s opinion.
The intensity of the fight on both sides over the word marriage puzzles me. As usual the other side sees the opposite’s bad arguments more clearly. Your being married does not take away from heterosexual marriage. Likewise the government not calling a civil union marriage does not make it not a marriage. So, if it was me whose rights had been violated I would fight for the rights but not for the word. If the losing the lexical battle allows me to obtain my rights all the better because I have truly given up nothing.
I understand and appreciate the intensity of emotion that calls for the all or nothing position and I don’t fault people who hold that view. But, if it was me the all position adds so little to the middle position that I wouldn’t risk it where I would have nothing.
P.S. I would have worded your last comment as follows:
“Two friends of mine from Southern California, who have been married since about 1980, are waiting in line in San Francisco now to get that marriage recognized.”
The government can only compel your behavior, it cannot control what you think.
Cpt. Doom, for any communication there is what you say, what you intended to say, and what is heard. From my vantage point, what you intend to say to straight America through what is happening in San Francisco appears to me to be vastly different than what is being heard.
Straight America does not question the intensity of the gay rights movement, but they do question its reasonableness. They also question the reasonableness of the Religious Right, BTW. I predict whomever is the most strident and unreasonable (in the perception of the majority of Americans) will lose this fight.
Getting back to the Roy Moore example. Did Americans doubt that Roy Moore REALLY REALLY wanted a Ten Commandments monument and that he was willing to give up his career for it? No, the intensity that Roy Moore wanted to communicate to the American public only convinced them that he was loony. Moore was tolerated only as long as he appeared reasonable. So, if you want to win the hearts and minds of America, you will need to make sure that you don’t repeat Moore’s mistake.
Rich, I think a lot of people realize that, especially the activists and policy analysts.
The movement toward gay marriage began without them, though, and they have not succeeded in getting ahead of the grassroots groundswell and steering it in a direction that will demonstrate patience, self-assurance, determination, and reason.
I’m glad folks are getting married, and I can identify with the couples’ decisions. If it turns out the events in S.F. develop into a strategic disaster, then sooner or later we will see the Democrats, HRC and NGLTF wagging their fingers at the nation’s gay couples (many of them comparatively conservative) and saying, “We told you so!!” and demanding that the couples and gay-affirming churches march in step with the policy groups in the future.
But for better AND worse, I don’t think that level of political discipline is likely with glbt’s. They are far too diverse a population, with nothing in common politically, religiously, ethnically, culturally. The idea that we are led around by left-leaning activists and politicians reading “After the Ball” has always been a myth: a dream of the religious right, a very laughworthy joke to everyone else.
While I value the diversity and disagreements among sexual minorities, I hope I’m wrong here and I hope the policy groups find a message and a strategic plan that everyone will find compelling and unite around.
Political discipline is a rare commodity regardless of your position. Social conservatives have the same infighting between the radicals and the pragmatists. If you think you all hate Carl Rove, you haven’t seen what the “true believers” think of him. The old Will Rogers line is universally applicable: I’m not a member of an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.
Rich, at a time like this I just keep thinking of Harvey Milk, who insisted (much to his credit, in hindsight) that the debacle with Anita Bryant and her bigotry in 1977 was a blessing for gay people – sure the immediate effect was to overturn a law, but all across America people had to discuss and figure out their feelings about gay people.
In the same way, even if the marriages in SF are overturned, this is only good for gay people. I have only been out 3 1/2 years, but before I came out I would never have thought that gay marriage would burst upon the scene the way it has. 4 years ago, you wouldn’t have heard anyone state the gay marriage could be legal in the US in 5 years, and here it is. And despite all their protestations, all their chicken-little “sky is falling” lies and slanders, the religious right cannot stop gay marriage. They can force it to pause, but can never stop it. All across America over the last few weeks, gay marriage has been discussed and debated, within homes and in public. Legislators who laughed at the concept of “civil unions” a few years ago are now desperately clinging to that idea as a way to “save” marriage – what a huge change.
I was all for “civil unions” until very recently – now I want the whole enchilada. Why? Because so many people, even ones who are relatively supportive, are so intent on keeping that word for straight people only. There is a deep desire on the part of a lot of Americans to maintain the belief that straight is better than gay, and I don’t think we should be aiding in that kind of discrimination. The government should never pre-judge someone, declaring them unworthy or less worthy, simply because of who they are.
Rich said: In this case, there will be a backlash in favor of antigay constitutional amendments because of the perception that the proponents are lawless.
Apparently they ARE lawless…
Eddie Sandifer, president of Mississippi’s Gay and Lesbian Alliance, said, “Anyone who knows me knows that I’m gonna raise hell til I get my way and I’m gonna do whatever I wanna do regardless of the law.”
https://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=1648126&nav=2CSfKrli
CPT_Doom at February 17, 2004 10:56 AM
>I am not normally in favor of elected officials violating state law, but in this case I support Newsom, because he is trying, at least legally, to deal with a conflict between state law and the state Constitution
It is often forgotten that judicial review is just that–review. Review of acts of the legislature as well as acts of the executive. If neither acts, there is nothing for the judiciary to review. They could have proceeded by having the relevant governmental official (the town clerk?) refuse to grant a marriage license, have the agent be taken to court, and have the court determine the constitutionality of the official’s action. Or they could have the official issue the marriage license and have someone who could allege standing to challenge the action file suit. SF chose to do the latter. Violation of state law? (I doubt if it would be considered such in a criminal sense.) Well, I guess we’ll find out. Someday–it has been reported that at least one court hearing the case won’t issue anything before Friday.
>Judge Roy Moore not only violated the law…
Moore’s “crime”–if you will–was that he violated a direct court order, one that had been affirmed by an appellate court. And as a result, he brought the judiciary into disrepute. He would not have been removed if he had obeyed the court order pending appeal to the US Supreme Court. But he did not. That was the reason that he was removed from office.
I don’t know whether you know this, but the fact is that judges in Alabama are elected. I’m sure that Moore will be back. In another political office. Rumor that I read was that he was contemplating running for the US Senate. He made his mark as a small town judge on the “ten commandments” issue. He isn’t dumb–in fact, he is quite intelligent. He knows how to play the electorate in Alabama like Yitzahk Perlman can play the violin.
Rich at February 17, 2004 11:15 AM
>Likewise the government not calling a civil union marriage does not make it not a marriage.
I used to agree with you, but experience has proven that this is incorrect. The fact is that more that cases have been brought in more than a few states by people who have been “civil unionized” in Vermont, and, except in one case, the courts have rejected the notion that civil unions are marriages. And given the fact that “marriage” has implications in international treaties, the idea that “civil unions” would be treated as marriages is highly dubious.
BTW, some of us have a little bit longer memory than you seem to give us credit for. We recall full well the venom that was unleashed by the religious right in Vermont against those who had voted in favor of civil unions. So do you really believe that your side wouldn’t do that elsewhere?
States that have DOMAs will be no more likely to recognize marriages than civil unions. Part of the problem is that is coming from out of state. One of the reasons the FMA is being contemplated is precisely these kinds of court actions.
Of course the Religous Right is going to have venom against civil unions because they expect and predict that civil unions would be a lever to get gay marriage in other states. So, go ahead and make the Religious Right look reasonable by making their slippery slope arguments come true.
Moore and the mayor of San Francisco said PRECISELY the same thing. Namely, they took an oath to uphold the constitution of the state of California/Alabama and provisions in said constitution(s) allowed them to ignore a state law/court order. They also have in common that neither had the jurisdiction to determine whether their respective interpretations of their state constitutions were valid. They both had the right to be litigants but neither had the right to judge the matter.
To change the analogy a little, you will note that the ACLU didn’t take the law into their own hands and removed the monument themselves. They sued in Federal court. Likewise, the mayor of San Francisco should have sued the State of California claiming the law was unconstitutional.
I suppose that Rich would actually believe that the ACLU would hire a crain to have Roy’s Rock (which, as anyone knows, didn’t actually have the text of any ten commandments) removed.
Oh, please, give us a break.
Huh? I was saying that the ACLU did not and would not do that. Such possibilities are not off the table for others, though. For example, during the Casper City Council debate concerning Fred Phelp’s threatened monument one council member stated that they would look the other way if somebody just happened to destroy it.
My point is that if we are going to be principled we need BOTH principled ends and principled means. Let me repeat for clarity, my comments on this thread are limited to the politicians involved and not those standing in line in the rain.
Doesn’t anyone have anything to say about DearMary.com? That was half the topic of this page. 😀
I don’t have a comment on DearMary.com–although when I get some time I’d have a comment on Rich’s last post (possibly a semi-apology–I may have misinterpreted his point). The fact is that Mary Cheney thrust herself into the limelight, and now a bit of it appears to be coming back to bite her. “Dr” Laura did something similar (is she still on the radio?). She made her pact with the devil, while attempting to entice the gay community (such as it is) and she can live with it.
What’s reported at https://www.365gay.com/newscon04/02/021804gayVote.htm may be of interest.
Ok, I’ll comment on Dear Mary.
[tongue-in-cheek]
I believe children of politicians retain their Miranda rights. They have the right to remain silent, and they have the right to have an attorney present when speaking to the press, because they know anything they say can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.
[end tongue-in-cheek]
I looked up the Denver Post article and it said that Cheney would support the President’s [future] decision but that he still preferred his original position. He also declined to disclose the advice he has given the President. Here’s the quote to support my analysis:
“What I said in 2000 was that the question of whether or not some sort of status, legal status or sanction ought to be granted in the case of a relationship between two individuals of the same sex was historically a matter the states had decided and resolved, and that is the way I preferred it,” Cheney said.
But “at this stage, obviously, the president is going to have to make a decision in terms of what administration policy is on this particular provision, and I will support whatever decision he makes.”
Cheney declined to say whether he has discussed the issue of same- sex marriage with the president, or has shared his perspective as the parent of a gay daughter.
“I don’t talk about the advice I give the president,” Cheney said. “That is why he listens.”
The article on MSNBC today said the following:
“President Bush on Wednesday said he was “troubled” by San Francisco’s same-sex wedding spree, but he declined to say whether he was prepared to back a constitutional ban on such vows.”
So, the President has yet to back the FMA for over six months now but if he does the San Francisco situation will be his political cover. Reading between the lines, it is possible that the President’s hesitancy to commit even with all the pressure from the Religious Right and fellow Republicans may be because of what advice he is getting from the Vice President.