|
I wrote a post a few days ago outlining some thoughts on a discussion around state strategy vs. federal strategy to winning LGBT equality. A few follow-up thoughts came from that, and I want to take a minute to outline them here.
In the post, I discussed how winning victories at the state level is necessary to winning at the federal level, and how multiple victories have been obtained at the state level. I want to give a little time to the argument that those who live in very anti-LGBT states with little or no investment in infrastructure can only find equality through the federal path, and are actually hurt by some state-focused efforts.
My friend and colleague Bil Browning, who lives in Indiana, argued here that (a) winning marriage in places like Massachusetts has actually hurt in Indiana, losing an opportunity for hate crimes and employment protections, and forcing all resources towards fighting off an amendment (b) Indiana will never get rights/protections anytime soon except through the federal path.
I don't quarrel with much of that. On the other hand, passing marriage equality in Maine, while it may renew the haters' fight in Indiana for a constitutional amendment, also energizes advocates elsewhere and sends important signals across the country. Call it conventional wisdom, but I believe a big reason New Hampshire and Maine (very narrowly) legalized marriage equality through legislation is because the Iowa Supreme Court did so unanimously on April 3. The first vote in the NH Senate on April 29 was just 13-11. A publicly hand-wringing Gov. Lynch finally signed the bill after sending it back to the legislature. On April 30th, the vote in the Maine Senate was 20-15. Gov. Baldacci went through his own period of refusing to state his position until finally signing the bill. I can't prove it, but I suspect there are legislators who, like many of my straight friends and colleagues said to me, said "well, if a place like Iowa can...". I think what happened in Iowa barely nudged the other states across the finish line.
Movement in various states, can and will eventually bring equality to other states. To their credit, Bil and the team at The Bilerico Project are even on their way to raising $5,000 for the Maine fight, even though a win may set back efforts in Indiana. One good reason for doing so is, like I argued in my previous post, that it's essential for many states to enact pro-equality measures before we have the votes at the federal level. The best measure for whether a member of Congress will vote for something like employment protections is to look at their own state. That means investing in Maine, even if it will hurt you in Indiana, is a necessary evil, especially since your path to equality is via Congress.
Marriage equality, like other issues in our movement, is a mixed bag that can vastly advance equality for many and cause a backlash for others, like Bil says it did in Indiana. The same is true of many issues the first time they hit the papers. The Dade County, FL ordinance that banned discrimination against gays and lesbians led to Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign, the success of which prompted the Briggs Initiative in California. Backlashes will happen regardless. It doesn't mean Dade County legislators never should have done the right thing. On the whole, our movement needs to advance equality in as many places as possible, not be worried about the backlash from fighting battles that need to be won. Investing in state-based approaches yields real fruit that can bring equality to other states- as Iowa did- as well as lay the groundwork for Congress to take action.
|
STATE BLOGS
