I find it hard to believe (0.00 / 0)

there would be a lot of backlash against establishing civil unions in Hawaii. Someone with more knowledge of local politics, set me straight if I'm wrong.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 00:02:09 AM UTC

Let me try this one (0.00 / 0)

As a GENERAL proposition, you are correct. The adamant, anti-civil unions view is the minority view. For all the visibility of the "redshirts" when bussed in from their churches, they are primarily hardline born-again Protestants. They probably constitute about 20% of the population.

The Catholic Church is the largest denomination in Hawaii. They lend their prestige to the effort and help finance it, but except for the Latin Mass reactionaries and a few grandmothers, the Catholic base ignores the Bishop and is much more tolerant than the born-agains.

Each legislative district, however, has its own demographics. Some of the newer "Hope Chapel"-style megachurches are located in or next to some districts and may be able to knock off a pro-civil unions incumbent, IF that incumbent is otherwise vulnerable. Some legislators are liked enough, either due to their personalities or their record, so as to NOT be vulnerable. And some legislators tend to be "worry worts" each time elections approach.

Regardless of how the vote went, pro-civil union legislators stood to face some opposition from the religious right this fall. Will the Right be appeased by their capitulation? Or will it be emboldened? Since they know the issue will resurface in 2011, why would the Right not still be motivated to try to knock off those liberal legislators who they have identified as gay-friendly?

If/when one or two gay-friendly legislators go down to defeat in the fall, that will cause the remaining legislators to cower ever more, using those defeats as "evidence" of how politically dangerous the issue is.

I am in the camp who says the safest thing, once the issue came up, would have been to pass it quickly, make it a "done deal" and let the heat of the issue dissipate as other issues, like the budget crisis and school furloughs replace civil unions on the front page of the paper and in the minds of the voters.

---

by: Kolea @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 00:14:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Do those state-centered drives actually do some good? (0.00 / 0)

Sry, Adam, but I'm really becoming weary about one failed state initiative after enough. Imho, at this point, it would be a good idea for LGBTs to take a time out for discussing the grand strategy. I mean, come on, it becomes increasingly apparent that the state centered appoach only leads to one lost battle after another! How long can the movement stand this constant stream of bad new, before breaing up? Doesn't the dissappointment aleady reaches a critical level where flks simply resign and don't care anymore?

I dunno, but I'm concerned that it may be the case that the eequirements for wnning simply aren't there. Wouldn't it be better to use the energy of the activists and donations for a national public relation campaign to inform the public about the issue, the problems of same sex couples, and the injustices they face? Really, wouldn't that be more effective than wasting millions for one failed initiative after another? Just wondering...

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 11:52:13 AM UTC

Really, if you boil it down, what's the reason for the constant defeats? (0.00 / 0)

It's the lack of public support for LGBT isusses! And no amount of pushing can change that in the short term. So, wouldn't it be better to go for a long term strategy?

I remember you wrote a story some time ago about the problems with that. Overly optimistic fringe groups inside the movement don't have any patience and stat foights without having any chance to win. That's a problem, ok. But inho the larger goups should show the reason and the strength to not jump into useless skirmishes against overhemling odds.

Just remember, if something has failed before, and you still try the same false approach again and again and again, what's that? Madness.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:01:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

re: strategy (4.00 / 2)

It's the lack of public support for LGBT isusses! And no amount of pushing can change that in the short term. So, wouldn't it be better to go for a long term strategy?

I think stopping the constant pushing would be a mistake

yes, we are losing contests but the margins are becoming better and better. we are making progress

don't we risk stopping that progress and having the public forget the marriage equality message if we stop pushing?

---

by: The Big Hurt @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 20:12:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Battle SHOULD be fought at Local Level (0.00 / 0)

Sorry, but I think ignoring the state-by-state, even city-by-city approach in favor of a national campaign would be a mistake. Obviously, there is work to be done in the national media and at the fereal level to expand equal rights and acceptance of gays and lesbians.

But we have to recognize the uneven development of consciousness, of acceptance. Some states and some cites are more accepting. Why not make gains in those states, passing civil unions where necessary, full marriage equality where possible? Every state which makes a legislative advance, encourages those in other states. As gay marriage becomes legalized and commonplace, even if its across a state border, moderates relax their phobias and open their hearts and minds. People travel or have family in more liberal states. Acceptance spreads.

We should consolidate victories everywhere we can.

And I guess I disagree that there have been a string of failures in state level struggles. Even Prop 8 and the vote in Maine are not the disasters some people say. It can be argued that the Same Sex marriage movement was born in Hawaii, without, by the way, the approval or support of the respectable national gay organizations. In a sense, it was "premature." And we lost. And there was a backlash which led to the defeat of some gay-friendly legislators and the passage of the first explicit "defense of traditional marriage constitutional amendments. Even the fear reflected  by the House vote today must be understood as a residual fear from the backlash in the late 90s. The more senior of these legislators remember how some of their colleagues lost their political careers over this issue.

But the audacity for the demand for equal marriage rights in Hawaii caused people AROUND THE WORLD to think it over and ask, Why Not?

So here we are, 17 years later. Some states have passed full marriage equality. Public opinion nationwide is roughly a third in favor of SSM, two thirds in favor of civil unions. In those states where support is already approaching 50%, it makes sense to push for full marriage equality legislation. Even Prop 8 and the Maine vote showed almost half their people support full marriage equality! From my perspective, that is amazing progress.

And it started as the unrealistic project of a "fringe group" in Hawaii.

---

by: Kolea @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 13:02:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"We should consolidate victories everywhere we can" Ok. (4.00 / 1)

But we don't. Why? There is something seiously wrong with the "strategy"! Prolly that there is NO stategy. It's a skirmish here, a fight there, without any guidance or long term reasoning behind that. And dividing the forces, the arms, and the ammunition inevitably results in losing again and again and again. Where's the upside in that? I don't see any.

"Even Prop 8 and the vote in Maine are not the disasters some people say."
Aw, come on, no spin pls! 'Hey folks, it wasn't so bad, we only lost a feet, not both legs as the last time!'. D'oh.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 13:13:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There are MULTIPLE Strategies Instead of Just One (4.00 / 1)

You say we should all agree on a common national strategy.

Let's reflect on this a bit. Which national organization should be in a position to determine the ONE strategy you desire? HRC and Lamba Legal are two prominent groups, but both of them have to be sensitive to the desires of local activists and not be seen as trying to impose their will on those most familiar with local conditions. Let me tell you, there is a delicate balance between "providing support" for a local group and "telling them what to do."

And as I tried to explain in passing, the original Hawaii Marriage Project which sparked the movement for Same Sex Marriage in the US, began as a project in Hawaii. The national groups tried to dissuade the people involved, saying it was "premature" and recommending the focus be shifted to nondiscrimination in housing and employment.

Fortunately, the key activist, Bill Woods, was an ornery, stubborn S.O.B. and pressed ahead, ignoring the superior wisdom of the national-level "experts." Due to the courage of a liberal state Supreme Court majority, a governor, and some key legislators, we got as far as we did. (When I say "we" I am not claiming to have played a significant role in this.)

A backlash was sparked. And it too spread across the country. Our Hawaii legislators still live in fear of it. But the spark from Hawaii helped birth the movement. Each victory on the American continent (or in other countries) will help our legislators eventually overcome their fear. We may, ironically, be one of the last states to ever pass full marriage equality as a result.

On to another of your points:

You are missing something if you dismiss my view of the Prop 8 and Maine votes as an attempt at "spin." Not so. I would have preferred an outright victory in those two states, but I was honestly heartened by what I saw in those results. In his time, Harvey Milk was fighting against an initiative to fire gay teachers. 25 years later, almost half of Californians voted for full marriage equality. I call that progress. Same thing with Maine.

Maybe because I grew up in the ocean, I am strongly influenced by tides, currents and waves, even as I look at social processes. A wave, even a large wave, might only wash  so far up the sand, before receding. But when you know the tide is rising, you know the next large wave will reach higher yet.

The tide is rising. In California, in Maine, in Hawaii and around the globe.

---

by: Kolea @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 01:39:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Really, pls address my central point: What about losing motivation? (4.00 / 1)

Doesn't it result in more and more supporters becoming apathic, and giving up, when you lose in one unwinnable batteel after another? Imho there's only so much defeat people can take. There is a breaking point somehwere.

Really, Kolea, you seem to have a good insight into the stategy (if there's any) of the LGBT groups, so pls adress this major concern!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 13:17:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's a practical problem in any struggle (0.00 / 0)

(I hope I am not coming across as a Yoda wannabe.)

I'm just one mind--well, one person of multiple minds--trying to wrestle with the same set of problems we all are. How to balance frustration and hope? Don't have an easy answer to that. Either for you or for myself.

Speaking about our immediate problem here in Hawaii, I think the most corrosive effect of the vote might be to spread cynicism, apathy and distrust. Or for activists to turn on each other or to start screaming and hollering in counter-productive ways at legislators whose support we will need next year.

Righteous anger is legitimate. I will not pretend it is not. And it has its place. And it is probably good to play "good cop, bad cop" with the legislators. If a few of us yell and scream or HOWL with rage, that is probably useful, provided others have the relationship and credibility to sidle up to the legislators and play the good cop: "Look, there are angry people out there. You and I are friends, but I gotta tell you, I am also deeply disappointed. WTF were you thinking? How can I reassure the other s that you are not going to sell us out next year and the year after that? Help me out here."

The movement is getting resistance because th other side KNOWS this is an issue whose time has come. They are shoveling against the tide. Despite momentary setbacks on the surface, we have to gather strength and confidence from our recognition the public opinion (or if we want to get fancy  about it, "History") is moving in our direction.

I wish that were also true in the anti-war and economic justice movements, but I don't think it is. See, I DON'T engage in mindless "spin" just to try to encourage our troops!

---

by: Kolea @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:02:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me add some thoughts to the other side of the ledger. (4.00 / 2)

Here's what the state-by-state strategy has achieved:

Five states issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples - Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont (and DC will join them soon.)

Other states (having trouble with the google tracking this number down) have civil unions or domestic partnerships.

As frustrating as this all is, the chances of federal action seem remote to me without more progress at the state level. And it is inconceivable to imagine federal action without this progress (not to mention the Hawaii state Supreme Court decision that really raised the prominence of this issue.)

That said, you may be right that there needs to be some rethinking on strategy.  I suspect there are several states that are very close to ready to do this.  We have had a few that seemed to fall just a little short. If a few of those could be flipped, I think it would make a big difference.  How to do that raises some difficult political and organizing questions (part of which involves the long term, short term trade off you mention) that I admittedly don't have the answers for.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 14:19:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"the other side of the ledger"? Hmm, the other side of Heath Ledger? (0.00 / 0)

Bareback mountain? Pun intended?
:D

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 15:04:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not intended (4.00 / 2)

One more point. I continue to believe that a bold, public-oriented campaign to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell would be a great thing for marriage equality.  Repeal is supported by large majorities despite an almost complete absence of persuasion directed towards the public on reform.  

Great strides in civil rights have often come when the military contributions of those treated as second class citizens have come to be recognized.  This leads people to see those second class persons as full and equal human beings, which has obvious relevance for marriage equality.  

I don't suggest replacing marriage equality agitation with this, but I do think DADT's impact on marriage equality is under appreciated, and that trying to change this policy through elite level transactional politics would be an enormous lost political opportunity.

I'm envisioning commercials like this:

One family torn apart by a mother / father / child sent for yet another combat tour (they did their duty, they have sacrificed...)

One service member, forced to leave the job they love, defending the country they love, all because of the person they love.

A veteran, who has seen his / her comrades kicked out despite their special skills (Arab language, etc.) who wants to know why callow politicians are more scared of a gay person than our enemies

Civil rights and equality are on the same side as national security - on the other side is hate and political opportunism - Congress must act now.

As the president is fond of saying, this is a fight I'd love to have.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 15:16:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yup. That would be good tactic now. (0.00 / 0)

Concentrate on one issue, and really make a touchdown with it. The time is ripe for stopping DADT. Afaik the publiuc would support that. So, if LGBTs  really focussed now on this issue, without letting themselves distracted by small scale state skrimishes, they could really score on that one, imho. And that would be a much needed motivational boost for the base, too, of course!

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 17:04:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't suggest solely focusing on DADT (4.00 / 1)

For one thing, activists simply won't go for it. It's not hard to understand - I wouldn't be willing to to wait if I was denied the right to marry my partner.  For another, I think longer term work on marriage equality matters - even if not tied to an immediate vote.  It's far more difficult to fight these battles only once a vote or ballot initiative is coming up. The groundwork has to be laid.  Lastly, I do think that we are close to a tipping point - a few more victories will have a real big difference.

As I said, I'm all for rethinking strategy, but I do continue to support seeking change at the state level (as well.)

But some for both LBGT groups and progressives more generally, DADT is a golden opportunity that so far is largely being wasted.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 13:57:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This was NOT a Surprise (4.00 / 1)

While the particular maneuver used was a surprise, the failure of the House to pass the bill was predicted by many at the close of last year's session in May 2009. The "structural logic" of the situation made it extremely likely.

At the start of the 2009 legislative session, in a surprise move, the House passed a strong, well-written civil union bill by a 33-17 vote. The Senate President, Colleen Hanabusa posed as a good friend of the bill. But as time went on, it became clear she was working behind the scenes to stall the bill and prevent it from passing. When a group of more liberal senators made a move to force the bill onto the floor for consideration against Hanabusa's wishes, her allies deliberately amended the bill in a fashion which made it impossible to pass the bill in time for consideration by the House.

The 2009 session ended with Hanabusa, and some of her key allies, being held in very low regard by the GLBT and liberal communities.

Forward to 2010. Hanabusa is running for US Congress against Blue Dog Democrat ED Case to fill the seat being vacated by the liberal Neil Abercrombie. While Ed is a corporate shill on economic issues and a neoCon on foreign policy, he is quite liberal on reproductive rights and LGBT issues. In order to have a chance of beating Case, Hanabusa must repair her relations with the GLBT and liberal voters. Also, she had made some of her key allies very upset at the end of 2009 by forcing them to help kill the civil unions bill. They want redemption as well.

So in 2010, Hanbusa reverses things, calls a quick vote on HB444 and sends it over to the House. The House leadership is pissed. They are supportive of the issue, but had explicitly told Hanabusa, "Not in an election year." People gotta understand. State senators face re-election eveery four years, so only half their members at risk each election. All the House members are at risk every election, so IF they are going to deal wit h a potentially risky issue, they want to deal with it in the non-election years.

So many of us knew, and were predicting, the chances of passing HB444 in 2010 were pretty poor. But what are you going to do, NOT call for its passage? NOT be optimistic and encourage supporters to be optimistic as well? Accept excuses from legislators for refusing to "do the right thing" no matter where in the election cycle they are? What are you, some sort of DEFEATIST?

So today, a lot of CU advocates are frustrated and angry. Rightfully so. The Democratic majority succumbed to cowardice. Even those of us who had cautioned about expecting any success those many months ago, dared to believe it was possible and share that anger.

But it really should be aimed at Hanabusa much more than at the House.

Of course, YMMV.

---

by: Kolea @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:27:25 PM UTC

Hanabusa or Case? A cynical carreerist or a BlueDog? (0.00 / 0)

That's the ugly choice? D'oh.

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:45:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmm. Does't DEFEAT come from engaging in unwinnable battles? (0.00 / 0)

Isn't that the "best" way to discourage people, to force them into giving up after suffering from one lost fight after another? Really isn't that "strategy" totally counterproductive?

---

by: Gray @ Sat Jan 30, 2010 at 12:49:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]