Progressive agenda being hijacked in favor of gay rights?

[evanrick]

Progressive agenda being hijacked in favor of gay rights?

This is a point I made in an earlier thread. It seems gay rights have taken great strides in recent months and years. But what price have we paid for these gains?

Have we been too focused on gaining equality that other important things have been ignored? Things like...

• End wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
  
• Single Payer Health-care
  
• Reform Campaign finance

 

[rareboy]

Nope.

The gains in gay rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the inactivity on these other issues. The progressive agenda has hardly been hijacked by the homos, compared to the binding and gagging it has suffered from the corporate owners of the US and their expedient and spineless minions in government.

I certainly can't remember a point over the last 3 years where any branch has said 'Hang onto that good thought about ending wars while we spend our time ensuring basic civil rights for homos'. In fact, next to the pre-occupations with Weiner's cockshots and what they mean to the security and economic stability of the US, homo rights is way, way down there as a distraction on most days.

It may also be somewhat somewhat ingenuous to suggest that all homos have been only focused on getting DOMA repealed (it isn't yet), getting DADT enacted (it isn't yet) or getting equal rights across the US (need I even say it), at the expense of the other issues. Most that I know are quite capable of multi-tasking and find they can be just as vocal and involved in the issues you raise as they are in gaining the same rights as heterosexuals.

The advances that homos have made in the US are pitifully small steps that are hobbled at every turn by the fundamentalists and the political opportunists.

 

[hotatlboi]

No.

End wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Obama decided to keep those going, had nothing to do with gay rights. He could have ended them (hopefully he still will).

Single Payer Health-care

The Dems could not even pass a public option with the White House, the House, and 60 votes in the Senate. Single payer is a non-starter.

Reform Campaign finance

Citizens United decision pretty much makes this a lost cause.

 

[Kulindahr]

[*]Reform Campaign finance[/LIST]

Every effort at so-called campaign finance so far has actually been an attempt to stifle free speech, so excuse me if I'm not thrilled with anything new on that page.

Just as an example, most progressives are angry about the Citizens United decision -- which shows they don't understand what it was about: had it gone the other way, the foundation would have been set for what the authors of the law in question had been aiming for, namely giving Congress the authority to decide which citizens may and which may not participate in free speech concerning elections. It would have said that anyone who produced any media piece which mentioned a candidate would be a criminal if that piece were used during an election. It would have meant that during elections, no group of citizens could band together and advertise for or against any candidate -- not Planned Parenthood, not the Sierra Club, not the Human Rights Campaign, not the Alliance for Separation of Church and State, not the ACLU. And it would have set things up for a step some were just waiting to try: to give Congress the authority to shut down any entity but officially recognized media if anything resembling campaigning took place on or through it -- and yes, that means the internet; only "legitimate media organizations" would be able to even have discussions about candidates during elections.


Anyway, I don't think anything's been set aside; I think people tried to do whatever they could, and what we have is the way the cards fell. On the flip side, though, I'd be willing to see no progress at all on gay rights for five years if it meant one specific item could get accomplished: a constitutional amendment defining "person" as a living human being, and specifying that political rights in the United States belong only to those persons who are citizens or legal residents, thus barring all non-persons from participation, direct or indirect, in the political process.

 

[DesperateHouseHusband]

Nope.

The gains in gay rights have nothing whatsoever to do with the inactivity on these other issues. The progressive agenda has hardly been hijacked by the homos, compared to the binding and gagging it has suffered from the corporate owners of the US and their expedient and spineless minions in government.

I certainly can't remember a point over the last 3 years where any branch has said 'Hang onto that good thought about ending wars while we spend our time ensuring basic civil rights for homos'. In fact, next to the pre-occupations with Weiner's cockshots and what they mean to the security and economic stability of the US, homo rights is way, way down there as a distraction on most days.

Exactly. And on the corporate agenda front, the reason why there have been some small steps taken forward on gay rights both in several states and even on the federal level is that corporations (with a few exceptions) have largely signed onto gay rights, due in part to the fact that organizations like the Human Rights Campaign have been focused on getting corporate backing for gay rights for years, and avoid advocating for any causes that would cause corporations to give up the tiniest share of profits. It's similar to how many corporations backed and even subsidized Obama's presidency. They know that neither Obama nor the most prominent gay rights activists will do too much to interfere with corporate doctrine as long as they are indebted to them at every turn. A sad state of affairs, really.

 

[BostonPirate]

finally a president keeps his promise to the gay community three times over now, and it is just our time for it.

The public supports the advancement of gay civil rights and as the younger voters start countering the oldest generation, simply became acceptable to the majority of americans.

The other stuff on that list had nothing to do with all that other stuff up there.

 

[chance1]

i don't get the thread- at all

it's great that gay marriage and gays in the military are MORE popular with the public

sounds like in my state (NY) things are looking good

but those issues have nothing to do with fighting wars or health care - there's no list of issues and the idea that only some can get done and others have to be given up

so

apples and oranges

and not sure that "ending wars" is such a great idea unless what's left is sustainable

gonna be very interesting to see what pres. obama does about his pledge for a july 2011 draw down of troops

 

[DesperateHouseHusband]

i don't get the thread- at all

<snip>

but those issues have nothing to do with fighting wars or health care - there's no list of issues and the idea that only some can get done and others have to be given up

so

apples and oranges

A conservative especially would see it that way. Some liberals might also, but most liberals at least would be honest in noting that gay rights was on the progressive radar long before moderates and even a handful of conservatives got on board. The Human Rights Campaign understands the need for the short term progress on gay rights over the larger picture in terms of a progressive agenda and that's why they backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic primary even though Lamont supported gay marriage, something that Lieberman still does not do. Pointing to the fact that a broad-based progressive agenda is not in the charter or mission statement of organizations like HRC may seem to support the assertion that gay rights and other progressive agenda items are "apples and oranges". But some of us still remember who have always been the true champions of gay rights and fought longer and harder for us -- progressives.

 

[hotatlboi]

Someone should begin a court case surrounding marriage equality ASAP, so that we can take it to the Supreme Court that much faster. Having to do this state-by-state could mean more fiscal horror shows.

You don't think that was the motivation for Olson/Boies in the Perry case? You don't get to the Supreme Court "asap", you have to start in a federal district court then wait years, which is what they did/are doing.

Gay rights groups had avoided the federal courts before that case, feeling that the chances before the supreme court were not that great. Olson/Boies said they thought that had changed and that they could now win there. Some people expressed doubts but since then more cases have been filed in federal court.

 

[andysayshi]

One would hope the President and his administration can concentrate on more than one issue at a time.

Especially considering the "grandiose salaries" they're earning.

 

[evanrick]

I think this thread raises a really good point.

It appears as if gay marriage in New York was only achieved because of compromises made on the New York state budget, which was surprisingly anti-progressive in some respects. Andrew Cuomo is getting a lot of praise from gay rights groups, but he's now being described as having more in common with Chris Christie than he has with any other neighboring governor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...mo-liberal-hero/2011/03/04/AG32xiqH_blog.html



This comes just months after DADT was passed due to...

You guess it: Obama's decision to extend Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy.

If this trend continues, the well-being of this country (i.e. the economy at large) will be sacrificed in favor of gay rights advances.

This just highlights the advantages of fighting this battle through the judiciary and NOT legislatively.

Someone should begin a court case surrounding marriage equality ASAP, so that we can take it to the Supreme Court that much faster. Having to do this state-by-state could mean more fiscal horror shows.

Thank You.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Stop twisting my words.

I said they should BEGIN the case ASAP so as to kick off the timeline for reaching the Supreme Court at some point.

The Olson/Boies case is going to finish up in the Ninth Circuit, with the final ruling applying to the District level. It's going to require another case, and that case should be started so as not to needlessly delay this process and cause more of these awful legislative compromise that destroy the economy or the social safety net.

You don't understand how Federal district court works. Regardless of which district hears the case it is applicable throughout the country. There are advantages and disadvantages in filing for various cases in one district over another. The 9th tends to be more liberal, the 2nd more conservative, for instance.

 

[MoltenRock III]

No, again you fail to understand. Whatever the judge decides about the CA constitution would be applicable to any other state's constitution that have the same type of language or limitations in them. It depends on how broadly or narrowly the case is argued or decided.

Randomly flinging lawsuits against the judicial wall just for shits and grins could easily backfire. Hence the massive gamble of taking a gay marriage suit before the SCOTUS, because the SCOTUS could undo all we have accomplished, so it needs to be treated with caution.

 

[hotatlboi]

Stop twisting my words.

I said they should BEGIN the case ASAP so as to kick off the timeline for reaching the Supreme Court at some point.

The Olson/Boies case is going to finish up in the Ninth Circuit, with the final ruling applying to the District level. It's going to require another case, and that case should be started so as not to needlessly delay this process and cause more of these awful legislative compromise that destroy the economy or the social safety net.

No one knows how far the case is going to go yet.

And the argument for another case would be very close to what is being argued in that case (equal protection etc), so I think it would be premature to start another identical case.

 

[MoltenRock III]

If that were the case, then Judge Walker's ruling (based on how it was worded) would have applied to each and every state ban on same-sex marriage, pending the removal of a stay, constitutional or not.

But that isn't so.

So you're missing something here.

*sigh*. That's because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed his ruling until the appeals process has been completed.

 

[hotatlboi]

*sigh*. That's because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed his ruling until the appeals process has been completed.

No, that is incorrect. Walker's ruling did not apply to the entire country. It actually only applied to one county in CA.

 

[Kulindahr]

There are three ways to look at "applies" here. In terms of strict law, a ruling in a district court applies only to that jurisdiction for which it was decided; in the case of Perry v., that would be the Sate of California. More broadly, it applies to that entire district, because any similar case to come to the court would merely reference the first case and say the same thing, with perhaps some additional comments due to specifics. Indirectly, it applies elsewhere, because one District Court's precedents carry heavy weight with other district courts -- except that when there's only been one case on an issue, a second court is pretty free to disagree.

What will likely happen with Perry is that standing will be denied and Walker's ruling will be law in California only, but strong precedent for the rest of the Ninth.

At that point, filing similar challenges to similar laws elsewhere in the Ninth would be a good tactic, to achieve concurring rulings on a broader basis. It would also -- and I presume the legal teams out there are doing this -- be good to file in places where both state Supreme Court and federal district court can be expected to follow the Ninth's precedent.

Collect five states and three district courts all agreeing that defining marriage as one man, one woman or banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, then you're ready for the Supremes.

 

[hotatlboi]

There are three ways to look at "applies" here. In terms of strict law, a ruling in a district court applies only to that jurisdiction for which it was decided; in the case of Perry v., that would be the Sate of California. More broadly, it applies to that entire district, because any similar case to come to the court would merely reference the first case and say the same thing, with perhaps some additional comments due to specifics. Indirectly, it applies elsewhere, because one District Court's precedents carry heavy weight with other district courts -- except that when there's only been one case on an issue, a second court is pretty free to disagree.

IANAL so I can't really tell you the legal reasons why, but in the oral arguments before the 9th circuit both sides agreed that Walker's ruling as it currently stands applied only to one county in CA, and that CA would have to take further legal action in state court to have it apply to the whole state.

 

[Kulindahr]

IANAL so I can't really tell you the legal reasons why, but in the oral arguments before the 9th circuit both sides agreed that Walker's ruling as it currently stands applied only to one county in CA, and that CA would have to take further legal action in state court to have it apply to the whole state.

Not possible -- Prop 8 applies to the whole state, so any ruing will apply to the whole state. Any ruling concerning a state law or constitution applies to the entire jurisdiction that law covers.

 

[hotatlboi]

Not possible -- Prop 8 applies to the whole state, so any ruing will apply to the whole state. Any ruling concerning a state law or constitution applies to the entire jurisdiction that law covers.

Clearly it is possible, because as I said, that's what both sides agreed was the case.