Chal:
You need to read my post and those of some others again before making some knee jerk responses.
It was the "schmuck" on the street who are voting for these amendments. It will require a change of heart by the "schmuck" on the street to also repeal those with future amendments when they can at the voting both. It is the "schmuck" on the street who votes for and puts people into office that you're counting on to make the legal changes. It was the general's interaction with the "schmucks" on the street and the enlisted men in the ranks that helped to bring about his change of heart and perspective.
You say you agree with me, but in each post you continue to return to the same one tune argument as being the sole solution speaking as if some political leader is simply going to autocratically make your legal desires come true.
And by the way, your comment about Act Up was over-simplified and over reaching as well. Act Up chapters fell apart over infighting in what their prime focus should be as much as atrition through the death of members. In fighting over its sole focus being on HIV/AIDS and people wanting to attach their personal agendas to its mission such as Marxist idealisms, feminism, transgender issues and many other personalized "causes". Infighting losing focus by trying to be all things to all of its members.
Please also stop projecting categorical statements and conflating tangential comments into addressing an issue onto what I have said when I've been rather careful about not making categorical statements and commenting on a variety of contributing factors underlaying a thought or concept.
If you take note and read carefully the nuances, my comments weren't saying complaceny was the sole domain of some homosexual individuals, but that our allies are also less inclined to themselves be complacent when they realize the have family members, friends, and colleagues who are gay directly being affected and that knowing us on many levels and situations can lead to even such "private" actions as casting votes in our favor in the relative isolation of the voting both. My "aside" comment was also a nuanced one, regarding the tangential issue that it is easier to become complacent when you can "pass", which is different than the situation of people with color who are never afforded such a luxory.
You also, in my opinion have misconstrued Mattie's post anecdote about Larry Kramer, in which he was saying that civil disobedience and in your face "acting up" or extreme militant methods is not always the best methodology for every given situation.
It takes a multitude of methods to effect social evolution and change.
EDIT:
Oh. I see Mattie already replied so my comment was rather moot by the time I posted.
I think that you misunderstand me as well. In a democracy, obviously ther is not supposed to be autocracy. (Bush hasn't caught on to that, but that's another thread...)
As I wrote in a previous post, I believe simply that there are times when the legislature has to go over the heads of a simple-minded populace and make the decisions that they will not, such as the Voting Rights Act. Do you think the people in the South were for that at the time? I doubt it. Do you believe, as I stated in a previous post, that the majority of people of Spain or Mexico were for civil unions? I doubt that as well.
I do agree witb a great deal of what you say. And I am sorry if my being consistent annoys you, but I cannot see how changing my opinion simply to prove that I agree with some of what you say will serve a point. I like what you say. You are incredibly insightful. It does not mean that I agree with everything you say.
I never believed that you were accusing homosexulas of having the monopoly on complacency. I believe that I was referring to a specific comment you made regarding closeted homosexuals.
And by the way, your posts are among the few in this thread that I DO take careful note of.
I hear what you are saying about the luxury of people "passing", as it were. You will note, however, just as an aside of my own, that many mulattos were very adept at "passing" as well. But that is an entirely different story.
What you refer to as a luxury in the gay world is what some of these people regard as a life-saving technique. I used the example in an earlier post of the guy who was murdered in Queens because people didn't like the fact that he was gay. I used the example of Matthew Shepard, who was also out. These are examples which can, whether we like to admit it or not, play a part in people's decisions as to whether or not to come out.
If I were a young closeted person today, I am not sure how I would have decided when presented with such a choice. I would look at the advances made today, and all of the advantages of being out, but I would also look at the disadvantages as well. I am fortunate not to live in an environment where my life depends upon my sexuality. But there are many who do not have that advantage. And whether we like to admit it or not, the disadvantage of death does exist in this country. Or at the very least the disadvantage of harrasment by an over-zealous police officer as was recounted in a previous post by someone else. And as much as those who have not lived through that humiliation may wish to play it down as just a "minor incident" I can assure you that to the people who suffer through it, it is not.
