11/05/2009
Mixner: We Are Out of Patience
David Mixner follows up his post from yesterday with a call to action to the LGBT community as a response to the events in Maine.
Says Mixner, calling for a major shake-up: "How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate
this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall
next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can
we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity
if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No
longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are
incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political
process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long
ago and there will be no more waiting."
Mixner says our national organizations should be put on notice that they will be held accountable for their conversations with elected officals; the checkbooks should be closed to all elected officials not on our side and gay organizations supporting them; actions, not promises need to be demanded; and new tactics like civil disobedience must now be on the table.
Posted 12:59 PM EST by Andy Towle in David Mixner, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
SING OUT LOUISE!!!!!!!
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Nov 5, 2009 1:05:13 PM
We should set up some sort of ESCROW fund to channel our donations and hold that money until we get results. You make progress, we make payments...
Posted by: JesryPo | Nov 5, 2009 1:09:40 PM
Well said - civil disobedience all the way - perhaps picketing of weddings in Maine and California?
The fact is the majority will never vote for equality for the minority... why should they? What's in it for them?
The fact is the current approach is getting us nowhere fast - we need more direct action
Posted by: richie | Nov 5, 2009 1:12:59 PM
I'd be all for civil disobedience...if it would work. I want solutions that work. I'm not saying it for sure wouldn't work, but my suspicion is all the goodwill we have (polls on marriage have slid inexorably toward us even as we've lost our slightly-too-soon battles) would take a hit. Of course, doing nothing won't work either unless you count that as part of waiting it out until we have a majority in many states who'd vote on our side. I'm all for withholding cash. Plenty of great progressive orgs to send cash to instead.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Nov 5, 2009 1:16:13 PM
I'm a big fan of the "three cent tip" tactic. It's what I do when the service is crap at an establishment. That's what were'e getting, crappy service. So, donate all you want, just do it in three cent increments. Make the DNC cash all those checks. And put on the "for" line: "For Poor Service to Your LGBT constituency that helped elect Obama!"
That is if people still use checks.
Posted by: Darren | Nov 5, 2009 1:17:32 PM
It's about time! I'm tired of being a second class citizen and not taken seriously!!
Posted by: SeaMonster | Nov 5, 2009 1:17:43 PM
As usual, Mixner's all whining but no strategy for how to actually change things.
Posted by: 24play | Nov 5, 2009 1:18:45 PM
I want a national gay strike, but the mechanics of that make my brain hurt.
Posted by: MattP | Nov 5, 2009 1:20:38 PM
Here's what I did today. I switched my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent, then sent an email to the DNC telling them why. The Democrats and Republicans are scared shitless at indies because they can't tell which way we'll vote. EVERY gay voter should be an independent. In fact, I bet if gays left the D party en masse we would take a lot of young progressive people with us. Now THAT's power that DC would have to kowtow to.
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 5, 2009 1:20:50 PM
NOTE TO OUR "GAY LEADERS"
****************************
Democratic Elected officials did give us our rights, what happens is that CITIZENS of U.S.A. TAKE THEM AWAY.
Democratic Maine Governor signed into law, the citizens TOOK IT AWAY.
Democratic Washington Officials signed into law, the citizens almost took it away.
The supreme court gave us the rights in California, again the CITIZENS took it away.
so, in reality democratic official are helping, it is the CITIZENS that are taking it away, so unless there is a way to prevent the citizens from voting, no matter what an elected official does, it would be taken away during voting.
Posted by: johnosahon | Nov 5, 2009 1:22:20 PM
Let's take down the ship. We need to get a group of lawyers to write a iron clad pre/post nuptial agreement and then have mass public weddings between gay/straight/bi/trans people that take an oath they are not in love, that they will not have children and it is a secular union, and then file divorce papers en masse.
As far as I know it is perfectly legal, the divorce rate would skyrocket and it would make a completely mockery of the institution, after a few years and millions of these mass public sham marriages, let's see how the defenders of "traditional marriage" want to proceed to protect their "traditional, holy unions".
So lets play their game, they want to protect marriage as one women, one man for the sake of "tradition", let's see how much the like it with millions of very publicly avowed sham marriages speedily followed by divorces.
Posted by: John M | Nov 5, 2009 1:25:36 PM
Here's my question about the money, though. What makes an ally? Is it agreement with 100% of the gay agenda? Is it marriage equality only? If I've got a congressman who has worked against DADT and advocates repeal, or has actively helped AIDS or gay youth suicide-prevention programs in his or her local district get federal funds, or who is a supporter of and a VOTE for ENDA or hate crimes legislation, BUT who is also *not* a proponent of marriage equality (or is, say supports civil unions but is opposed to marriage) is he or she automatically disqualified from any gay support, in terms of cash and/or endorsement? Should gays refuse to work on his or her behalf?
I'm not saying I know the answer, I'm saying that it should be part of the discussion, because elections tend to be binary--one or the other. And as the Republicans learned when they lost that seat they'd held since the civil war by working against their own candidate (who wasn't Republican enough: defined by being with them on EVERY issue--including supporting marriage rights for gays), sometimes if you don't support the one who is your strongest ally, the other person wins and you lose everything. I just think it's an interesting question and that a lot of people are "getting there" on our marriage rights slowly but surely. Standing against them or standing by silently with our purse strings closed while they are defeated by a candidate who is actually ANTI-gay (and probably against much of what gays stand for on tangential issues), is problematic. It's the person who wins who has the votes, the bully pulpit, the incumbency, and the power. I'd much rather have a person who we helped and is already largely sympathetic in office and try to change his or her mind through education.
Posted by: BreckRoy | Nov 5, 2009 1:28:01 PM
How about we start crashing weddings especially in Catholic churches and when they ask if anyone has just cause we stand up en masse!
Posted by: Ken | Nov 5, 2009 1:29:31 PM
it's two fold: stop giving your cash to organizations that don't deserve it, and instead reach out to your friends/family and drive them to vote when it comes voting time.
i've educated so many of my family/friends. when the vote comes to NYC + RI, I will make sure that all of my friends go and support my rights, and i think that's better then sending a blank check to an organization that will misappropriate it.
Posted by: Gregsy | Nov 5, 2009 1:31:37 PM
John, you're brilliant! We could get married and divorced over and over and over and over and over! That's a powerful message, but don't you have to stay married for quite a while before getting divorced?
Posted by: MattP | Nov 5, 2009 1:31:41 PM
DAVID MIXNER FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Why not? Why don't we put forward our own political candidate? Someone to make DEM or GOP candidates realize they do not have a lock on our sizable demographic? Hell, Palin did that with the ultra-conservative arm of the GOP. If that twit can manage that, who is to say we cannot do the same and take care of our own interests first?
Posted by: Rad | Nov 5, 2009 1:35:28 PM
@ KEN - That idea is problematic 'cuz they don't ask that in Catholic churches.
Posted by: Dickster | Nov 5, 2009 1:36:03 PM
Maybe if Mixner and others had hauled their asses to Maine - or gotten on the phone to voters in Maine - instead of standing around in DC listening to one another preach to the converted, or if the "federal rights" he is complaining about included the right not to be fired for being gay, he might have a little credibility. I'm still not hearing anything but complaining and fingerpointing here, and am thoroughly unimpressed.
Posted by: Mama's Boy | Nov 5, 2009 1:41:02 PM
why dont we all boycott weddings completely? they don't want us to have them? well, we won't be any part of them. we won't cater them, we won't be doing the bridal parties hair and makeup, we wont be planning or decorating. and we wont be attending or gifting. maybe then our straight supposed allies will step up and stand with us.
Posted by: leroar | Nov 5, 2009 1:51:51 PM
@ Breckroy
Yes, exactly. Nail on the head.
@ Rad
uh, no
Posted by: Bill in SoCal | Nov 5, 2009 1:52:40 PM
How can anyone not comment on JOHNOSAHON's comment? If we're going to punish Dems even though Dems have brought us to where we are, isn't that a strategy of self-defeat? I realize some in the community think you're a Kool-Aid drinking Uncle Mary if you're not ready to do something completely pointless to protest our lack of rights, but really, we need more than just emotional reactions ("I hate you! I'll destroy marriage if I can't have one!"—which was still a funny idea as long as not serious!), we need to learn from our losses and have a path to victory. Cool, calm, collected.
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Nov 5, 2009 1:58:56 PM
ACT UP 2009!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: George | Nov 5, 2009 2:05:36 PM
I have never read anything that I agree with more. As a 50-something gay man--who lived through the cultural shame of being gay in my teens, saw many of my friends die of AIDS in the 1980s while my government sat on its hands and did nothing, and who has had a 33 year loving relationship with the same man while most of my straight friends who married and pledged to love their spouse "as long as they both should live" are now divorced or into their second or third marriage--have had enough. This is as much about civil rights for American citizens as it is about marriage. Basic fundamental rights should never be put to a vote. And, as such, this is not a state issue but federal. In future I cannot, and will not support, by voice or money, any local or national political candidate who will not address their views on GLBT rights and marriage. There is no sanctity in marriage, there is sanctity in love. It is time to protest. It is time to be outraged. It is time to get off the sidelines and make a difference.
Posted by: Charles | Nov 5, 2009 2:09:23 PM
Remember the 2004 movie "A Day Without A Mexican"? This film was a satirical look at the range of effects on non-Latino, mostly white Californians who remained after the Mexicans disappeared throughout the state. Perhaps we should institute "A Day Without A Gay" to see just how the rest of the country gets along with us! Instead of working that day and, say, spending money, we'll devote our time and energy to ourselves and our causes. Then maybe the straight citizens will know just how damn important we are to this nation's commerce. They continue to piss us off and we'll make it worse from that point on!
Posted by: Rob | Nov 5, 2009 2:11:56 PM
Boycott Maine lobster...
http://u1.imgupload.co.uk/1257292800/79ab_abomination.jpg
Posted by: CB | Nov 5, 2009 2:22:48 PM