Originally published in Socialist Worker.
THE REPUBLICANS are stirring up outrage against the "Ground Zero mosque" (actually a prayer room in a Muslim community center to be built on the site of a former Burlington Coat Factory a couple of blocks away) to gain an edge in the November elections.
The right wing has called the proposed Cordoba Center a "monument to terrorism" on "hallowed ground," implying that all Muslims are responsible for 9/11, and therefore do not have the right to worship in lower Manhattan. Clearly, equating Islam (there are over 1 billion Muslims in the world) with terrorist extremists is as absurd as it is disgusting.
Socialistworker.org and others have done a good job explaining why this controversy is nothing but vile bigotry and an attempt to justify the imperial slaughter of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
But what about the actual monuments to terrorism in the United States?
For example, the official Mississippi state flag incorporates an image of the Confederate flag, which has long been a symbol of terror against African Americans in Mississippi.
From the days of the Civil War, when it represented the battle to preserve slavery and white supremacy, through the height of lynching and Klan terror, the murder of civil rights activists, the fire-bombing of churches with children inside and integrated buses during the Freedom Rides, and many more murders, beatings and bombings over the years, the Confederate flag has been the flag of racist terrorists.
The fact that it is part of the state flag is a slap in the face to every African American in Mississippi and across the country--on what should be "hallowed ground" in the sense that Mississippi was a reactionary center of one of the worst crimes in human history (American racial slavery) and its bitter legacy of Jim Crow.
For those of you who thought I was going to leave the North off of the hook, take the town of Amherst, Mass., right down the road from where I live.
It (and Amherst College, one of the most prestigious colleges in the nation) is named for Lord Jeffery Amherst, a terrorist who slaughtered Native Americans, pioneering the use of germ warfare. He approved giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans, as well as ordering his troops "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."
So Amherst and Amherst College are "monuments to terrorism" right in the heart of what used to be, before people like Jeffery Amherst came through, Native American land. Should this not also be considered "hallowed ground" in remembrance of the genocide of the Native Americans?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ACTUALLY, IF you want to find a state-sanctioned monument to terrorism, you don't have to look any further than your wallet. As comedian Dave Chappelle said in For What It's Worth, our money "looks like baseball cards with slave owners on it."
For example, Andrew Jackson's face is on the $20 bill, which honors a slave owner whose policies of "Indian removal" directly lead to the Trail of Tears, the ethnic cleansing that killed over 4,000 Cherokee men, women and children.
Finally, Columbus Day is still a national holiday in honor of a mass murderer and enslaver of Native Americans.
Andrew Jackson, Jeffery Amherst, Christopher Columbus and other perpetrators of slavery and genocide are celebrated by the mainstream media and politicians, while their crimes are glossed over and excused if mentioned at all. Over the years, campaigns to change the name of Amherst, Mass., or to teach the real history about Christopher Columbus receive nowhere near the amount of attention paid by media and oliticians to the "Ground Zero Mosque" hysteria.
That is because a U.S. government responsible in recent years for the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis (and over 500,000 children killed by sanctions in the 1990s) and tens of thousands in Afghanistan, has more in common with the perpetrators of the great crimes of history than with their victims.
Just as Black slaves and Native Americans were deemed inferior in order to justify their enslavement and extermination, so today are Muslims dehumanized in order to justify the occupation of Muslim nations abroad.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Making a mockery of rape
Originally published at Sex Under Capitalism and in Socialist Worker.
IN LATE July, an Israeli court sentenced a Palestinian man to 18 months in prison for engaging in consensual sex with a Jewish woman who claims to have believed he was a Jew.
The charge? "Rape by deception."
The judge said: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated...The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price--the sanctity of their bodies and souls."
The level of racism and sexism here is astounding; this case illustrates the colonial, apartheid nature of the state of Israel, where separate laws, roads and other public facilities apply to Jews and Palestinians, and where Palestinians are dehumanized to such an extent that military units make T-shirts promoting the murder of pregnant women and children (to be worn by soldiers sent to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza and elsewhere).
Not only are Palestinians denied self-determination in the Occupied Territories and reduced to second-class status within the state of Israel, but the Israeli courts have deemed Arab men a threat to Jewish women.
As Tsafi Saar wrote in Haaretz, "Alongside 'They'll take our jobs,' the utterance 'They'll sleep with our women' is one of the most emblematic claims of racists."
Richard Seymour breaks this case down well in a post at the Lenin's Tomb Web site called "Racist Patriarchy in Israel." It is worth quoting him at length:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN A society based on the institutionalized supremacy (legal racism) of one group over another (in this case, Jews over Palestinians), opposition to "inter-marriage" is an odious but inevitable result.
A system based on upholding the "purity" of one group must control and police the sexuality of women within that group, who are tasked with giving birth to and raising the next generation of the dominant group--and "protect" them from men from the oppressed group.
Although the judge and other opponents of Arab/Jew relationships claim to be acting in the interest of Jewish women, their actions are as sexist as they are racist. Marriage (and divorce) laws in Israel are hopelessly reactionary, based on biblical mandates. Jews cannot marry non-Jews within Israel, but must travel abroad to do so. The marriage is only recognized upon the couple's return to Israel.
All marriages in Israel must be performed by official religious institutions (for Jews, this is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel). The same goes for divorce, a fact that underlines that while this ruling claims to be about protecting the "sanctity of their bodies and souls," Israeli law is shockingly sexist.
Divorce is a basic right for women, a gain that had to be fought for and won. It is a step toward women's liberation from the family, an oppressive institution that has historically placed women under the legal control of their husband.
Divorce law in Israel treats men and women differently, with women in an inferior position. For example, a man (in a Jewish marriage) whose wife is committed to a mental hospital as "incurably ill" may remarry if he receives permission from a rabbinical court, while a woman cannot.
Not only are Jewish women reduced to the role of wombs capable of carrying the next generation of Israeli Defense Force soldiers, but they are also denied their right to choose their own partner free of harassment. As one woman said: "I'm not stupid or gullible or looking for trouble. I'm a Jewish girl who happened to meet a guy I like, who happens to be Arab. It's my business."
Such a climate only emboldens those who use violence to enforce this racist morality.
Such policies are not unique to Israel. Prohibitions against "race-mixing," or "miscegenation" were passed in Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow South (and across the U.S.--they weren't ruled unconstitutional until Loving v. Virginia in 1967), and apartheid South Africa.
Also common in these societies, where racism was the law of the land, was propaganda promoting the idea that the oppressed "other" is a predatory threat to women of the dominant group.
We see it in Nazi propaganda. In 1955, 14-year-old Emmet Till was murdered in Mississippi for talking to a white woman. Rabbis in Israel speak of the "seducing" of Jewish girls" as "another form of war" by Arab men.
Israel's credibility has taken a major hit in the wake of its savage assault on Gaza in 2008 (Operation Cast Lead) and the recent massacre aboard the Mavi Marmara "Gaza Freedom Flotilla." The movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel in solidarity with the Palestinian people is picking up steam.
In this context, Israel is attempting to clean up its image by portraying itself as an "oasis" of LGBT equality in the Middle East, in addition to the racist caricature of Islam as uniquely sexist.
However, the same marriage laws that require mixed couples to leave Israel to marry apply to same-sex couples, who must marry abroad in order to receive recognition of their union.
Supporters of sexual (and human) liberation should reject and expose Israel's lies, join the growing movement for equal rights for Palestinians and Jews in the land that is currently Israel and the Occupied Territories, and demand freedom of association between people of all races and religions.
IN LATE July, an Israeli court sentenced a Palestinian man to 18 months in prison for engaging in consensual sex with a Jewish woman who claims to have believed he was a Jew.
The charge? "Rape by deception."
The judge said: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated...The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price--the sanctity of their bodies and souls."
The level of racism and sexism here is astounding; this case illustrates the colonial, apartheid nature of the state of Israel, where separate laws, roads and other public facilities apply to Jews and Palestinians, and where Palestinians are dehumanized to such an extent that military units make T-shirts promoting the murder of pregnant women and children (to be worn by soldiers sent to kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza and elsewhere).
Not only are Palestinians denied self-determination in the Occupied Territories and reduced to second-class status within the state of Israel, but the Israeli courts have deemed Arab men a threat to Jewish women.
As Tsafi Saar wrote in Haaretz, "Alongside 'They'll take our jobs,' the utterance 'They'll sleep with our women' is one of the most emblematic claims of racists."
Richard Seymour breaks this case down well in a post at the Lenin's Tomb Web site called "Racist Patriarchy in Israel." It is worth quoting him at length:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Are you getting it yet? Sex with an Arab constitutes a violation of the sanctity of body and soul--an "unbearable price." This is not a freakish opinion in Israeli society. For example, half of Israeli Jews believe intermarriage between Arabs and Jews is equivalent to national treason (that "demographic time bomb," you see).
Some are determined to enforce this sexual separation through violence or policy. Gangs of men in a Jerusalem neighborhood roam around, behaving as a de facto vice and virtue squad, to "protect" young Jewish girls from Arabs. One local authority has set up a squad of counselors and psychiatrists to "rescue" Jewish girls who are dating Arabs.
Hostility to inter-marriage and cross-ethnic dating pervades Zionist culture and is reproduced at structural and institutional levels from the cradle to the grave. There has been a raft of legislative measures since 1948 that are designed to frustrate socialization between Jews and Arabs, and the existing structures of segregation in education and housing ensure that intermarriage is already very rare.
IN A society based on the institutionalized supremacy (legal racism) of one group over another (in this case, Jews over Palestinians), opposition to "inter-marriage" is an odious but inevitable result.
A system based on upholding the "purity" of one group must control and police the sexuality of women within that group, who are tasked with giving birth to and raising the next generation of the dominant group--and "protect" them from men from the oppressed group.
Although the judge and other opponents of Arab/Jew relationships claim to be acting in the interest of Jewish women, their actions are as sexist as they are racist. Marriage (and divorce) laws in Israel are hopelessly reactionary, based on biblical mandates. Jews cannot marry non-Jews within Israel, but must travel abroad to do so. The marriage is only recognized upon the couple's return to Israel.
All marriages in Israel must be performed by official religious institutions (for Jews, this is the Chief Rabbinate of Israel). The same goes for divorce, a fact that underlines that while this ruling claims to be about protecting the "sanctity of their bodies and souls," Israeli law is shockingly sexist.
Divorce is a basic right for women, a gain that had to be fought for and won. It is a step toward women's liberation from the family, an oppressive institution that has historically placed women under the legal control of their husband.
Divorce law in Israel treats men and women differently, with women in an inferior position. For example, a man (in a Jewish marriage) whose wife is committed to a mental hospital as "incurably ill" may remarry if he receives permission from a rabbinical court, while a woman cannot.
Not only are Jewish women reduced to the role of wombs capable of carrying the next generation of Israeli Defense Force soldiers, but they are also denied their right to choose their own partner free of harassment. As one woman said: "I'm not stupid or gullible or looking for trouble. I'm a Jewish girl who happened to meet a guy I like, who happens to be Arab. It's my business."
Such a climate only emboldens those who use violence to enforce this racist morality.
Such policies are not unique to Israel. Prohibitions against "race-mixing," or "miscegenation" were passed in Nazi Germany, the Jim Crow South (and across the U.S.--they weren't ruled unconstitutional until Loving v. Virginia in 1967), and apartheid South Africa.
Also common in these societies, where racism was the law of the land, was propaganda promoting the idea that the oppressed "other" is a predatory threat to women of the dominant group.
We see it in Nazi propaganda. In 1955, 14-year-old Emmet Till was murdered in Mississippi for talking to a white woman. Rabbis in Israel speak of the "seducing" of Jewish girls" as "another form of war" by Arab men.
Israel's credibility has taken a major hit in the wake of its savage assault on Gaza in 2008 (Operation Cast Lead) and the recent massacre aboard the Mavi Marmara "Gaza Freedom Flotilla." The movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions of Israel in solidarity with the Palestinian people is picking up steam.
In this context, Israel is attempting to clean up its image by portraying itself as an "oasis" of LGBT equality in the Middle East, in addition to the racist caricature of Islam as uniquely sexist.
However, the same marriage laws that require mixed couples to leave Israel to marry apply to same-sex couples, who must marry abroad in order to receive recognition of their union.
Supporters of sexual (and human) liberation should reject and expose Israel's lies, join the growing movement for equal rights for Palestinians and Jews in the land that is currently Israel and the Occupied Territories, and demand freedom of association between people of all races and religions.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
DOMA overturned in Massachusetts
Originally published at Socialist Worker.
A FEDERAL judge in Massachusetts, ruling in two related cases, declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional on July 8, a victory for supporters of marriage equality.
DOMA, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.
The law denies over 1,100 federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal. These include the right to file joint tax returns (often at a lower rate), share Social Security and food stamps, receive spousal employment benefits (such as health insurance) or sponsor an immigrant spouse for legal residency or citizenship.
In other words, DOMA relegates same-sex couples legally married in states such as Massachusetts to second-class status in the eyes of the federal government.
The first case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, was filed by a federal employee whose lawyers from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders argued that because the bill prevented her and her same-sex spouse from receiving federal employment benefits, DOMA denied her equal protection under the law--a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The second case, Commonwealth v. Health and Human Services, was brought by the state of Massachusetts, which argued that DOMA interferes with a state's right to define marriage as it chooses by requiring it to discriminate against same-sex couples or lose millions of dollars of federal money yearly.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's rulings apply only to same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, and they only declare unconstitutional the part of DOMA that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, so states will still be able to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOW, THE question is whether Barack Obama's Justice Department will appeal the Tauro's decision to a higher court in the federal system.
During the 2008 election campaign, Obama repeated again and again that he opposed DOMA. For example, his campaign Web site declared: "I...believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
Candidate Obama went so far as to cite his support for a repeal of DOMA as a reason to choose him over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)--a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate...Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."
Obama renewed this commitment as president when he spoke at the Human Rights Campaign dinner on the eve of the National Equality March in October 2009.
But despite this record, the Obama Justice Department is widely expected to appeal the decision in the Massachusetts' cases to the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The administration claims that it's up to Congress to repeal DOMA, and in the meanwhile, it has to "uphold existing law." The Gay City News explained the administration's tortured logic in defending a law its chief claims to oppose:
[T]he Obama Justice Department devised the bizarre claim that DOMA was an attempt by Congress to preserve the status quo "pending the resolution of a socially contentious debate taking place in the states over whether to sanction same-sex marriage." The government argued that DOMA was necessary "to ensure consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits," and to avoid the disruptions from having to deal with different definitions of marriage in different states.
If administration officials do appeal the rulings in Massachusetts, it wouldn't be the first time the Obama Justice Department defended DOMA in federal court. In June 2009--within days of Obama declaring LGBT Pride Month--Justice Department lawyers claimed that DOMA was constitutional and non-discriminatory, citing as precedents laws that barred marriage in cases of incest and pedophilia.
Some left-wing commentators think it would be a good thing for the Justice Department to appeal Tauro's decisions, because if the cases go to the Supreme Court and the Court rules against DOMA, it would strike a blow against the marriage ban at the national level, rather than just Massachusetts.
Jim Burroway, editor of Box Turtle Bulletin Web site, makes the case that a Supreme Court decision against DOMA following an appeal by the Justice Department is more likely to succeed than passage of a Congressional repeal, such as the Respect for Marriage Act introduced in 2009 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). "With the next Congress likely to be much more hostile to LGBT issues as this Congress," Burroway wrote, "I've got lottery tickets with better odds than Congress repealing DOMA."
But the struggle for marriage equality can't depend on hoping for justice from a federal court system stacked with conservative judges. Nor should we accept a lengthy appeals process that could take years before the Supreme Court rules on DOMA.
Instead, we should use the momentum we have build in the past two years, including the enthusiasm generated by this victory in Massachusetts, to demand full equality now. We should demand that the Obama administration live up to the promises of its president and stop defending DOMA in court, and we should call for Congress to get to work on the job of repealing DOMA once and for all.
A FEDERAL judge in Massachusetts, ruling in two related cases, declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional on July 8, a victory for supporters of marriage equality.
DOMA, passed by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, defined marriage as between one man and one woman and allowed states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states.
The law denies over 1,100 federal benefits to same-sex couples married in states where gay marriage is legal. These include the right to file joint tax returns (often at a lower rate), share Social Security and food stamps, receive spousal employment benefits (such as health insurance) or sponsor an immigrant spouse for legal residency or citizenship.
In other words, DOMA relegates same-sex couples legally married in states such as Massachusetts to second-class status in the eyes of the federal government.
The first case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, was filed by a federal employee whose lawyers from Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders argued that because the bill prevented her and her same-sex spouse from receiving federal employment benefits, DOMA denied her equal protection under the law--a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The second case, Commonwealth v. Health and Human Services, was brought by the state of Massachusetts, which argued that DOMA interferes with a state's right to define marriage as it chooses by requiring it to discriminate against same-sex couples or lose millions of dollars of federal money yearly.
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro's rulings apply only to same-sex couples married in Massachusetts, and they only declare unconstitutional the part of DOMA that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, so states will still be able to ignore same-sex marriages performed in other states.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOW, THE question is whether Barack Obama's Justice Department will appeal the Tauro's decision to a higher court in the federal system.
During the 2008 election campaign, Obama repeated again and again that he opposed DOMA. For example, his campaign Web site declared: "I...believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples--whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage."
Candidate Obama went so far as to cite his support for a repeal of DOMA as a reason to choose him over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries: "Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)--a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate...Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does."
Obama renewed this commitment as president when he spoke at the Human Rights Campaign dinner on the eve of the National Equality March in October 2009.
But despite this record, the Obama Justice Department is widely expected to appeal the decision in the Massachusetts' cases to the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--and potentially to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The administration claims that it's up to Congress to repeal DOMA, and in the meanwhile, it has to "uphold existing law." The Gay City News explained the administration's tortured logic in defending a law its chief claims to oppose:
[T]he Obama Justice Department devised the bizarre claim that DOMA was an attempt by Congress to preserve the status quo "pending the resolution of a socially contentious debate taking place in the states over whether to sanction same-sex marriage." The government argued that DOMA was necessary "to ensure consistency in the distribution of federal marriage-based benefits," and to avoid the disruptions from having to deal with different definitions of marriage in different states.
If administration officials do appeal the rulings in Massachusetts, it wouldn't be the first time the Obama Justice Department defended DOMA in federal court. In June 2009--within days of Obama declaring LGBT Pride Month--Justice Department lawyers claimed that DOMA was constitutional and non-discriminatory, citing as precedents laws that barred marriage in cases of incest and pedophilia.
Some left-wing commentators think it would be a good thing for the Justice Department to appeal Tauro's decisions, because if the cases go to the Supreme Court and the Court rules against DOMA, it would strike a blow against the marriage ban at the national level, rather than just Massachusetts.
Jim Burroway, editor of Box Turtle Bulletin Web site, makes the case that a Supreme Court decision against DOMA following an appeal by the Justice Department is more likely to succeed than passage of a Congressional repeal, such as the Respect for Marriage Act introduced in 2009 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). "With the next Congress likely to be much more hostile to LGBT issues as this Congress," Burroway wrote, "I've got lottery tickets with better odds than Congress repealing DOMA."
But the struggle for marriage equality can't depend on hoping for justice from a federal court system stacked with conservative judges. Nor should we accept a lengthy appeals process that could take years before the Supreme Court rules on DOMA.
Instead, we should use the momentum we have build in the past two years, including the enthusiasm generated by this victory in Massachusetts, to demand full equality now. We should demand that the Obama administration live up to the promises of its president and stop defending DOMA in court, and we should call for Congress to get to work on the job of repealing DOMA once and for all.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Our equality on trial
Originally published at Socialist Worker.
"WE CONCLUDE this trial, Your Honor, where we began. This case is about marriage and equality." So began the closing argument of the lawyer challenging California's Proposition 8, which revoked marriage rights for same-sex couples in California just months after it was made legal.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit filed on behalf of two same-sex couples, calls on the federal courts to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. The case got underway in a federal courtroom in January and has stretched on until now. A decision from Judge Vaughn Walker is expected sometime in the coming days and weeks.
Both pro- and anti-LGBT rights groups are looking forward to the ruling with keen anticipation, but everyone realizes there will almost certainly be an appeal of any decision--and the case could well end up before the Supreme Court years from now.
Speaking to a packed courtroom and an overflow crowd, Theodore Olson--formerly a lawyer for the Bush White House, but now arguing in favor of marriage equality--stated that Prop 8 deprived gays and lesbians in California of the "fundamental constitutional right to marry" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Responding to the anti-marriage equality claim that marriage should be restricted to "one man, one woman" because that's "tradition," Olson pointed out the landmark Loving v. Virginia that overturned legal bans on interracial marriage in 1967, and the Supreme Court decision in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education overturning racial segregation in schools:
"We've always done it that way"...is the corollary to "Because I say so."...You can't have continued discrimination in public schools because you have always done it that way...You can't have continued discrimination between races on the basis of marriage because you have always done it that way."
Both the Brown and Loving decisions were based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which in 1868 overruled the Dred Scott Decision that held that African Americans "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Prop 8 on behalf of the original supporters of the measure, insisted that the same-sex marriage ban should be upheld because "the central purpose of marriage in virtually all societies and at all times has been to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring stable unions."
Ironically, Cooper's support for social engineering by the state regarding sexual relationships contrasts with an influential Yes on 8 ad during the 2008 campaign, which quoted San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying that same-sex marriage would pass "whether you like it or not"--in other words, an appeal to fears of state interference and arrogance.
Cooper also stated that the purpose of heterosexual marriage is to provide an "enduring and stable family environment for the sake of raising the children so that essentially the society itself...doesn't have to step in and take upon its own shoulders the obligations to help in the raising of those children."
There couldn't be a clearer illustration of the fact that the anti-marriage equality forces don't care about protecting California's children. They want to preserve the traditional nuclear family, where women are responsible for the burden of raising those children.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SOME SUPPORTERS of marriage equality have criticized the strategy of filing suit against Prop 8 because the case, even if successful at a lower level, will probably end up before a Supreme Court stacked with right-wing justices.
But court cases don't take place in a vacuum. It's also critical what happens in the streets--a point underlined by Judge Walker's question to Olson about whether there was a "political tide" in favor of same-sex marriage that would make the Supreme Court more likely to uphold a decision to overturn Prop 8.
In 2008, California became the second state after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage as a result of a California Supreme Court decision that denying gays and lesbians equal marriage rights violated the state constitution.
The decision came in a lawsuit against the state filed by the ACLU, Lambda Legal and the National Center of Lesbian Rights after the same state Supreme Court forced San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move by Gavin Newsom in defiance of state law.
As soon as the court legalized equal marriage, anti-LGBT forces, with major backing from the Mormon and the Roman Catholic Churches and a variety of right-wing politicians, immediately submitted signatures for a ballot measure to overturn same-sex marriage. The battle in the run-up to the November 2008 elections was hard-fought. More than $83 million was raised by Yes on 8 and No on 8 forces, nearly an even split with some $3 million more for marriage equality.
In the end, Prop 8 passed narrowly by 52-48 percent, a disappointment for many on a day that produced the first African American president.
The passage of Prop 8 stirred anger immediately. Starting on Election Night itself and continuing through the week, people in California and across the country took to the streets in protest, producing a new stage in the movement for equal rights for LGBT people and a new generation of activists, known as "Stonewall 2.0." The upsurge in struggle grew in the aftermath and the election, leading to new grassroots organizations coalescing, like Join the Impact, the San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality and One Struggle, One Fight in San Francisco.
On May 26 of last year, tens of thousands protested in California and across the country when the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. And in October, more than 200,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C., at the National Equality March, demanding full federal equality for LGBT people. Since then, activists with Equality Across America have held regional conferences and continued organizing protests, along with other newly formed organizations.
This resurgence of activism is the important political context that makes the success of Perry v. Schwarzenegger a possibility.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN AUGUST 2009, the newly formed American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed a federal lawsuit in California on behalf of two same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by Alameda and Los Angeles Counties.
The case became Perry v. Schwarzenegger and is being argued by Theodore Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who faced off against each other in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential race. The state of California declined to challenge the lawsuit, and so the defense was taken up by the organizations that Prop 8 in the first place.
From the beginning, the defenders of Prop 8 fought tooth-and-nail to keep details of the Yes on 8 campaign, as well as their arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, away from the public eye, blocking access to campaign documents and preventing video of the trial from being broadcast on YouTube.
The anti-marriage equality forces have something to hide. Behind their claims that Prop 8 is about protecting children and families is something more sinister: bigotry.
In his testimony at the Perry trial, Dr. William Tam, who supervised the language of Prop 8 , testified that he believes "homosexuality is linked to pedophilia...polygamy and incest." During the run-up to the passage of the measure, Tam wrote that if Prop 8 doesn't pass, "they will lose no time pushing the gay agenda," which according to Tam includes "legalizing sex with children."
Tam himself seeks to push his bigoted views on children. He is executive director of the Traditional Family Coalition, which sponsored an essay contest (with a $3,000 scholarship as top prize) inviting high school students "to suggest ways to reduce social problems," followed by a list that puts "homosexuality" on par with "political corruption," the "AIDS epidemic" and "gang violence."
In the face of such ugly hate, it's hard to deny the point made by Dr. Gregory Herek, a University of California Davis professor and expert on sexual orientation, at the trial: "Structural stigma in the form of laws that discriminate against LGBT people directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and violence."
A victory in the Perry case, even if an appeal is assured, will give supporters of marriage equality more confidence to continue the struggle. But whichever way this case goes, the fight will go on.
Although Brown v. Board of Education outlawed school segregation in 1954, it took 10 years of mass protest to overturn Jim Crow in the South. Finally winning marriage equality will depend on continued pressure from below.
"WE CONCLUDE this trial, Your Honor, where we began. This case is about marriage and equality." So began the closing argument of the lawyer challenging California's Proposition 8, which revoked marriage rights for same-sex couples in California just months after it was made legal.
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a lawsuit filed on behalf of two same-sex couples, calls on the federal courts to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. The case got underway in a federal courtroom in January and has stretched on until now. A decision from Judge Vaughn Walker is expected sometime in the coming days and weeks.
Both pro- and anti-LGBT rights groups are looking forward to the ruling with keen anticipation, but everyone realizes there will almost certainly be an appeal of any decision--and the case could well end up before the Supreme Court years from now.
Speaking to a packed courtroom and an overflow crowd, Theodore Olson--formerly a lawyer for the Bush White House, but now arguing in favor of marriage equality--stated that Prop 8 deprived gays and lesbians in California of the "fundamental constitutional right to marry" in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Responding to the anti-marriage equality claim that marriage should be restricted to "one man, one woman" because that's "tradition," Olson pointed out the landmark Loving v. Virginia that overturned legal bans on interracial marriage in 1967, and the Supreme Court decision in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education overturning racial segregation in schools:
"We've always done it that way"...is the corollary to "Because I say so."...You can't have continued discrimination in public schools because you have always done it that way...You can't have continued discrimination between races on the basis of marriage because you have always done it that way."
Both the Brown and Loving decisions were based on the Fourteenth Amendment, which in 1868 overruled the Dred Scott Decision that held that African Americans "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Prop 8 on behalf of the original supporters of the measure, insisted that the same-sex marriage ban should be upheld because "the central purpose of marriage in virtually all societies and at all times has been to channel potentially procreative sexual relationships into enduring stable unions."
Ironically, Cooper's support for social engineering by the state regarding sexual relationships contrasts with an influential Yes on 8 ad during the 2008 campaign, which quoted San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom saying that same-sex marriage would pass "whether you like it or not"--in other words, an appeal to fears of state interference and arrogance.
Cooper also stated that the purpose of heterosexual marriage is to provide an "enduring and stable family environment for the sake of raising the children so that essentially the society itself...doesn't have to step in and take upon its own shoulders the obligations to help in the raising of those children."
There couldn't be a clearer illustration of the fact that the anti-marriage equality forces don't care about protecting California's children. They want to preserve the traditional nuclear family, where women are responsible for the burden of raising those children.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SOME SUPPORTERS of marriage equality have criticized the strategy of filing suit against Prop 8 because the case, even if successful at a lower level, will probably end up before a Supreme Court stacked with right-wing justices.
But court cases don't take place in a vacuum. It's also critical what happens in the streets--a point underlined by Judge Walker's question to Olson about whether there was a "political tide" in favor of same-sex marriage that would make the Supreme Court more likely to uphold a decision to overturn Prop 8.
In 2008, California became the second state after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage as a result of a California Supreme Court decision that denying gays and lesbians equal marriage rights violated the state constitution.
The decision came in a lawsuit against the state filed by the ACLU, Lambda Legal and the National Center of Lesbian Rights after the same state Supreme Court forced San Francisco to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move by Gavin Newsom in defiance of state law.
As soon as the court legalized equal marriage, anti-LGBT forces, with major backing from the Mormon and the Roman Catholic Churches and a variety of right-wing politicians, immediately submitted signatures for a ballot measure to overturn same-sex marriage. The battle in the run-up to the November 2008 elections was hard-fought. More than $83 million was raised by Yes on 8 and No on 8 forces, nearly an even split with some $3 million more for marriage equality.
In the end, Prop 8 passed narrowly by 52-48 percent, a disappointment for many on a day that produced the first African American president.
The passage of Prop 8 stirred anger immediately. Starting on Election Night itself and continuing through the week, people in California and across the country took to the streets in protest, producing a new stage in the movement for equal rights for LGBT people and a new generation of activists, known as "Stonewall 2.0." The upsurge in struggle grew in the aftermath and the election, leading to new grassroots organizations coalescing, like Join the Impact, the San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality and One Struggle, One Fight in San Francisco.
On May 26 of last year, tens of thousands protested in California and across the country when the California Supreme Court upheld Prop 8. And in October, more than 200,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C., at the National Equality March, demanding full federal equality for LGBT people. Since then, activists with Equality Across America have held regional conferences and continued organizing protests, along with other newly formed organizations.
This resurgence of activism is the important political context that makes the success of Perry v. Schwarzenegger a possibility.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IN AUGUST 2009, the newly formed American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed a federal lawsuit in California on behalf of two same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses by Alameda and Los Angeles Counties.
The case became Perry v. Schwarzenegger and is being argued by Theodore Olson and David Boies, the attorneys who faced off against each other in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Bush v. Gore case that decided the 2000 presidential race. The state of California declined to challenge the lawsuit, and so the defense was taken up by the organizations that Prop 8 in the first place.
From the beginning, the defenders of Prop 8 fought tooth-and-nail to keep details of the Yes on 8 campaign, as well as their arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, away from the public eye, blocking access to campaign documents and preventing video of the trial from being broadcast on YouTube.
The anti-marriage equality forces have something to hide. Behind their claims that Prop 8 is about protecting children and families is something more sinister: bigotry.
In his testimony at the Perry trial, Dr. William Tam, who supervised the language of Prop 8 , testified that he believes "homosexuality is linked to pedophilia...polygamy and incest." During the run-up to the passage of the measure, Tam wrote that if Prop 8 doesn't pass, "they will lose no time pushing the gay agenda," which according to Tam includes "legalizing sex with children."
Tam himself seeks to push his bigoted views on children. He is executive director of the Traditional Family Coalition, which sponsored an essay contest (with a $3,000 scholarship as top prize) inviting high school students "to suggest ways to reduce social problems," followed by a list that puts "homosexuality" on par with "political corruption," the "AIDS epidemic" and "gang violence."
In the face of such ugly hate, it's hard to deny the point made by Dr. Gregory Herek, a University of California Davis professor and expert on sexual orientation, at the trial: "Structural stigma in the form of laws that discriminate against LGBT people directly encourages social stigma, harassment, and violence."
A victory in the Perry case, even if an appeal is assured, will give supporters of marriage equality more confidence to continue the struggle. But whichever way this case goes, the fight will go on.
Although Brown v. Board of Education outlawed school segregation in 1954, it took 10 years of mass protest to overturn Jim Crow in the South. Finally winning marriage equality will depend on continued pressure from below.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Marxism and Oppression (Audio)
Here is the audio for a talk I gave on "Marxism and Oppression" at the Socialism 2010 conference in Chicago on June 20, 2010.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Western Mass. Rallies for Immigrant Rights
Originally published in The Rainbow Times.
A diverse crowd of over 150 immigrants and their allies gathered on the steps of the Northampton, Mass. City Hall late May to protest the passage of SB 1070 in Arizona, whichaccording to the American Civil Liberties Union “invites the racial profiling of ‘peopleof color.’”
The bill makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona, requires documented immigrants carry their papers with them at all times, and mandates state and local law enforcement officers to check immigration status based on “reasonable suspicion” a person is undocumented.
Although Brewer said that enforcement of SB 1070 would not result in racial profiling, rally organizer Natalia Tylim said that “this law has meant in practice that Latinos are being forced into the shadows of society for fear of being the targets of police repression.” Seventy-six percent of undocumented immigrants are Latino, according to the Pew Research Center.
Protesters also spoke out against a recent budget amendment passed by the Massachusetts state Senate, which would make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to access services such as housing, health care, and education, and would set up a hotline for people to report those they suspect of being undocumented to the state Attorney General’s office. Tylim said this will “create a culture of fear” for immigrants in Massachusetts.
The rally, called by the Coalition for Immigrant and Workers’ Rights, was part of a national day of action against SB 1070, the culmination of a wave of protest against the bill, beginning with activists across Arizona and including boycotts by the cities of Boston and Los Angeles among others, including an artists’ boycott spearheaded by Zack de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine.
Protestors came from across Western Mass., including members of the Alliance to Develop Power, the American Friends Service Committee, the International Socialist Organization, the United Auto Workers and Equality Across America.
Organizers are continuing to meet to build a movement for immigrant rights in Arizona as well as here in Massachusetts. On June 7, local activists celebrated a victory when the Amherst Select Board unanimously voted to join the boycott of Arizona, and plans were underway to spread the boycott to Northampton, Springfield, and Holyoke as this article went to press.
“We will [stop SB 1070] with [the politicians], without them, or in spite of them,” said protestor Sister Elvia Mata.
A diverse crowd of over 150 immigrants and their allies gathered on the steps of the Northampton, Mass. City Hall late May to protest the passage of SB 1070 in Arizona, whichaccording to the American Civil Liberties Union “invites the racial profiling of ‘peopleof color.’”
The bill makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona, requires documented immigrants carry their papers with them at all times, and mandates state and local law enforcement officers to check immigration status based on “reasonable suspicion” a person is undocumented.
Although Brewer said that enforcement of SB 1070 would not result in racial profiling, rally organizer Natalia Tylim said that “this law has meant in practice that Latinos are being forced into the shadows of society for fear of being the targets of police repression.” Seventy-six percent of undocumented immigrants are Latino, according to the Pew Research Center.
Protesters also spoke out against a recent budget amendment passed by the Massachusetts state Senate, which would make it more difficult for undocumented immigrants to access services such as housing, health care, and education, and would set up a hotline for people to report those they suspect of being undocumented to the state Attorney General’s office. Tylim said this will “create a culture of fear” for immigrants in Massachusetts.
The rally, called by the Coalition for Immigrant and Workers’ Rights, was part of a national day of action against SB 1070, the culmination of a wave of protest against the bill, beginning with activists across Arizona and including boycotts by the cities of Boston and Los Angeles among others, including an artists’ boycott spearheaded by Zack de la Rocha of Rage Against the Machine.
Protestors came from across Western Mass., including members of the Alliance to Develop Power, the American Friends Service Committee, the International Socialist Organization, the United Auto Workers and Equality Across America.
Organizers are continuing to meet to build a movement for immigrant rights in Arizona as well as here in Massachusetts. On June 7, local activists celebrated a victory when the Amherst Select Board unanimously voted to join the boycott of Arizona, and plans were underway to spread the boycott to Northampton, Springfield, and Holyoke as this article went to press.
“We will [stop SB 1070] with [the politicians], without them, or in spite of them,” said protestor Sister Elvia Mata.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Rallying to make ENDA inclusive
Published at Socialistworker.org.
NORTHAMPTON, Mass.--Over 70 people rallied here on the steps of City Hall on May 3 to demand the passage of a transgender-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would bar employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the United States.
Such discrimination against transgender people is legal in 38 states, including Massachusetts, while employment discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people is legal in 29 states.
The rally was called by the Western Massachusetts chapter of Equality Across America (EAA), a grassroots network of LGBT civil rights activists determined to build a movement for full federal equality.
The rally focused on transgender inclusion because although protections for transgender people have been included in the most recent version of the bill, there are reports that the language specific to gender identity has been rewritten, and the updated version has yet to be released.
Organizers stressed the need to reach out to the 89 percent of the population who oppose employment discrimination to pressure Congress to stop stalling and pass ENDA now, and to challenge the right wing's tactic of opposing ENDA by shamelessly scapegoating transgender people.
Bet Power, a long-time transgender rights activist and founder of the East Coast FTM Group, pointed out, "We need to get the language of ENDA so we can be sure we're supporting a trans-inclusive [bill]." Power reminded the crowd of the scandal in 2007, when U.S. Rep. Barney Frank and the Human Rights Campaign broke their promise and supported a version of the bill that dropped protections for trans people.
Several other transgender activists spoke at the rally; many shared stories of times when they've been fired, not hired, or passed up for a promotion because of their gender identity.
"I'm the last one hired, the first one fired...I'm 45 years old, have over seven years of higher education, and I've never been promoted at a job. We deserve financial security," Trystan Dean, a lead organizer for the New England Trans United march and rally, said.
Lorelei McLaughlin, the reigning Miss Trans New England, added, "I'd go into a place with a 'help wanted' sign, give them my resume, and they wouldn't even look at it." McLaughlin shared that earlier in life, as a white man, she had no trouble getting jobs she was underqualified for, but more recently, has had to struggle to find work for which she is overqualified.
Power pointed out that he's "been fired for coming out about who I've slept with and for my gender identity...This is a very hard economic time, and we're suffering extreme poverty because of who we are."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE OUTRAGE of several speakers was palpable, as was the sense of urgency and a refusal to wait any longer for equal rights.
McLaughlin said, "we need a trans-inclusive ENDA now to secure basic human dignity."
Jessica St.-Claire, who said she is "proudly married to a transsexual," shouted: "It's the 21st century people, wake up...We're not in the Stone Age anymore! If they expect every American to pay taxes, they should get individual identity rights."
Her spouse, Elle St.-Clair, said, "Every day someone commits suicide, someone loses their job, parents are removed from their children, all on the basis of their gender expression. It's time to stop this."
Autumn Sandeen, a transgender Navy veteran who was arrested last month after she and others from GetEQUAL chained themselves to the White House fence in an act of civil disobedience to call for a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," sent a solidarity statement from San Diego that was read at the rally:
Now it is not only time to redouble our efforts at lobbying our own Congresspeople into passing a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, but it is also time for direct action. It is time for public rallies like this one; it is time for nonviolent civil disobedience.
We need to create a tension that tells our Congresspeople that there is an urgency of now in our push for our employment civil rights on a national level. When it comes to employment protections for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, we must send the message to Congress that we will no longer are willing to wait, nor are we willing to take the tranquilizing drug of incrementalism.
Several participants spoke about the need to fight for full equality and to stand in solidarity with other struggles, especially immigrant rights, in response to the recent attack on immigrants in Arizona, SB 1070.
Chants included "Trans/gay/immigrant/women's rights under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!" and "What do we want? Full equality! When do we want it? Now!"
The need for everyone to stand up for ENDA and equal rights on the job for LGBT people, and to make the connection between that and other struggles against discrimination, was driven home by one of the passersby, who joined the rally. "No one has rights until we all have rights!" they said.
Organizers called on rally participants to join them in Boston on May 22 at a rally at the State House to demand passage of the statewide Transgender Civil Rights bill and full federal equality as part of the national Harvey Milk Week of Action.
Madeline Burrows contributed to this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)