Published by Socialist Worker Newspaper

http://socialistworker.org/2008/11/20/case-for-gay-marriage

by Sherry Wolf

IN THE face of mass protests to roll back the recent anti-gay marriage ballot measures, especially California’s Proposition 8, some leftists are a bit queasy. Why, they ask, should radicals be so adamant about defending the right of gays and lesbians to enter into an institution that is decidedly mainstream and tied to the state and religion?

Good activists have approached me to argue that same-sex marriage narrows our agenda and ties LGBT people to a “hetero-normative institution” that valorizes that hobgoblin of the right–monogamy.

Hundreds of left-wing writers and activists since 2006, from Barbara Ehrenreich to John D’Emilio, have signed onto a very good statement of principles called “Beyond Same-Sex Marriage,” which challenges the myopic vision and anti-activist strategy of the corporate-sponsored national gay civil rights organizations. I endorse their statement “to fight to make same-sex marriage just one option on a menu of choices that people have about the way they construct their lives.”

However, the conclusion by some to stand aside or even oppose the nascent explosion of outrage demanding gay marriage is misguided.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SAME-SEX marriage is a civil right that must be unapologetically defended by socialists and other leftists–not only for its own sake as a material and social benefit under capitalism, especially to working-class and poor LGBT people, but because the reform is not a barrier to further struggles, but can be a gateway to them instead.

Socialists and other leftists defend strikes for higher pay and better health care, despite the fact that even total victory means renegotiating the terms of exploitation, not ending the wage system itself. Radicals are at the forefront of the antiwar movement demanding immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that the U.S. also maintains more than 700 bases on every continent.

Leftists take these stands for reforms because we understand that the capitalist system and its imperial might won’t fall in one fell swoop. Reformist struggles themselves create the organizational and human material necessary for a further transformation of society. Moreover, it does make a difference in the here whether workers have more pay and couples have more rights.

As Rosa Luxemburg put it in Reform or Revolution, “Legislative reform and revolution are not different methods of historic development that can be picked out at pleasure from the counter of history, just as one chooses hot or cold sausages. Legislative reform and revolution are different factors in the development of class society. They condition and complement each other, and are at the same time reciprocally exclusive, as are the north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.”

In other words, professing hostility to gay marriage in the name of opposing the “hetero-normative institution” of marriage is like attacking demands for an end to the death penalty because the criminal injustice system would remain otherwise intact.

Judged on that basis, all fights for reforms are at best irrelevant, and at worst reactionary. But the conditions for the abolition of capital punishment create the potential for a further struggle against prisons and police.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A FEW facts are needed to clear away some of the misconceptions.

Because of the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as between one man and one woman in the eyes of the federal government, none of the rights and benefits that LGBT couples have today in some states–whether legal marriages, civil unions or domestic partnerships–are transferable to most other states.

The so-called “mini-DOMAs” that have passed in more than 40 states ensure that same-sex couples lose whatever rights they had before when they enter mini-DOMA states.

In other words, legally married LGBT couples are legal strangers in almost every state of the union. DOMA allows states, as well as the federal government, to legally ignore the status of LGBT marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In addition, even legal gay marriages inside, for example, Massachusetts only carry with them that state’s rights and benefits–not Social Security, Medicare, family leave, health care, disability, military or the other 1,049 federal rights and benefits belonging to married couples.

Without federal same-sex marriage rights, LGBT immigrants who fall in love with American citizens have no right to move to the United States to be with their lover.

Gay married couples who go out of state on vacation lose their rights once they cross the state line.

Thus, if a member of a married lesbian California couple vacationing in Nevada has a serious accident requiring hospitalization, her wife has no legal visitation rights or right to make any decisions on her behalf in the event of incapacitation until the patient is moved back to a state that recognizes their marriage. In the event of death, no matter what state, she would receive no federal benefits that are due to spouses of heterosexual couples, she can be taxed the full 50 percent on all inheritance, and she would not be eligible for the federal exemption for spouses.

For a couple with domestic partnership or civil union rights, if the dead spouse was the biological parent of any children the couple had, unless the surviving partner had the money to legally adopt the children, that partner could lose her kids.

Interestingly, the only time when the federal government acknowledged same-sex couple relationships was after September 11, when LGBT people who lost their partners in the Twin Towers and Pentagon fought successfully to win death benefits paid out to spouses. The government caved in the face of organized outrage–and as part of an attempt to win over gays and lesbians to plans for imperial vengeance in the Middle East.

The generation that participated in the Stonewall rebellion of 1969 that launched the modern gay liberation movement is becoming, or already are, senior citizens. If gay San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Harvey Milk hadn’t been assassinated 30 years ago, he would be 78 today.

Without same-sex marriage benefits, these gay seniors face a number of daunting financial realities, not the least of which is having no legal right to determine what happens to partners they may have spent decades with at the time of their death–not funeral arrangements, not burial or cremation or donations to science, or where and whether the body is buried.

In short, same-sex partners would be denied the same rights our government bestows on married heterosexual couples who tie the knot in a drunken night out in Vegas.

The idea, common among some leftists, that right-wingers who poured tens of millions into getting Prop 8 passed are trying to force monogamy down gays’ throats is wrong-headed as well.

Consider what Republican troglodyte Newt Gingrich had to say about the anti-gay marriage victory in California:

I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion.

The right’s opposition to gay marriage has to do with its desire to impose sexual and gender norms inside marriage as well outside.

Socialists should neither advocate monogamy nor polyamory–that is, having more than one sexual relationship at a time. These are personal decisions for individuals and couples to decide for themselves.

There is nothing implicitly radical about polyamory or reactionary about monogamy, but their forced imposition from outsiders is reactionary and moralistic. Leftists ought to stand for the freedom to choose any consensual sexual arrangement, including marriage.

Last year, on the 40th anniversary of the court case Loving v. Virginia that struck down anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S., finally recognizing marriages between Blacks and whites throughout the country, Mildred Loving, the Black female plaintiff in the case, came out in favor of gay marriage.

“I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry,” she said. “Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people civil rights.”

Loving was right. The left should stand where it did when she and her white husband, Richard Loving, fought the system. Winning the right to biracial marriage did not divert the Black struggle for civil rights. It amplified and expanded it, just as the struggle for gay marriage today can and will.

The left shouldn’t hand over the strategy and tactics for this fight to corporatist Democratic Party-dominated gay groups. It must stand with the thousands of angry and surprisingly confident activists, and help shape the fight for a repeal of Prop 8–and call on the new Obama administration to repeal DOMA as well.

D.A. does right! Charges to be dismissed vs. Hempstead 15

In a remarkable reversal, the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office has agreed to dismiss all charges against the Hempstead 15 following a six month adjournment in what’s called an “ACD” (Adjournment to Contemplate Dismissal).

Additionally, they have agreed to consolidate all of our court cases on one date (TBD) so that we and our supporters may be seen and heard together as we prepare to move forward now to federal court where our lawyer, Jonathan Moore is filing a civil case on behalf of Nick Morgan and others.

This is a decisive victory for activists and veterans everywhere, and for the Constitution. The outcome of these criminal proceedings would not have been possible without you, our supporters and allies. It was the calls, the demonstrations, the petitions and the grass-roots exposure that made the difference. For an event which received no real attention from main-stream media outlets to have been captured and brought to so many around the country and the world by a few hardworking organizers and supporters signals an evolution in our power as a movement to inform and impact our system.

We’d like to thank those videographers, bloggers, e-mailers and Facebookers that have stuck with us up until now and we hope will stay with us to the end. We’d also like to thank Democracy Now as well radio programs across the country for their dedication to covering this case in every stage of its development, ensuring we didn’t go entirely missing from the airwaves. As well, we must thank Newsday for their relentless coverage and powerful OpEds. Justice ultimately came about through the efforts of so many, and I’ve not room to begin to thank them all.

What happened at Hofstra will forever remain with all in attendance and those who suffered most. May it be burned into America’s conscience as well, but let it be a turning point. A moment in time from where clear divergence emerged.

Police and veterans from across this Nation have contacted us with their support and ultimately the same message: “We’re tired of this!”

So it is with great determination and much momentum we move forward, Nick and several into a civil case, and myself into a fight with the Army.

Shortly after our action at Hofstra, I was sent notice by the Army that I would be prosecuted for my refusal to reactivate and deploy to Iraq last summer. The Army wants to separate me on grounds of misconduct which I vowed to fight in May and continue to stand by firmly. I’ll know more on my exact hearing date soon, but with a good amount of support, I believe we can win this thing and prove once and for all that servicemembers have a right to refuse participation in the occupation of Iraq.

If you’ve not already, please consider joining the Facebook group “I support Matthis Chiroux’s decision not to go to Iraq.” Most of my updates from this point forward through Facebook will come from this group. Please pass it around to your friends, as well.

As soon as I know what day the Hempstead 15’s final hearing in Nassau will be, I’ll let everyone know. Let’s have one last blow out to make clear to our government and the world that we will not be silent!

You made this for us, and we are forever in the debt of our global movement.

Peace and Solidarity,

Matthis

For the RIT chapter of CAN, organizing a national day of action during finals week was quite the challenge. The outcome, however, was worth it.

Around 30 students and allies turned out for a speak-out against the occupation of Afghanistan. Members of CAN, IVAW, and Rochester Against War took a hold of the megaphone and spoke about demanding that Obama take a stand against the occupation, the significance of CAN’s newest point of unity, and how student movements have the power to help stop the war. A hardcore Obama supporter yelled from her dorm room window “Obama!!! Obama!!!”  Within minutes she had joined our demonstration on the residential side of campus. The excitement and expectations that Obama’s election win has raised will be something we’ll be encountering in the coming weeks and months. This is an opportunity to engage students on how “change” ultimately comes about.

“Barack Obama, take a stand! US out of Afghanistan!”

Linking the atrocities being committed abroad to the reality of complicity on our campus, students lead a protest march to the RIT Center for Integrated Manufacturing Services building. This particular building on campus houses humvees, armored personnel vehicles, an old fighter jet, and a number of other projects funded by the Department of Defense. Students are used to work on these research projects under the guise of creating more “green” and “sustainable” technologies. When in actuality, the research is being done to develop methods of producing and maintaining more efficient machines of war. Making renewable energy technology for devices that are utterly destructive to our environment.

A handful of new students were present at the student networking meeting that followed the action, in which strategies for ending the occupation of Afghanistan were discussed. A few members of SDS came out to the networking meeting to contribute to the discussion. CAN Members pointed to the success of CAN as a growing national organization and the accomplishments of the RIT CAN chapter’s organizing efforts since September. New students expressed their desires to organize with CAN, seeing us as a leading force on our campus demanding justice for our veterans and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Whether we measure the success of an action by the numbers in attendance or by successfully recruiting new students to join the Campus Antiwar Network, the nation’s largest and fastest growing student anti-war organization, CAN students at RIT are developing the organizational skills and political confidence to make their voice heard loud and clear. Organizing and participating in the national day of action was no exception. This is only the beginning.

No justice. No peace.
Adriano Contreras on behalf of RIT Antiwar
Campus Antiwar Network

CAN ACTIONS ON NOV. 13
University of Wisconsin, Madison CAN chapter: http://www.dailycardinal.com/article/21356
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign CAN chapter:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/11/14/war_detractors_gather_on_campus_for_day

Rochester, NY.  Following Election Day 2008, Rochester Against War, Rochester Students for a Democratic Society, Campus Antiwar Network, Military Families Speak Out, and local Iraq and Afghanistan Veternas stand together to make the following statement:

Click Here to see the Video
Video by Rochester Indy Media (other media outlets didn’t show up) 

 Article Originally appeared on Rochester Indy Media Website. Link here

RAW Politiko is a member of Rochester Against War and the newest contributor of activist news and political analysis for The Sitch

If you are not excited to see 8 years of Bush and 30 years of Republican ideological dominance crumble into the waste bin of history, then you are probably still rocking back and forth in tears.

The Republicans were trounced eight ways from Sunday last night, despite the racist, fear mongering, smear campaign of McCain/Palin.  America, the home of slavery and Jim Crow, elected a African American president.  Let that marinate for a while.

Given this historic moment, and being the insomniac political junkie that I am, I set to work.  I want to know what will be the pressure points, the issues to push in order to make our government deliver on its promises.   Rochester Against War just took a stand opposing the war in Afghanistan, so I went to check out Obama’s stated position.  I wandered on over to BarakObama.com but found a glaring issue with Obama’s “issues” section.

While you will find subjects like, “Economy, Poverty, Immigration, and even Iraq”, what you wont find is, to me, one of the defining issues of the day, second only to the economic crisis.   THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.  (screen shot attached)

Check out the Foreign Policy page.  Among the 2,845 word explanation of Obama/Biden’s foreign policy, you wont find mention of Afghanistan there either! Not even once.  In fact, if you do a Google site search of Obama’s website, you get 12 hits, most of which are from the same 2 speeches.

Now, isn’t this a little odd considering its one of the two major wars the US Military is currently fighting? 

When you CAN find the country mentioned, Obama is clearly planning to escalate the war in Afghanistan.  At the end of this post you can find a comprehensive set of quotations and links from the Obama/Biden website.  Here are some choice phrases to consider:

– “The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.”

– “When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

– “I will never hesitate to defend this country and our critical interests.” 

– “Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.”

Those last two should make you feel pretty queasy.  Is he suggesting we should have CONTINUED supporting Bin Laden through the 90’s, that Bin Laden would have been a good ally if we didn’t piss him off? 

Why is this?  Why is Obama’s analysis of Afghanistan, a major war, buried so much on his website.  I don’t think its an accidental oversight.  In fact, Obama has used his website to raise millions of dollars and connect millions of volunteers to each other during his campaign.   What I think Obama and his handlers realize is that his “base” the millions who brought him to power, are under the assumption that Obama is the “peace candidate”  The Democratic party is just fine with this notion and purposely downplay this seeming contradiction.  And so they bury and distract, bob and weave, and allow incorrect beliefs to continue, as long as they deliver their vote on Nov 4th.  Its straight out of the McCain playbook.

In fact, Obama isn’t a “peace candidate”, he falls more on the “Wrong War, Wrong Way.”  The places he plays UP his desire to escalate is among those generals, military contractors, and Washington elite that stand to benefit from US domination of the region.  He is courting them by arguing he can manage the Empire better than old Bushie, who has really made a mess of things.

I think the overall point made is that far from opposing US military intervention, Obama is squarely in the camp of using the US Military to “defend this country and our critical interests.”  As I started this article saying, we should be extremely excited and we should realize that sentiment is moving in a leftward, progressive, whatever word you want to use, OUR direction!

But we should remember, that politicians are bought and sold like credit default swaps.  Unlike Wall St., bankers WE have something to lose and everything to gain by examining in explicit detail what is THE CONTENT of their policies, and who do those policies end up benefiting?

I can remember getting calls from my friends, trapped in downtown Manhattan as the World Trade towers fell.  I also remember that Bush was reading a childrens book in Florida, and Cheney was safe in his bunker. “Our critical interests” are actually “their” critical interests. No Afghani ever gambled my life savings away.  No Iraqi ever denied me healthcare, and no Pakistani ever imprisoned me indefinitely without charge. 

RAW Politiko

===================

Obama by the quotes:  
Lets see what the Obama/Biden ticket says about Afghanistan (ive bolded some of the most important remarks):

– In the Iraq section, under the headings “Resurgent Al Aqaeda in Afghanistan” it says the following: 

The decision to invade Iraq diverted resources from the war in Afghanistan, making it harder for us to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden and others involved in the 9/11 attacks. Nearly seven years later, the Taliban has reemerged in southern Afghanistan while Al Qaeda has used the space provided by the Iraq war to regroup, train and plan for another attack on the United States. 2007 was the most violent year in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. The scale of our deployments in Iraq continues to set back our ability to finish the fight in Afghanistan, producing unacceptable strategic risks.

– In a speech given in Des Moines, IA | May 21, 2008, Obama says:

“Change is ending a war that we never should’ve started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should’ve ignored.”

– A speech given in Washington, DC | August 01, 2007 titled, “The War We Need to Win” Obama said the following:

And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan.”

He continues:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He continues:

Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.

http://origin.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w.php

– In a speech given to some Flag Officers from the Army, Navy and Air Force in Chicago, IL | March 12, 2008  he says:

That is why I have consistently called for an increased commitment to Afghanistan, and why I called last August for at least two additional combat brigades to support our mission there. And that is why I will end the war in Iraq when I am President, and focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan.

I will never hesitate to defend this country and our critical interests.

http://origin.barackobama.com/2008/03/12/obama_receives_endorsement_of.php

Doug Noble is a member of Rochester Against War. He published this letter in City Newspaper on October 28, 2008

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: The Next Catastrophe - Afghanistan by Doug Noble

On Friday, October 24, RIT Antiwar organized a counter recruitment action (10am - 1:30) in the Student Alumni Union that led to zero recruitment and a 30 minute ahead of schedule departure by the Marines.

One of our newest CAN members found out the next time recruiters would be on campus and brought the information to our weekly meeting. Having 2 to 3 minor actions against recruitment and war profiteers in just the last month and a half, all 11 core members were up to the task of a total disruption of their recruitment abilities.

Leafletting took place on Thursday morning to get students out to participate in the Friday action. A majority of the people we encountered were supportive of our efforts and some even expressed an interest in participating. On Friday morning before recruiters arrived, we gathered all of our literature, our signs, and held a brief discussion as to why it is that we counter-recruit. This helped to prevent demoralization and provide confidence in case we encountered right-wingers or the administration.

The action itself was a huge success. Every member of the chapter showed up, friends, co-workers, and along with some allies in the International Socialist Organization and Iraq Veterans Against the War. At any given time we had at least 18 people chanting and raising placards/banners. We lined the space that people enter the union. As a result, people entering went around the recruiters. Aside from some hand shakes the recruiters got for their “service to our country”…. which I’m sure they would not have gotten had CAN not been actively protesting them… one lady took a pamphlet and a pencil.

When our commotion caught the attention of the administration, we were lucky to find sympathy towards our action by the Director of Campus Life. However, when a right-winger began to over power our chanting with his yelling, another member of the administration asked us to stop. We reached a compromise that said that we had to pause the chanting for at least an hour, and then we’d be able to resume. That did not mean that our banners had to be put away or that we couldn’t devise a better way to disrupt traffic towards the Marines table.

As a new round of chants started up, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War arrived. Immediately they unfurled their IVAW banner and stood behind the Marines. One of the marines turned around and said “We’re not Iraq Veterans.” Bryan Casler, (former Marine) of IVAW replied, “But we are.” 

Within 5 - 10 minutes the recruiters were out the door.

Nick Morgan has since received medical attention and is recovering from the injuries he sustained outside the final presidential debate on October 15th. As the police used their horses to ram themselves into the protestors, Nick Morgan was hit in the face. But when the cops pull him to the ground, a horse steps on his face and leaves him unconscious and with fractures.

Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War led an action to Hofstra University last night to demand that Senator’s Barack Obama and John McCain answer their questions regarding treatment of veterans in the United States.

The demonstration was met by Nassau County’s FINEST. The police held back the Iraq war vets and other protestors. Unfortunately, they brutalized one veteran with their batons and possibly even hit with a horse.

Take a look at some of the images:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/10/100775.html

MORE FOOTAGE:
Video footage of the cops using their horses to push people back. At the 1:30 mark on the video a cop spits on protestors.

The Campus Antiwar Network (CAN) took on a major shift in organizational priorities at the 2008 National Conference, ”It’s Up to Us to Stop the War”, the weekend of October 10-12 at DePaul University.

During the opening plenary on why the U.S. is in the Middle East, two members of CAN tackled the two pillars of U.S. imperialism today: oil and empire. They challenged the ideas that the race for oil is an issue of the past couple of decades or motivated entirely by consumption. In addition to breaking down some of the myths of about the state of Israel and its oppression of the Palestinians, the imperial role of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and how they factor into the U.S. thirst for geopolitical domination.

With the absence of a workshop on immediate withdrawal from Iraq, new workshops addressed more movement-important questions. Afghanistan took center-stage at the conference this year in light of the decision by the ruling class to pummel that country with a surge in military forces. Presentations were given on Palestine, the role of multinational corporations in their pillaging of Columbia, torture, the Iraqi refugee crisis, and divide and conquer strategies in Iraq. Some students could even be heard saying, they’ve learned more at a workshop then they have in a semester long college course.

With that excitement students broke out into strategy workshops to put their ideas and their experiences into shaping a new way to organize when they return to their campuses. There was something for everyone: working with veterans, publicity and media, the economic war on students, a report back from the RNC student contingent, and the basics on how to develop a CAN chapter. The “How to Start a CAN Chapter” workshop took on questions of confronting and working around university policy in order to promote their chapter. A student from Drake University spoke of not being able to approach people while tabling at her student union and having to sit behind the table waiting for people to come to her. While some constructive suggestions were given, another student recommended the table be on wheels, so that she could approach people and still be behind the table.

On the evening of October 11, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) gave testimony of their experiences. Imagery provided confirmed the use of white phosphorus on Iraqis. Chaos and a lack of infrastructure are rampant. The dehumanization of not only Iraqis, but gays in the military was expounded on. As well as the subordination of women and ethnic minorities; a product of the systemic trickle down policy of the military. In reference to the United State’s goal to rid Afghanistan of women’s oppression, to paraphrase one of the veterans, “if you think that the military is on some feminist mission to free the women of Afghanistan, you are mistaken.”

Organizing from the bottom is a challenge. Yet the Campus Antiwar Network was able to double in size within the last year to over 50 chapters. Remaining independent from any political party has definitely added to its success, given the Democratic and Republican party alliance on the War on Terror. But surely the democratic process, the ability for each student to have say and take part in their action, has allowed for members to flourish and leaders to develop.

There is no greater example of the democratic process within the anti-war movement than the voting session that was held on Sunday October 12. For seven hours, a delegated body of students debated and voted on the direction CAN should take for the next year. Structurally, CAN will take on more responsibility in getting members educated on Afghanistan and Palestine. Politically, the movement took a large step and has added to its points of unity the immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. In solidarity with their allies in IVAW, CAN now also stands for full economic reparations to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan for the destruction of their country; as well as, full health and educational benefits for all military personnel regardless of their discharge status.