A marriage equality sellout in R.I.

A marriage equality sellout in R.I.

Rhode Island activist Josh Kilby looks at the fallout following the defeat of legislation that would have granted same-sex marriage rights in the state.

May 12, 2011

THE 2011 legislative season began in Rhode Island with a renewed sense of hope that a 15-year battle to allow all gay and lesbian couples in the state to obtain a marriage license would finally end victoriously. Instead, the session is drawing to a near close with most of the bill's one-time allies in public office abandoning it for a compromise that, quite literally, no one wants.

The announcement, which came on April 27, was a shock for activists on the ground, and drew the ire of Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI) and the state's gay press. This defeat, while tragic, is worth exploring in order to tease out the political questions opened up by the betrayal of our legislative "allies" and to contribute to a debate on how to move forward.

The fight for marriage equality in Rhode Island had been previously looked at as virtually unwinnable, given that former Gov. Don Carcieri (whose opposition to same-sex partners planning each other's funerals drew national attention) was guaranteed to veto such a bill. In the legislature, although Gordon Fox, an openly gay man, rose to the position of speaker of the House, state Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed remained an opponent.

Despite this, a marriage equality bill has been dutifully introduced every year since 1997. The activists in MERI and its small army of volunteers centered their strategy on lobbying individual legislators, both directly and by hand-delivering postcards from their constituents. This was successful in building a core of support inside the legislature, but an open vote on marriage equality was never achieved.

This year, with the loathed Carcieri gone and the election of Republican-turned-Independent and progressive favorite Lincoln Chaffee (a marriage-equality supporter) as governor, a new wind was put in the sails of marriage-equality supporters. Chaffee, in his inaugural address, stated, "I hope that Rhode Island will catch up to its New England neighbors and pass a bill to establish marriage equality, I urge our assembly to quickly consider and adopt this legislation. When marriage equality is the law, we honor our forefathers who risked their lives and fortunes to defend human equality."

In response, the right-wing National Organization for Marriage went on the offensive, calling for a popular vote on the issue.

In January, the bill was introduced with great hope for its passage, and with good reason; Lincoln Chaffee had called for it, while Gordon Fox, being an openly gay man, has a personal stake in the battle (one would think). The R.I. Bar Association, the New England Association of Educators-Rhode Island (NEARI) and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) all put out statements endorsing marriage equality. In 2009, a Brown University poll stated that 60 percent of Rhode Islanders were in favor of marriage equality.

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

SO WHY, then, did Gordon Fox effectively end the debate on marriage equality this year?
The truth is that Fox had shown earlier signs of wavering. In the face of a February 9 rally for marriage equality that drew some 500 people--with 137 people sitting through an eight-and-a-half hour Judiciary Committee meeting to testify in favor of marriage equality--the committee Chair Edith Allejo stated that the next logical step would be a committee vote.

It was Fox who very quickly stepped in to put the brakes on. He was quoted in the Providence Journal as stating, "Edie wants to move quickly. She's a new chair...and she wants to push things so they can get through their agenda. But we, in the leadership, myself and the majority leader, really need to talk to a few people. We actually want to have some conversations with the senate, with the governor's office, and that is going to take some time."

The Senate Judiciary Committee held its hearing on marriage equality in early March with similar results.

But all this set the stage for supposed marriage equality "ally" Gordon Fox to follow in the footsteps of openly gay "pioneers" like Barney Frank in selling out the interests of the LGBT movement and squandering the political momentum that many had worked very hard to build.
Abandoning the fight for marriage equality, Fox stated in an e-mail that he would recommend that the House not move forward with a vote on the marriage equality bill. Instead, he said that he would offer a civil unions bill in its place.

For those of us fighting for full equality and liberation, terms like "compromise" and "practicality" should not even be in our vocabulary. Gordon Fox, by giving ground to the bigots of the National Organization for Marriage, has proven just where his loyalties lie. Civil unions, in legal terms, do not offer the same protections as civil marriage, and cannot be accepted on that ground alone.

Those elected to public office (even the openly gay ones) will not act without continued pressure from below. The fight for full same-sex marriage rights is not over, but activists must fight to set the terms of the debate and make the legislature act. This means we must wage the ideological battle in the streets.

Too-Ism: The Discrimination from Within the Queer Male Community

Huey Newton on Women's and Gay Liberation

The Women's Liberation and Gay Liberation Movements

Speech given by Huey Newton, founder of the Black Panthers, August 15, 1970

During the past few years strong movements have developed among women and among homosexuals seeking their liberation. There has been some uncertainty about how to relate to these movements.

Whatever your personal opinions and your insecurities about homosexuality and the various liberation movements among homosexuals and women (and I speak of the homosexuals and women as oppressed groups), we should try to unite with them in a revolutionary fashion. I say" whatever your insecurities are" because as we very well know, sometimes our first instinct is to want to hit a homosexual in the mouth, and want a woman to be quiet. We want to hit a homosexual in the mouth because we are afraid that we might be homosexual; and we want to hit the women or shut her up because we are afraid that she might castrate us, or take the nuts that we might not have to start with.

We must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for all oppressed people. We must not use the racist attitude that the White racists use against our people because they are Black and poor. Many times the poorest White person is the most racist because he is afraid that he might lose something, or discover something that he does not have. So you're some kind of a threat to him. This kind of psychology is in operation when we view oppressed people and we are angry with them because of their particular kind of behavior, or their particular kind of deviation from the established norm.

Remember, we have not established a revolutionary value system; we are only in the process of establishing it. I do not remember our ever constituting any value that said that a revolutionary must say offensive things towards homosexuals, or that a revolutionary should make sure that women do not speak out about their own particular kind of oppression. As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite: we

say that we recognize the women's right to be free. We have not said much about the homosexual at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing. And I know through reading, and through my life experience and observations that homosexuals are not given freedom and liberty by anyone in the society. They might be the most oppressed people in the society.

And what made them homosexual? Perhaps it's a phenomenon that I don't understand entirely. Some people say that it is the decadence of capitalism. I don't know if that is the case; I rather doubt it. But whatever the case is, we know that homosexuality is a fact that exists, and we must understand it in its

purest form: that is, a person should have the freedom to use his body in whatever way he wants.

That is not endorsing things in homosexuality that we wouldn't view as revolutionary. But there is nothing to say that a homosexual cannot also be a revolutionary. And maybe I'm now injecting some of my prejudice by saying that "even a homosexual can be a revolutionary." Quite the contrary, maybe a homosexual could be the most revolutionary.

When we have revolutionary conferences, rallies, and demonstrations, there should be full participation of the gay liberation movement and the women's liberation movement. Some groups might be more revolutionary than others. We should not use the actions of a few to say that they are all reactionary or

counterrevolutionary, because they are not.

We should deal with the factions just as we deal with any other group or party that claims to be revolutionary. We should try to judge, somehow, whether they are operating in a sincere revolutionary fashion and from a really oppressed situation. (And we will grant that if they are women they are probably oppressed.) If they do things that are unrevolutionary or counterrevolutionary, then criticize that action. If we feel that the group in spirit means to be revolutionary in practice, but they make mistakes in interpretation of the revolutionary philosophy, or they do not understand the dialectics of the social forces in operation, we should criticize that and not criticize them because they are women trying to be free. And the same is true for homosexuals. We should never say a whole movement is dishonest when in fact they are trying to be honest. They are just making honest mistakes. Friends are allowed to make mistakes. The enemy is not allowed to make mistakes because his whole existence is a mistake, and we suffer from it. But the women's liberation front and gay liberation front are our friends, they are our potential allies, and we need as many allies as possible.

We should be willing to discuss the insecurities that many people have about homosexuality. When I say "insecurities," I mean the fear that they are some kind of threat to our manhood. I can understand this fear. Because of the long conditioning process which builds insecurity in the American male, homosexuality might produce certain hang-ups in us. I have hang-ups myself about male homosexuality. But on the other hand, I have no hang-up about female homosexuality. And that is a phenomenon in itself. I think it is probably because male homosexuality is a threat to me and female homosexuality is not.

We should be careful about using those terms that might turn our friends off. The terms "faggot" and "punk" should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people, such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.

We should try to form a working coalition with the gay liberation and women's liberation groups. We must always handle social forces in the most appropriate manner.

Drag Queens march to Gov Cuomo's office

"I am somebody" chant on Third Avenue

WGBH American Experience . Stonewall Uprising . Trailer | PBS

WGBH American Experience . Stonewall Uprising . Trailer | PBS

YouTube - Stand Up! - Don't Stand for Homophobic Bullying

YouTube - Stand Up! - Don't Stand for Homophobic Bullying